Hourly Update

Head of Maricopa County NAACP pans plan to ban race, sex-based preferences

PHOENIX -- A plan to constitutionally ban race- and sex-based preferences is getting panned by the head of the Maricopa County NAACP. The Rev. Oscar Tillman said the purpose behind some "affirmative action" programs is to ensure that all segments of society can compete equally. He said there may come a day when they are unnecessary but Arizona is not there yet. "What I'd like for Mr. Connerly to do is to pick any NAACP office and sit in for one day and see the necessity and what else is still out there and see how minorities are still being denied a piece of the pie," he said. The person to whom he refers is Ward Connerly who gained national attention in 1996 convincing California voters to adopt a similar measure. Since then Connerly has spearheaded initiatives in Washington and Michigan and now is turning his attention to Arizona. Connerly said he and his local supporters are working to figure out what programs there are which give preferential treatment. But whatever they find, he said the state constitution should spell out the principle of equality. "It's appropriate for any state to say we want all government agencies to treat all citizens equally without regard to their race," he said. Connerly said that's essentially what is in the 1964 federal Civil Rights Act. Tillman said that ignores reality. "It's not that we are asking anybody to set aside anything," said Tillman. "All we're asking for is give us somewhat of a level playing ground." For example, Tillman said he could not start up a vending company today and compete with firms that have long-established ties with banks and sports teams. "So you've got to give me a way to get in." One place Connerly might find the kind of preferences he seeks to outlaw is at the Arizona State University College of Law, where state Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, said she was involved one year in screening applicants. She said there are not "quotas" to admit a certain number of women or minorities. Nor would she say they get preferences, saying it should instead be called "thoughtful consideration about the impact that diversity brings to the table." Sinema said the primary factors considered are grades and scores on standardized tests. But she said other things, ranging from work experience to gender and race, also are considered "because those qualities also make us up as humans and they're important to the work we do in our community." But Clint Bolick, senior fellow at the Goldwater Institute, said there are other ways to ensure diversity which would remain legal even if this measure is approved. For example, he said after the California measure was adopted in 1996, the University of California at Berkeley started offering tutors to boost the academic performance of all inner-city youngsters. Sinema, like Tillman, said affirmative action programs will no longer be necessary when there are no disparities. "But let's look at the facts: A white woman today still only makes 77 cents to the dollar that a white man makes," she said. "A woman of color still only makes 56 cents." Connerly is being forced to do a state-by-state effort because the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to block affirmative action plans. Most recently, the high court voted 5-4 in 2003 to let the law school at the University of Michigan consider race in admissions to remedy past discrimination. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing the majority decision, said such preferences remain necessary. "I think Justice O'Connor was wrong when she voted in favor of allowing race in the pursuit of diversity," Connerly said. Connerly acknowledged that the ballot language banning disparate treatment does not include things like sexual preference. But he said it is necessary to keep the measure narrowly focused. He said it is for that reason the final version may not try to undermine a program by Maricopa County Superior Court which provides different probation programs for Native Americans and people who speak Spanish. County Attorney Andrew Thomas contends that is race-based discrimination.