Race Preferences Lose in Court--Again

Upon hearing that a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had upheld Proposition 209, President Clinton said that the supporters of racial preferences would have to “regroup.”

Indeed, regroup they must. But I hope they realize the damage they are doing to our society by trying to frustrate the will of the majority of Americans, who want to achieve a society of genuine equality for all and special privileges for none.

Anyone with a sense of history and an appreciation of the principles of American democracy must know that a system of policies that grants preferences to some citizens at the sacrifice of others cannot long endure. Such policies amount to discrimination, and the American people oppose discrimination.

Most of us know that, indeed, affirmative action and other attempts to “build diversity” have become a system of preferences. The people of California said on Nov. 5, 1996, when they voted for Proposition 209, that they would not tolerate such policies.

Since then, the will of the majority has been obstructed by the decision of one judge, a decision that can only be described as perverse. The ruling that Proposition 209 was unconstitutional because it supposedly discriminated against women and minorities has to be one of the most Orwellian decisions in the history of American jurisprudence.

It might be useful to remind ourselves of the clear and simple language that the people of California embedded in their Constitution last November:

“The state shall not discriminate against, nor 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.”

On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit reaffirmed the fundamental truth of Proposition 209 when it said that preferences based on race and gender are constitutionally suspect and can be abolished by a state without violating the rights of any individual. This decision puts a nail, if not a spike, in the coffin of race and gender preferences.

Now the people of California can get on with the business of making the dream of equal opportunity a reality, without the use of artificial preferences that are divisive and promote the ethnic polarization of our society. We must now focus on ways of providing access for all of our children to an education that prepares them for the rigors of a competitive society.

We must find ways of guaranteeing to minority and women contractors that they will have an equal opportunity to bid on public contracts. We must ensure that we do not return to the “good old boys” days in which women and people of certain colors and ethnic backgrounds were denied the right to enjoy employment for those reasons.

I have confidence that the people of California will not return to those days. But the heavy lifting must now begin to provide that reassurance to others who are not as confident as I. For many, their fears are genuine and must be addressed in deeds and not just words.

The 9th Circuit’s decision also should focus the federal government’s attention to the writing on the wall. The executive branch should bring itself into compliance with the spirit of Proposition 209 and with the growing body of case law being handed down by courts throughout the land.

The quest to achieve a society where all of our citizens receive equal treatment under the law has always been a struggle for America. On Nov. 5, 1996, the people of California moved that cause forward in a major way. On April 8, 1997, the 9th Circuit propelled it even further.