|
11/08/00
2:35 p.m. By Roger Clegg, general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity |
||
|
This is becoming something of a habit. One of the few bright spots in 1998 was the passage in November that year by Washington State of I-200, a ballot initiative banning the use of preferences based on race, ethnicity, or sex in state contracting, employment, and education. Earlier in the year, California had passed Proposition 227, banning bilingual education and requiring, instead, the use of English-immersion programs in public schools. Last night, voters in Arizona overwhelmingly (64 percent to 36 percent, with 86 percent of the precincts reporting, according to the Arizona Republic online edition this morning) passed Proposition 203, a clone of Proposition 227. This is not only a victory for sound education, but for equal opportunity and nondiscrimination. In practice, the bilingual approach often sorts children on the basis of ancestry rather than language ability, and denies them the education they need to succeed in America. Alabama passed Amendment 2, which removed a ban from the Alabama state constitution on interracial marriage. That provision was clearly illegal, of course, but it's still nice to be rid of it. The bad news is that the amendment passed by only 60 percent to 40 percent landslide proportions in most contexts, but an eyebrow-raising tally for the minority here. Four out of ten Alabamans voted to keep the interracial ban on the books, after all, and the measure actually failed in 21 counties (out of 67, with four not yet reporting), according to unofficial returns in this morning's Birmingham News online edition. I suspect and hope that most of the 40 percent is attributable to a mischievous desire to strike a blow against political correctness in the anonymity of the ballot box, rather than any sincere desire (by blacks or whites) to prevent intermarriage. Still, it would have been better had this measure pushed, incidentally, by conservative Republican state attorney general Bill Pryor passed by a larger margin. Voters in Nevada and Nebraska passed ballot initiatives banning their respective states from recognizing same-sex unions, in both instances by 2-to-1 margins. A measure banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation appeared to be headed for a close defeat in Maine. The only gay-rights victory last night was Oregon's narrow (51-49 percent) rejection of a measure that would bar public schools from providing instruction that would encourage, promote, or sanction homosexual or bisexual behavior. And what of the role of race and ethnicity in the presidential election? Did the Democrats' last-ditch efforts to play the race card for instance, the NAACP's irresponsible ad equating Bush's limited opposition to a Texas hate-crime bill with having "killed [James Byrd] all over again" pay off? The Washington Post concluded that exit-poll data show Bush "cutting deeply into" the Hispanic vote, "reduc[ing] the Democratic margin of victory from an overwhelming 7-2 ratio in 1996 to 2-1 yesterday." He did even better among Asians (55 percent for Gore, versus 41 percent for Bush) although, ominously, this is much worse than 1996, since Dole carried a majority of Asians then. Most startling was Bush's record with blacks: "African Americans backed [Gore] over Bush by 90 to 8, compared to Clinton's 84 to 12 victory over Dole in 1996." (Note that Ralph Nader got only 1 percent of black votes; he got at least 3 percent among other groups.) Whites voted for Bush by a 53 percent to 43 percent margin. If Gore carries Florida, then, it bodes ill for progress toward a colorblind America not only because of the preferential policies he will implement in the executive branch and the pro-preference judicial nominations he'll make, but also because he will likely conclude that racial politicking has been vindicated. We'll have to look forward to more of the same the next time around. |
||
|
|
||
|