Thursday, October 31, 1996
DEBATE:
Both sides of measure come together for enlightening debate on emotional matterBy Brooke Olson
Daily Bruin Staff
As the sky cleared outside, storm clouds brewed inside the Ackerman Grand Ballroom Wednesday as four widely outspoken individuals debated this year's most provocative election issue Proposition 209.
Sponsored by the UCLA Policy Forum and its Student Advisory Committee, the event pitted initiative proponents and vice chairs of the Yes on 209 Campaign Manuel S. Klausner and Errol Smith with proposition opponents Chancellor Charles Young and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People western regional counsel Constance Rice.
Proposition 209, termed the California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI) by proponents, seeks to "end state (discrimination and) preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis" of race or sex in all public employment, education and contracting.
Supporters of the initiative contended that the 1964 goal of the Civil Rights Act to create equality before the law has twisted into government-sanctioned discrimination.
Proposition 209 will end race and gender preferences by instituting a meritocratic society in which the most qualified individuals will be given the job, Klausner and Smith said.
"Racial classifications and gender classifications are wrong," said Klausner, an attorney for Kindel & Anderson, adding that 34 years ago everyone would agree that preferences were morally repugnant.
"The only ones who would disagree were racists, bigots and Ku Klux Klan members ... now here we are over 30 years later allowing the government to make decisions based on race or gender," he said.
But dissenters of the initiative countered that affirmative action was necessary in order to maintain equality before the law.
The initiative will only shut the doors of opportunity to minorities by creating legal standards which may permit discrimination, Rice and Young said.
"We still face discrimination and cultural barriers ... affirmative action programs remove these barriers," said former UCLA assistant vice chancellor Rice, adding that quotas are not part of these programs.
"Proposition 209 will end programs such as an all-girls math program or (the UCLA) Academic Advancement Program or all race-oriented programs without putting anything in its place," she added.
All four panelists agreed that race and gender classification composed the core of American society.
But while the 209 vice chairs said the government encourages ethnic division through race-specific programs, opponents of the initiative said that the programs were necessary to give opportunity to those who have faced past discrimination.
At the heart of the controversy is a bitterly disputed three-line paragraph in the proposition known as "Clause C," which Young and Rice argued would allow lawful discrimination against women.
"Nothing in this section," the clause states, "shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education or public contracting."
"This clause will open up the attack on women's rights," Rice said, expressing her fear that a post-209 world will allow for lawful discrimination against women.
But Smith and Klausner vehemently denied that interpretation, saying that the clause applies only to the initiative language itself and will not weaken other constitutional protections, such as sexual harassment laws.
"The clause will not undermine women's rights they are protected under federal law," Smith said.
As the debate continued, it became evident that the nearly 70-member crowd, composed mainly of UCLA staff and local community members, supported Young and Rice. The initiative opponents received a round of applause for their statements, while only a few people clapped for Smith's and Klausner's remarks.
The discussion continued with Prop. 209 proponents arguing for a merit-based society, while Rice and Young said race and gender should be one of the many considerations taken for both job and educational applications.
"We must set an objective and standard that would ensure that the person who gets the highest score on an exam gets the position," Smith said, adding that the most qualified people are needed to ensure that America remains a strong contender in the world's economy.
"The best and the brightest need to be pushed to the forefront to keep up America's competitive."
But the opponents argued that all people who are admitted to college or who are hired for a job are highly qualified affirmative action merely requires employers to consider minorities and women for the position.
"(Affirmative action) is a way for minorities and women to break through the glass ceiling," Rice said, adding that race and gender are not the predominant factor in determining who will and will not be hired.
Despite apparent differences, both sides agreed that affirmative action is important in maintaining a diverse society.
Opponents of Prop. 209 believe that the initiative will completely destroy all affirmative action programs, leaving nothing in its place.
But Prop. 209 supporters said that the proposition will maintain affirmative action programs while at the same time remove preferential race and gender practices by the government .
Overall, many members of the audience felt the debate was presented in a civil and articulate manner.
"These issues (such as Prop. 209) go the the very core of American society," said Xandra Kayden, acting director of the UCLA Policy Forum.
"They explain and define what we are as a society."