In 1998, voters passed Washington State Civil Rights Initiative, i.e. Initiative 200 (I-200), by nearly 59% of votes. I-200 bans discrimination and preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin at government institutions. I-1000 narrowly redefines preferential treatment in order to bring back discrimination under the name of remedying discrimination.

People behind I-1000 want to repeal I-200 by misleading voters. They label I-200 as anti-affirmative action. The truth is I-200 does not end all affirmative action programs. It does not end outreach programs, it does not end affirmative action based on helping people who are lower income or economically disadvantaged. It states on I-200 ballot “I-200 prohibits only those programs that use race or gender to select a less qualified applicant over a more deserving applicant for public job, contract or admission to a state college or university.” Attorney General’s Office issued opinion in 2017 and said “Initiative 200 does not categorically prohibit all uses of race- or sex-conscious measures in state contracting. The measure allows the use of measures that take race or gender into account in state contracting without elevating a less qualified contractor over a more qualified contractor.”

Proponents of I-1000 claim that since the passage of I-200, “Higher Education Institutions in Washington have seen decreased diversity in student population”. However, the most recent data from National Center for Education Statistics are showing that, among total postsecondary student population in Washington in 2016, 62.9% was White, 13.0% was Hispanic, 10.1% was Asian, 4.8% was Black. During that time, 69.7% of the state’s general population was White, 12.6% was Hispanic, 8.0% was Asian, 3.6% was Black (source: Office of Financial Management ). Seattle Times also recently reported that UW campus in Bothell was “among the highest in the U.S. for its student body that demographically reflects the state’s share of black young adults” and “The UW campuses in Seattle and Tacoma also earned high nods for black student enrollment”. Data speak! I-200 bans discrimination in college admission, and promotes diversity at state colleges.

Proponents of I-1000 also claim that “since I-200 became law, businesses owned by women and minorities have lost billions of dollars in work they would otherwise have been awarded”.  Problem with that statement is that prior to I-200 became law, preferential treatments were granted to women and minority owned businesses. Examples of those preferential treatments are “adding points or other price preference for meeting Minority Women Business Enterprise (MWBE) goals in the award of a contract” or “awarding a contract to a bidder, other than the lowest bidder, because they have met MWBE goals “. One could argue that those “would otherwise have been awarded” dollars should indeed not be awarded under the principle that all should be treated equally. Office of Minority and Women’s Business Enterprises (OMWBE) issued A Compilation of Data on the Economic Impact of Minority Businesses as a result of I-200 report. One interesting observation from the report is that “current” percentage of OMWBE certified Asian American firms increased from 15% in 1997, the year before I-200 was passed, to 25.8%, Black American firms declined from 15.6% to 12.2%, Hispanic firms increased from 9.2% to 9.7%, and White Women firms declined from 54.3% to 46.6%. Why percentage of certified Asian American and Hispanic firms increased after I-200 became law?  Did preferential treatment hurt some minority firms? Only fair and equal treatment for all can truly banish discrimination.

In 1998, the people of Washington made clear they wanted the state to reaffirm the fundamental principle of equal treatment for all citizens before the law. Let’s honor majority of voters’ choice, and reject the falsely claimed Initiative 1000.

The post I-200 Banned Discrimination, Now I-1000 Wants to Bring it Back appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

The early version of I-1000 petition form resembled wordings of failed I-1644. The ballot title reads “Initiative Measure No. 1000 concerns affirmative action and preferential treatment .” Obviously, they could not get enough people to sign the petition. After all, who would agree to bring back preferential treatment given that majority of people in Washington State rejected the idea more than 20 years ago.

Realized that they could not get people on board, they changed their wordings in below revised petition form. The ballot title now reads:”Initiative Measure No. 1000 concerns remedying discrimination and affirmative action .”  The measure remains the same. Only now, they want to mislead voters into believing that they are signing for the noble cause of anti-discrimination! I-200 is for anti-discrimination. I-1000 is for discrimination! 

When good intended voters signed the petition, they signed away their civil rights protected by the Washington State Civil Rights Act, and those signature collectors get paid $1 for each signature they collect. That works out to be $300,000 for signatures alone if they reach their goal of collecting 300,000 signatures. Who are the deep pocket sponsors behind I-1000? Labor unions, special interest groups.

As people often say that the devil is in the details, let’s peel into the fine prints of I-1000. Initiative 1000’s Concise Description states: “This measure would allow the state to remedy discrimination for certain groups and to implement affirmative action, without the use of quotas or preferential treatment (as defined), in public education, employment, and contracting.”

• Since several court decisions have made clear that quotas are illegal. State law RCW 43.43.015 also clearly bans quota. I-1000 simply confirms that the state is prohibited from using quotas, and makes no change in existing law in term of banning quotas. They tried this deceptive tactic back in 1997 by introducing SB 6689 without success. When the intention of SB 6689 was questioned, then NO! 200 Campaign treasurer Edsonya Charles responded, “confusion does not hurt us.” Clearly, they are trying to confuse voters again! 

The post Initiative 1000 Wants to Bring Back Preferential Treatment appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

[For me, one of the most troubling considerations about Asian discrimination is the tendency to excuse the argument that such discrimination is no big deal in view of the fact that Asians are so dominant, overall, when it comes to university admissions.

This argument, obviously, misses the most important point: The Constitution of the United States guarantees to every individual citizen a number of rights, to which we refer as “civil rights.”]

If you have time, I encourage you to read the entire post. And other posts by Mr. Connerly. He wisely pointed out that “There is no moral outrage because the purpose of this discrimination (discrimination against university applicants identified as “Asian.”) – building diversity – is considered a noble one.  And, when discrimination occurs in the course of what is considered a noble endeavor, definitions invariably change.”

The post A great post on Racial Discrimination Against Asian appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

Proposition 209 (also known as the California Civil Rights Initiative or CCRI), passed by California voters in November 1996, amended the California Constitution to prohibits the state, local governments, districts, public universities, colleges, and schools, and other government instrumentalities from discriminating against or giving preferential treatment to any individual or group in public employment, public education, or public contracting on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.

Proposition 209 has been the subject of many lawsuits in state courts since its passage but has withstood legal scrutiny over the years.

Washington State

I-200 – 1998

Michigan

Proposal 2 – 2006

Nebraska

Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative 424 – 2008

Arizona

Proposition 107 – 2010

New Hampshire

House Bill 623 – 2012

Oklahoma

Election Poll – 2012

Florida

Executive Order 99-281 (also known as “One-Florida” Initiative) – 1999

The post States that ban discrimination appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.