UC Regents should vote against CRECNO

The UC Board of Regents will vote today on whether to oppose the
Classification by Race, Ethnicity, Color, and National Origin
initiative, an item on the March 2004 state ballot that would, if
passed, ban the collection of racial and ethnic data by public
institutions. The regents ““ appointed to serve as the
official voice of the UC ““ must vote against CRECNO because
of its potential to harm not just the university, but also the
state of California.

CRECNO is intended to create a “colorblind” state in
the name of equality by ending the classification of individuals by
racial and ethnic categories. With its broad effect, it would have
a significant impact on the UC, especially in the area of
admissions.

Supporters of the initiative argue against the current racial
tracking system. Under UC admissions protocol, for instance,
Egyptians are considered Caucasian, and the Pacific Islander
category is vaguely defined. Admittedly, slippery categories like
these have led people to believe the UC does not properly track
diversity.

But attempting to legislate racial harmony is a rash and
impractical step, and CRECNO will only make real issues of
discrimination harder to understand and correct.

Without racial and ethnic data, the university would be unable
to monitor the admission, retention and graduation rates of various
groups ““ seriously hindering outreach efforts. Moreover, the
UC system’s inability to compile official statistics on the
state population would undermine social, scientific and medical
research conducted by the UC.

Even though a vote of opposition would essentially be a symbolic
act, the vote of the regents is especially important given the fact
one of their own, Regent Ward Connerly, is the sponsor of CRECNO.
If Connerly’s fellow regents vote against the initiative, the
publicity of their action could serve as a forceful roadblock to
the initiative’s passage next spring.

CRECNO has already faced strong opposition, especially from
within the UC. Students, professors and administrators have spoken
out against the initiative, arguing it will harm the
university’s ability to carry out its mission by restricting
research and ultimately harming anti-discrimination efforts.

During the recent Undergraduate Students Association Council
elections, virtually all candidates vocally opposed CRECNO,
stressing the importance of collecting data on campus diversity.
Since October, UCLA Chancellor Albert Carnesale has also voiced his
opposition to the initiative. Finally, UC President Richard
Atkinson urged the Board of Regents to vote against CRECNO.

Strikingly, even some supporters of Proposition 209 ““ the
1996 ballot initiative which banned the consideration of race in
all state admissions, hiring and contracting practices ““ do
not support the initiative. Tom Wood, a co-author of Proposition
209, believes CRECNO will complicate the state’s ability to
enforce the existing law.

When they vote today, the UC Regents should consider the
forceful sentiment aimed against this mandatory form of racial
privacy.

CRECNO is clearly not the answer California needs to remedy race
relations or admissions policies. Completely banning the tracking
of racial and ethnic data will only serve to bury problems that
continue to plague the state.