RPI postponement completely political

EDITORIAL BOARD Editor in
Chief  Timothy Kudo

Managing Editor
 Michael Falcone

Viewpoint Editor
 Cuauhtemoc Ortega

Staff Representatives
 Maegan Carberry
 Edward Chiao
 Kelly Rayburn

Editorial Board Assistants
 Maegan Carberry
 Edward Chiao

  Unsigned editorials represent a majority opinion of
the Daily Bruin Editorial Board. All other columns, letters and
artwork represent the opinions of their authors.   All
submitted material must bear the author’s name, address, telephone
number, registration number, or affiliation with UCLA. Names will
not be withheld except in extreme cases.   The Bruin
complies with the Communication Board’s policy prohibiting the
publication of articles that perpetuate derogatory cultural or
ethnic stereotypes.   When multiple authors submit
material, some names may be kept on file rather than published with
the material. The Bruin reserves the right to edit submitted
material and to determine its placement in the paper. All
submissions become the property of The Bruin. The Communications
Board has a media grievance procedure for resolving complaints
against any of its publications. For a copy of the complete
procedure, contact the Publications office at 118 Kerckhoff Hall.
Daily Bruin 118 Kerckhoff Hall 308 Westwood Plaza Los Angeles, CA
90024 (310) 825-9898

American Civil Rights Coalition leader Ward Connerly may want
people to believe that postponing the vote on the Racial Privacy
Initiative from November to next year’s March ballot is
“not intended to be political.” But after admittedly
citing the reasons for the postponement as not wanting it to
compete with the gubernatorial race and hoping for lower turnout,
it couldn’t be more obvious that Connerly’s move is
completely political.

He’s trying to move the preposterous initiative to March
so that the governor cannot publically oppose it, and so that lower
voter turnout will make passing it easier.

But perhaps the fact that Connerly, who is a member of the UC
Board of Regents, has to maneuver the timing of the vote in such a
way is an indication of the lack of support for RPI. The problems
related to race will not simply be erased by it; rather, ignoring
them will only perpetuate the injustices and inequalities
disproportionately felt by minority races. Not only would the
initiative deny the existence and importance of racism and race in
society, but it would also set back research on race by requiring
some data collectors to apply for permission from the
government.

Trying to sneak RPI through in March is both undemocratic and
unethical. No regent should be allowed to use his position to
further his own agenda. Hopefully, when voting time rolls around,
the regents will recognize that the RPI is just as bad in March as
it would have been in November.