“The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

Thirteen years ago, 54 percent of voters passed Proposition 209, which added this language to the state’s constitution. But politicians act as though it doesn’t exist. Last October, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who swore to uphold the constitution, signed into law a bill that directs state departments to award government contracts to the lowest responsible bidder subcontracting 15 percent of the work to minority-owned businesses and five percent to female-owned businesses. The contractor who fails to do so will be rejected, even if he’s the lowest bidder.

The Pacific Legal Foundation, an organization dedicated to keeping discrimination and preferential treatment out of government, filed suit against the state, alleging that the law violated Article I, Section 31. Ward Connerly, who led the Prop. 209 campaign and was named as a plaintiff in the suit, is president of the American Civil Rights Institute, and I blog for the organization.

The latest attempt to circumvent the law came yesterday, as the California Assembly passed a bill that would allow the (taxpayer-supported) University of California and California State University systems to consider skin color in admissions. (Source)

The lawmaker who introduced the bill that would violate state law believes racial preferences are needed to deal with the “education gap” between the races. But racial preferences almost always entail lowered standards. Admitting minority students with lower scores than whites and Asians highlights the disparities. It might help the diversity-obsessed sleep better at night, but preferences don’t narrow the achievement gap, and they place students in academic settings for which they’re unprepared.

If by “education gap,” the lawmaker was referring to levels of schooling, and not academic achievement per se, then preferences, in a sense, work.

Even if racial preferences accomplished what social engineers and the professional civil rights industry hoped, they are discriminatory. Preferring one individual over another based on race means the other individual is passed over based on race. Has anyone read the U.S. Constitution and the Civil Rights Act lately?

As I’ve said so many times, I could recite it while comatose, the civil rights movement’s goal was to dismantle government-sanctioned and government-mandated racial discrimination. Blacks fought to be treated fairly as individuals protected by law, and not judged based on group membership. How things got turned around, where some blacks started demanding special treatment, is another topic for another post.

Follow me on Twitter @La Shawn.

The federal government, which does all things so well, is one step closer to making our medical decisions and having access to our medical records.

If that sounds like a far-fetched conspiracy theory, stretch your mind for a moment. Who could have imagined that the United States would adopt socialized medicine? That was a far-fetched idea not too long ago. But here we are.

Transfer of wealth and “crucial decisions” aside, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act contains provisions that provide incentives for racial discrimination. I mentioned the so-called health care bill’s racial preference provisions on the American Civil Rights Institute’s blog a while back.

One provision states that programs with “a record of training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or from a rural or disadvantaged background” will be given priority for government money. This is only one of several such provisions. Programs and medical institutions that practice racial preferences will be moved further up the money queue than programs and medical institutions that disregard race.

The one who disregards skin color is penalized. Hopenchange in America!

By the way, the Civil Rights Act prohibits government racial discrimination and preferences. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights called the provisions racially discriminatory and sent President Barack Obama and Congress letters warning them about the provisions. The politicians ignored the warning, naturally.

The Commission said the inclusion of the discriminatory provisions appeared to motivated by a crusade to narrow racial health care disparities and the belief that the disparities are caused by a shortage of medical professionals who are members of preferred minority groups. Seriously.

The Commission rightly concluded that medical institutions competing for federal dollars may end up lowering academic standards for minority applicants, and added that “race-based attempts to achieve some ill-defined ‘critical mass’ of minority students or to demonstrate a ‘sufficient’ record of training such students are constitutionally suspect… As we noted in our October 9, 2009 letter, it is generally illegal for the government to show favoritism or even use classifications based on race, ethnicity, or sex.”

If the Obama administration’s going to violate the Civil Rights Act, one would think the discriminatory provisions actually would solve the racial health care disparity problem. The Commission cited research that showed raising the quality of care at hospitals in the 500 largest minority serving areas would improve minority health care more than eliminating racial disparities within every provider in the U.S.

This finding seems intuitive, but the racism-under-every-rock civil rights industry prefers to deal in quantity over quality. Why adopt controversial and illegal discrimination and preferences over simply improving care for all?

Ward Connerly’s multi-state campaign to abolish government race and gender preferences rolls onward–defying the grievance-mongers, feminists, and open-borders extremists on the left and spineless GOP establishment officials on the right. This is a conservative movement that has support across racial, gender, generational, and partisan lines. Everywhere Connerly’s organization has qualified on the ballot, it has won. And I will be covering the campaign every step of the way as they head toward the polls and to victory this November. Today, Connerly’s organization received word that the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative made it onto the ballot. More than 128,000 people signed CoCRI petitions:

Today the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative received notice that the Secretary of State has determined that the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative has submitted enough signatures to gain access to the November ballot.

…Ward Connerly, national advocate for equal rights, congratulated the Colorado Coalition on their success, “The people in Colorado who have the desire to end race and gender preferences are to be commended for their success.” Connerly continued, “I am delighted that the Super-Tuesday for Equal Rights effort has achieved another milestone towards success in November.”

The Colorado Civil Rights Initiative is a state constitutional amendment that will appear as Amendment 46 on the November 2008 ballot. A “Yes” vote on this initiative will ban discrimination and preferences based on race, gender, national origin, color, and ethnicity in state hiring, state contracting, and state education.

Looking for a constructive way to support conservative ideas and get motivated this campaign season? Get involved and donate here.

10:34am Eastern update breaking:

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected public school assignment plans that take account of students’ race.

The decision in cases affecting schools in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle could imperil similar plans in hundreds of districts nationwide, and it leaves public school systems with a limited arsenal to maintain racial diversity.

The court split, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts announcing the court’s judgment. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissent that was joined by the court’s other three liberals.

How much longer are public and private institutions going to be held hostage to black and Hispanic academic failure? The Center for Constitutional Rights and other racial advocacy groups point to urban fire departments that have a higher percentage of minorities to prove that the FDNY is discriminating. But these departments have simply caved in to similar law suits and discarded their qualifications criteria to a degree that New York has not. Organizations around the country are under relentless pressure to change merit standards because of black and Hispanic underachievement, and most have capitulated to some degree. Almost none have been willing to make the case that disproportionate racial representation stems from the lack of qualified candidates, not from hidden sources of bias.

Many a police or fire department, under litigation pressure, has simply dropped its entrance requirements across the board, insuring a lower skill level for the entire department, rather than a sub-group within it. At some point, public safety will suffer…

…What is the Bush Administration thinking? The FDNY suit is clearly the product of career attorneys within the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the DOJ, whose life mission consists in going after phantom racism. But any such suit must surely be cleared with higher-ranked political appointees; indeed, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg says that he defended the department to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, according to the New York Daily News. Republican susceptibility to race-mongering is well-documented, but after 9/11, one might have thought that emergency responders would get a pass on racial pandering from an administration that claims preeminence in homeland security.

Racial and ethnic pandering that endangers homeland security and public safety. It’s becoming the Bush Legacy.

Speaking of which, the president will be holding a news conference shortly (scheduled for 11am) to push for the security-undermining, ethnic pandering shamnesty.

***

La Shawn Barber is all over the story and notes that “We’ve been down this road before:”

In New York City Fire Department to Lower Hiring Standards, I told you that FDNY decided to drop certain qualifications in 2006 and intended to water down the written test to recruit more minority applicants.

Tests that measure a job candidate’s ability to reason and comprehend are, in my opinion, more important than people think, and here is where people get it twisted. There is more to fighting fires than merely turning on a hose and pointing. Fire fighters must be able to understand written instructions, directions, and evacuation plans. They must be able to navigate buildings and generally have good spatial abilities. Reasoning skills come in handy when you’re under pressure, trying to save lives.

Evaluating an applicant’s ability to reason well and understand is not racist nor discriminatory. It is a legitimate part of the job, any job, even one as “simple” as putting out a fire.

Reader R.F. writes:

My son (Caucasian) decided 2 years ago to become a firefighter. First he had to pass an Entrance Exam. He did (score 87%). Note: average is 69%. 70% is passing. He had to go to Junior College part-time (while working during the day to support himself) and get an AA Degree in Firefighting (2 yrs). He then had to take an EMT (emergency medical technician) course and pass (3 months). He then had to pass the National EMT test. He has now been accepted to the Firefighting Academy and is scheduled to attend for 3.5 months in August 07. He has been saving his money as he will not be able to work while he attends the Academy. In the meantime he is a volunteer for Anaheim, CA firefighting 1 day/week at no pay. He applied, in the meantime, to bolster his chances, and was accepted for employment by Care Ambulance Co. Care is employed by many firefighting city departments. He is paid a whopping $10.95 per hour.

Why should anyone receive preferential treatment? My son has had to work his tail off to get this far. This career needs to be color blind. Each person must be based on ability alone. Our lives depend on it.

The indispensible Foundation for Individual Rights in Education is helping the CRs at the University of Rhode Island. More here.

…for all the evasions of the political and educational elites, the growing anti-preference push, with initiatives contemplated in several more states in 2008, could be one of the most important populist movements of recent years. Racial manipulation, while not eliminated from California, has been greatly reduced, a sea change that never would have happened without Prop. 209. One goal of the movement—the elimination of the academic achievement gap by setting a single standard of achievement for all to meet—remains elusive. But Ward Connerly’s courageous pursuit of a government that ignores race is delivering on the most fundamental promise of the American Constitution: equal treatment for all.

Conservatives asked at the NR Summit last weekend: Where are the leaders?

Two words: Ward Connerly.

Connerly’s shameful treatment by liberal elites is topped only by his shameful treatment by GOP elites–some with the surname Bush–who have subverted his and his vast supporters’ efforts to secure equal treatment for all every step of the way.

Hi Michelle,

Just a quick FYI – Michigan seems to be voting “Yes” on Prop-2….prohibiting affirmative action in the state. Interesting that CNN won’t call that “race” yet but has no problem calling the governor and Senate races with 1% of the precincts counted. Hey, why am I not surprised?

Anyway, a silver lining. Looks like we could use one tonight.

Best regards,
Eric Dolman
Rochester Hills, MI

Still early, but I’ll take all the good news I can get.

10:21 pm Eastern update. Reader tips me that local TV also confirms MCRI is passing!

Once again, the anti-preference movement wins despite GOP losses nationwide.

Same thing happened in 1996 in California and 1998 in Washington.

Appeals Court Sides With Cheney in Lawsuit:

The Sierra Club and Judicial Watch alleged that energy industry officials had in effect become part of Cheney’s 2001 task force and that the panel was a federal advisory committee with an obligation to provide public disclosure about its operations.

The appeals court disagreed, saying “There is nothing to indicate that nonfederal employees had a right to vote on committee matters or exercise a veto over committee proposals.”

Cheney’s energy task force was not an advisory committee and “it follows that the government owed the plaintiffs no duty, let alone a clear and indisputable or compelling one,” said the appeals court opinion by Judge A. Raymond Randolph.

And a surprise from the Left Coast…

9th Circuit panel rejects minority-contract awards:

Washington state cannot favor minority-owned firms in awarding road-building contracts because it hasn’t proved minority contractors have faced discrimination, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday.

Western States Paving of Vancouver, Wash., sued the state Department of Transportation, Clark County and the city of Vancouver after losing several road-paving contracts to minority-owned firms with higher bids.

I’ve heard from many frustrated contractors in similar situations losing out to so-called “disadvantaged minorities” who are nothing more than City Hall cronies fleecing the public or business fronts exploiting the diversity racket. Will be interesting to see what repercussions the ruling may have across the country.

Hugh Davis Graham wrote a very interesting book related to this problem:
Collision Course: The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy in America. Check it out.

Click on “Read More” to see the answer.

Black women with bachelor’s degrees earn more than similarly educated white women, AP reports:

According to the data, a white woman with a bachelor’s degree typically earned nearly $38,000 in 2003, compared with nearly $44,000 for a college-educated Asian woman and $41,000 for a college-educated black woman.

Hispanic women took home slightly less at $37,600 a year.

More than a dozen black and Hispanic leaders endorsed the West Side football stadium yesterday amid a “historic” deal with the Jets to ensure that minority- and women-owned firms get a share of the construction contracts.

Jets President Jay Cross said technical and financial assistance the team would provide minority businesses could land them $100 million worth of business.

One speaker after another dismissed critics, saying their concerns can’t outweigh the jobs that will flow from development of the far West Side.

Opponents of the project “don’t need to be in this city,” said Jim Heylinger, president of the Minority Business Leadership Council, citing the double-digit unemployment rate in some communities.

Mayor Bloomberg said the agreement — reached after six months of deliberations by a task force — “signals a new day” because it’ll serve as a template for all major projects in the future.

An embrace of race and gender preferences is to be expected from a RINO like Bloomberg. But Bloomberg isn’t the only Republican who has utilized this tactic. As I noted here more than five years ago, President Bush is culpable too:

Bush’s own official web site … brags about Bush’s role in securing tax dollars for the Texas Rangers baseball stadium.

What’s not mentioned was the governor’s patently offensive, race-based sales pitch. As reported in the June 1999 issue of Texas Monthly, the awarding of minority-earmarked government contracts was instrumental to the stadium measure’s passage. Black and Latino leaders attacked the deal – until Bush assuaged them with the promise of government giveaway goodies. Bush “spoke from the pulpit of the Mount Olive Baptist Church in Arlington,” Texas Monthly reported, where he declared, “A vote for the tax would be a vote for contracts for African American businesses.”

Fortunately, Connerly will continue to lead the fight against race and gender preferences in government hiring, contracting, and higher education admissions. His latest initiative targets racial preferences in Michigan, much to the consternation of state GOP leaders. And he says here that he is considering launching ballot intiatives in several other states.

This column by Robert Novak, written in January 2003, suggests that Gonzales is no friend of conservatives. An excerpt:

Gonzales’s views on affirmative action became widely known in Washington last year when, at a meeting of the conservative Federalist Society, he announced his support of preferences….

[When he served on the Texas Supreme Court, he] had pulled the Texas court leftward, including decisions favorable to trial lawyers on tort cases. What most disturbed conservatives was his majority opinion invalidating a statute requiring parental notification of abortion by a minor. Democratic senators who last year blocked confirmation of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen as a federal appellate judge repeatedly cited Gonzales’s attack on her minority opinion as an “unconscionable act of judicial activism.”

That alone led prominent Catholic conservatives and other foes of abortion to inform the White House that Gonzales is unacceptable for the high court.

Update: Over at The Corner, Roger Clegg writes:

The problem with Al Gonzales as AG is his failure to oppose racial preferences. He played a critical role in watering down the administration’s briefs in the University of Michigan cases, and generally has the reputation for being a squish on this issue. The Dems will try to extract promises during the hearings that he will continue this lackluster record; Republicans should push him to mend his ways. Specter will join the Dems.