Editorial endorsement: Vote “˜no’ on the recall and “˜no’ on Proposition 54

When race is still an important issue in housing, medical
research, education and law enforcement, banning race data
collection is plainly a bad idea.

Because of the continued importance of race and ethnicity in
public life, the Daily Bruin endorses a “no” vote on
Proposition 54, an initiative designed to prohibit the state from
collecting data on an individual’s race, ethnicity or
national origin.

University of California Regent Ward Connerly, who is
spearheading the Proposition 54 campaign, argues the state has no
right to infringe on the privacy of individuals by requesting such
information.

Connerly’s answer to what he regards as an invasion of
privacy ““ to eliminate race and create a
“color-blind” society ““ is unrealistic and
hurtful to Californians, especially minorities.

Though the initiative does include exemptions for medical
research and law enforcement, experts in those areas widely oppose
the initiative, attesting that the exemptions are too narrow.

At UCLA, students, faculty and staff need not look far to
understand the harm this initiative could have. Racial data
collected by the state is available to educators and directors of
university outreach programs. The information is used to highlight
and hopefully eliminate disparities in the educational experience
of students from kindergarten to 12th grade. The mission of
university outreach would all but be ruined if coordinators of such
efforts could not find out which communities struggle to gain
access to higher education.

Social science and medical research would also be negatively
affected. Many social scientists depend on race data provided by
the state to supplement their research ““ research that
leads to important observations regarding race relations in
California and the reformulation of social theories.

Public health organizations rely upon racial and ethnic data to
determine whether individuals from certain communities are more or
less vulnerable to certain health conditions. Though Proposition 54
allows for doctors to collect racial data from patients, opponents
of the initiative point out that it would inhibit the ability to
use population data to prevent diseases in the first place. The law
enforcement exemption is also weak. California’s “top
cop” ““ Attorney General Bill Lockyer ““ worries
Proposition 54 would hurt the state’s ability to prosecute
hate crimes.

Because Connerly serves on the board of a huge public
university, voters may assume he knows what’s in the
public’s best interest. But though his intentions are
probably not malicious, his notions are wrong.

In a symbolic vote last spring, the regents voted overwhelmingly
to oppose Proposition 54. The chancellors of UCLA and UC Berkeley
both oppose Proposition 54, as does new UC President Robert Dynes.
In opposing the initiative last year, the UC Students Association
derided the initiative as an “information ban.” And
that’s exactly what it is.

A vote for Proposition 54 is a vote to ignore the importance of
diversity in the most diverse state in the country.