|
|
|
|
Myths and Other Resources
MYTHS ABOUT PROP. 107
In an effort to scare voters, opponents of ending so-called “affirmative action” programs that grant preferential treatment based on race or sex in the operation of public employment, public contracting, or public education will say anything to further their agenda. Some examples of the myths, scare-tactics and outright lies that opponents continue to repeat are:
MYTH – IF PASSED, ALL EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAMS IN ARIZONA WILL BE ELIMINATED.
Source: 4/1/2008 ACLU email
FACT: There is a difference between guaranteeing equal opportunity and guaranteeing equal outcomes. Ending programs that favor one group over another because of race or sex would guarantee that everyone is afforded an equal opportunity.
MYTH – IF PASSED, THE WOMEN IN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING (WISE) PROGRAM WILL BE ELIMINATED.
Source: Opposition group (Protect Arizona’s Freedom) “Fact” sheet
FACT: WISE, a higher education program, is geared toward women, but it is also open to males. In California, Washington and Michigan, three states that have passed similar initiatives, WISE programs continue to operate.
MYTH – IF PASSED, THE UPWARD BOUND PROGRAM WILL BE ELIMINATED.
Source: 4/1/2008 ACLU email
FACT: The Upward Bound program serves high school students who are either low-income and/or who will be the first in their family to earn a four-year college degree. This initiative will have no effect on Upward Bound because race and sex are irrelevant.
MYTH – IF PASSED, THE PHOENIX TEEN PARENT PROGRAM WILL BE ELIMINATED.
Source: Opposition group (Protect Arizona’s Freedom) “Fact” sheet
FACT: The Phoenix Teen Parent Program accepts both males and females and people of all races. This program would not be affected by passage of the initiative.
MYTH – IF PASSED, THE GOVERNOR’S COMMISSION TO PREVENT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN WILL BE ELIMINATED.
Source: Opposition group, Protect Arizona’s Freedom. Opinion column, Arizona Republic, 7-6-2008
FACT: The Governor’s Commission to Prevent Violence Against Women does not pertain to public employment, public education or public contracting, therefore will not be affected by passage of the initiative.
MYTH – IF PASSED, THE YWCA BRIGHT FUTURES PROGRAM WOULD BE ELIMINATED.
Source: Opposition group (Protect Arizona’s Freedom) “Fact” sheet
FACT: The YWCA Bright Futures program is a private program and does not fall under the realm of public employment, public education or public contracting and therefore, would not be affected by passage of the initiative.
MYTH – ARIZONA “DOES NOT HAVE AFFIRMATIVE-ACTION PROGRAMS OR PREFERENCES FOR RACIAL MINORITIES AT ANY LEVEL.”
Source: Quote from Booker Evans, spokesperson for opposition group, Protect Arizona’s Freedom. Arizona Republic, 12-2-2007.
FACT: This would be laughable if it wasn’t serious. Proponents of race preferences first lay out all the reasons (even if they may be untrue and/or invalid reasons) as to why they believe “affirmative action” policies that give preference based on race are still necessary today and then are quoted as saying the policies don’t exist. If that’s the case, then why fight to be able to keep discriminatory policies in place? This myth shows that the opposition is disingenuous and will say and do anything to further their agenda.
MYTH: RACE PREFERENCES IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS HELP THE POOR!
Source: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/symposium-aa/kahlenberg.php
FACT: William Bowen and Derek Bok, strong supporters of affirmative action, found that 86% of blacks who enrolled in the 28 selective universities they studied were middle or upper middle class. And race-based programs do nothing to help students from white and Asian families living in poverty (100% of whom are poor) or attending “poverty stricken and underperforming institutions.”
Source: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/symposium-aa/kahlenberg.php
It is interesting to note that the percentage of students receiving Pell grants – a marker of low income – is much higher in California, where the use of race is banned, than in Virginia, where its use continues. According to Donald Heller’s research, U.C. Berkeley has 32.4% of students eligible for Pell Grants, and UCLA has 35.1%, compared to 8.6% at the University of Virginia and 8.0% at William and Mary.
MYTH: IF PROP 107 PASSES SINGLE PARENT PROGRAMS WILL END
Source: Language of Proposed Referendum.
FACT: Any public program that is gender-neutral may continue. Therefore State Universities can offer scholarships and special programs to single parents, because those programs are not specific to either gender. Beyond that, if the people have the opportunity to end these governmental preference practices in Arizona it would not have any effect on private programs including private scholarships. Here are 2 examples of the foregoing:
Example one: (State) Western Michigan University, Post Michigan Civil Rights Initiative passing: The June M. Sherman Nola Scholarship shall be awarded to non-traditional students, defined as either students who are single parents or from working single parent families.
Source: http://www.cir-usa.org/cases/smith.html
Example two: (Private): The Single Parent, Displaced Homemaker, and Non-traditional Career and Special Populations Grant is a scholarship program of the Lansing Community College District. The purpose of the grant is to provide scholarships to selected single parents and assist them with tuition, textbooks and transportation costs.
Source: http://www.lcc.edu/wrc/grants/
MYTH: WOMEN ARE NOT HARMED BY RACE PREFERENCES IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS.
FACT: HOPWOOD VS. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS
Cheryl Hopwood sued the University of Texas Law School. Cheryl worked part time while attending community colleges. She could not afford to go to Princeton (where she was accepted) for undergraduate school and therefore, when applying to law school her 3.8 GPA was discounted and ultimately she was rejected from the University of Texas’s Law School. She filed suit alleging racial discrimination.
Source: http://www.cir-usa.org/articles/38.html
FACT: GRATZ V. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AND GRUTTER V. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Jennifer Gratz, daughter of a police officer and a secretary, grew up in a blue collar suburb of Detroit. She would have been the first in her family to graduate from college and hoped to attend the University of Michigan. The University judged blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans by one admission standard, and everyone else by a separate, higher standard. Jennifer Gratz was rejected and filed suit in 1997.
Source: http://cir-usa.org/cases/michigan.html
Barbara Grutter had 2 children and was in her mid-40s when she applied to the University of Michigan’s Law School. Prior to applying Barbara ran her own IT consulting business. Despite higher grades and test scores than some of those who were accepted, Barbara’s application was rejected. When she learned that had she, for example, been a “minority” her credentials would have been enough to be accepted, she filed a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination.
Source: http://cir-usa.org/cases/michigan.html
FACT: SMITH V. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
Katuria Smith was born when her mother was 17, was reared in poverty, and dropped out of high school. From the time her parents divorced when Smith was 11, she lived "hand to mouth" and moved between twelve jobs, detailing cars, cleaning floors, and doing anything else she could get. Click here to read a Seattle-Post Intelligencer story on Katuria's background.
"I was desperate to get out of poverty," Smith told columnist Michelle Malkin. So when Smith was 21, she enrolled in night classes at a community college paralegal program. Holding down jobs during the day, she graduated and enrolled in the University of Washington, where she earned a business degree in 1994. With her 3.65 GPA and LSAT score of 165 (94th percentile), she fully expected to be admitted. Instead, she was rejected with no chance to appeal. Smith filed suit in 1997.
Source:
http://http//www.cir-usa.org/cases/smith.html
IN FACT, TODAY, MEN ARE MORE LIKELY THAN WOMEN TO BENEFIT FROM PREFERENCES IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS.
“But a gender gap has reopened: if girls were once excluded because they somehow weren't good enough, they now are rejected because they're too good. Or at least they are so good, compared with boys, that admissions committees at some private colleges have problems managing a balanced freshman class. Roughly 58% of undergraduates nationally are female, and the girl-boy ratio will probably tip past 60-40 in a few years.”
Source: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1727693,00.html
And: Britz, Jennifer Delahunty (March 23, 2006) To All the Girls I Rejected, The New York Times. (Copy of article available)
MYTH: RACE PREFERENCES IN STATE PROGRAMS BENEFIT “MINORITIES”
FACT: “If you compare 1995-96 with 1999-01 — a clear before-and-after Prop 209 comparison,” says Sander, a longtime liberal civil rights activist, “you’ll see that, for African-Americans, the 1995 class had a four-year graduation rate of 26%, while the 2001 class had a 52% graduation rate [Hispanics numbers are comparable]. For whites and Asians, it barely changes. This is almost certainly due largely to the reduction of preferences. The five and six-year grad rates for minorities get pretty close to the white rates [within five points], which of course means that differences in academic performance have also narrowed a lot.”
Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/219094/precedents-and-preferences/henry-payne
Prop 209 has largely worked as advertised, has not adversely affected women, and, most impressively, has benefited minorities by dramatically increasing graduation rates, thus boosting their chance for success in the job market.
Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/219094/precedents-and-preferences/henry-payne
In 2005, Sander cited race preferences for blacks failing the bar exam at four times the rate of whites nationally: “Black students admitted through preferences generally have quite low grades — not because of any racial characteristic, but because the preferences themselves put them at an enormous academic disadvantage.” The perverse result is that “the benefits of attending an elite school have been substantially overrated...job market data suggests that most black lawyers entering the job market would have higher earnings in the absence of preferential admissions, because better grades trump the costs in prestige.”
Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/219094/precedents-and-preferences/henry-payne
IT IS TIME TO ALLOW THE VOTERS TO END THE GOVERNMENT PRACTICE OF PREFERENCE AND DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF RACE, ETHNICITY AND GENDER IN ARIZONA
- GOVERNMENT CONTINUING TO IDENTIFY PEOPLE BY SKIN COLOR, RACE, ETHNICITY AND GENDER IS JUST WRONG
- PREFERENCE DISCRIMINATION ONLY FOSTERS RESENTMENT AND MARGINALIZES MINORITIES AND WOMEN
- PREFERENCE DISCRIMINATION DOES NOT HELP THE POOR, IT DOES NOT HELP SINGLE MOTHERS, IT DOES NOT HELP WOMEN
- THE VOTERS, THE TAXPAYERS OF AMERICA AND ARIZONA DEMONSTRATE TIME AND AGAIN IN POLLING AND ACTUAL ELECTION RESULTS THEY UNDERSTAND PREFERENCES AND OVERWHELMINGLY REJECT THIS PRACTICE
|
|
|
|
Paid for by Yes on 107! Major funding by out-of-state contributor ACRC.
|
|
|