RPI helps create a colorblind U.S.

Ian Esiner Eisner is a third-year political
science student. E-mail him at [email protected].

Forget content of character, the government is more interested
in the color of your skin. Some 40 years after the civil rights
movement, Californians are still being categorized by the handful
of racial identification boxes provided on government census forms.
For a society in pursuit of a color-blind ideal, state-sponsored
racial categorization is a thorn in the side of progress.

Fortunately, the Racial Privacy Initiative is here to set things
straight. Currently gathering signatures to earn a place on the
2002 ballot, the RPI, if passed, would prevent the state from
classifying any individual on the basis of race, ethnicity, color
or national origin in the operation of public education,
contracting or employment.

The RPI is the brainchild of Ward Connerly, a controversial
member of the UC Board of Regents. He is also a man who knows a
thing or two about being labeled in terms of race. Since authoring
SP-1 and SP-2 policies, which effectively ended the role of race
and gender as UC admissions criteria, Connerly has been labeled
everything from an ?Uncle Tom? to an ?Oreo.? Things hit a fever
pitch in 1998 during Connerly?s successful campaign in favor of
Proposition 209. But in spite of the racial spatings, Connerly?s
vision remains unaltered. Simply put, he wants California to look
past skin color. To help achieve a color-blind state, Connerly?s
RPI would remove racial inquiries from all government forms,
including UC applications. This modest proposal is sure to draw
intense fire. But in spite of pending personal attacks, Connerly is
ready to brave yet another blizzard of discontent from the
left.

His cause is a just one. With countless races and ethnicities,
California?s composition is too complex to be reflected in a
handful of census boxes. Multi-racial births, up 40 percent since
1980, have made accurate racial classification an impossibility.
But instead of dropping labels altogether, our government has taken
some ill-conceived short-cuts. The most detestable of these is the
so-called ?one drop rule.?

Under the rule, individuals with even a trace of black ancestry
are deemed completely black. It?s clean, simple and blatantly
racist; it doesn?t matter if your parents are of mixed descent ?
the government has never been a stickler for accuracy. So in its
cursory glance, if the state detects even a tinge of dark color,
you are ?black,? and thereby inextricably linked to all other
?blacks? in success and failure.

Unfortunately, some Americans profit from such distinctions.
These individuals ? modern day racial profiteers ? make their
living exacerbating racial divisions and creating unrest. What?s
more alarming, they do so while pretending to uphold the principles
of the civil rights movement. Al Sharpton, a self-professed Martin
Luther King, Jr. protg, made a characteristically un-King-like
statement recently, commenting, ?We (the ?black? community) owe
America nothing, America owes us.? This brand of race baiting makes
you wonder if Sharpton was too busy slicking back his hair to
actually hear King deliver his ?I Have a Dream? speech. Truth is,
Sharpton and his fellow racial ambulance-chasers have sold out the
principles of the civil rights movement in order to raise their
stake in the race market.

It is a lucrative business. Racial profiteers have amassed
substantial political capital by pushing the ?cult of victimhood,?
convincing ?one-drop? blacks that a system rife with racism is too
much to overcome. The RPI threatens this scheme because it prevents
profiteers from arbitrarily lumping races into broad political
power-groups. This puts the current racial spoils system in
jeopardy.

And for racial instigators, this is all very bad news. So, in
retaliation, they have launched a smear campaign to combat the RPI.
As expected, allegations of racism are abound. A common refrain is
that racial statistics are necessary to prevent an
institutionalized racism endemic in our government. But due to
their arbitrary nature, classification statistics aren?t worth the
paper they?re printed on.

It is damaging to lump all individuals with one or more drops of
African blood together, to pretend that in a social context they
are one and the same. Statistics pointing to ?black?
under-performance in areas such as education only suggest that a
drop of African blood equates to some kind of intellectual handicap
? that or the existence of an entirely racist system. By framing
issues solely in terms of race, classification statistics only
encourage these pernicious assumptions.

There are, however, a few instances when racial classifications
are actually necessary. And to the RPI?s credit, it does allow for
a degree of flexibility. For instance, the RPI does not bar UC
professors from collecting race-based data for research. Nor does
it prevent the Department of Fair Employment and Housing from
actively enforcing civil rights laws. Racial classification may
also be used in the arena of medical research. In general, the RPI
does not prohibit classifications that are ?commonsensical and
compelling in nature.? As such, the legislature and governor are
given the power to determine these ?compelling? interests.

The RPI is a critical step on the path to a colorblind society.
Government-sponsored racial classifications are a remnant of a more
sordid period in our history. The fact that they have stayed with
us for so long is regrettable. Hopefully, the RPI will make them a
thing of the past.