Informed Opinions on Today’s Topics : Affirmative Action Policies Under Debate

California’s 1996 elections may determine the sway in a growing national debate over the sincerity of affirmative action programs throughout the country.

State voters are likely to find on their ballots either a proposed amendment to the California Constitution or an initiative seeking to do away with most forms of government-sponsored affirmative action for women and minorities.

Both Assemblyman Bernie Richter’s (R-Chico) proposed Constitutional Amendment No. 2 and the “California Civil Rights Initiative” target government hiring practices and state school admission policies in their attempts to eliminate using race or gender as a way to “grant preferential treatment” to any individuals in the state.

Those opposed to both pieces of legislation label them as misdirected attempts to deal with increasing frustrations caused by a wobbly state economy. Affirmative action, they say, broadens the field for jobs and college admissions to a wider range of qualified people. Attacking that practice would only increase the racial division in the state fueled by last year’s Proposition 187 debate, they said.

Supporters of the measures, however, contend that racial division would actually be mended should voters institute either of the measures. Affirmative action programs have developed into discriminatory systems themselves, they say, prompting unfair treatment of white men and even some minorities.

*

Should affirmative action be eliminated in California?

Harvey Rich, chairman of the Cal State Northridge sociology department.

“The perception that individuals are losing out is very strong. But it’s hard to know whether reality is quite that (bad). People are uncomfortable during times of economic downturn. They become frustrated (seeing) what other groups have gotten. It’s good to increase diversity, but within reason. The problem is that unless a lot of pressure is applied to a group’s hiring practices, that group would tend to be reluctant in increasing diversity. If you do apply pressure, pressure goes too far. If you don’t, what incentive is there to change?

Assemblywoman Paula Boland (R-Granada Hills)

“What people want to do is stop reverse discrimination. We need to get back to the American work ethic, which is hard work and dedication. Right now, the hardest working people are not getting the jobs. As a woman, I would never want preferential treatment. I would want to get hired because whoever hired me thought I could do a bang-up job. We should pass this law so no one is discriminated against.”

Assemblyman Richter, author of the proposed Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 2

“I was raised in a family that taught me to hate prejudice and bigotry. I joined the civil rights movement in the ‘60s to fight against people who used race as a determinant to make decisions against others. We have a continuance of people being denied jobs and education based on their race and gender. The notion that the government takes note of someone’s race to bestow a benefit upon another is wrong.”

Gilberto Moreno, general manager, Chicano Employees Assn.

“There are abuses within the system and they should be eliminated, but the whole program should not be dismantled. Many employers do not recruit in Latino communities for available jobs, so Latinos are still under-represented in the labor force. A common argument against allowing affirmative action to continue is that it provides a stigma to its beneficiaries, meaning people will think they’ve attained their status solely due to affirmative action. What about the stigma of an over-representation of Latinos (and blacks) in unemployment lines or jails?”