Key issues of Prop. 209 explored in forum

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."