• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

So Proposition 54? Anyone come up with a reason for a yes vote?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Maybe I missed something, but this Proposition only seeks to eliminate the collection of Race based data? It does not address the issue of How the data is to be used?

If the answers to both questions is "Yes", then I don't see how it contributes anything towards a "colour blind society", it seems to contribute to a willful ignorance of potential Racial Issues though.
Gathering racial data CREATES racial issues.

Hispanics and blacks make less money for the same reason many whites and asians make little money...because they come from households which encourage underachieving. Let's stop saying poverty is a racial issue and start looking at the REAL problems and causes of poverty. As it is, blacks are being told they're poor because they're black. Why the HELL would they try to better their situation when they're being told that changing their income level is about as easy as changing their skin color?
Oh good, then we can use skin color to direct funds to change their attitude.
How about we use income level so non-blacks in poverty aren't left without? Wouldn't that cover all the blacks as well?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
67,840
2,943
126
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Maybe I missed something, but this Proposition only seeks to eliminate the collection of Race based data? It does not address the issue of How the data is to be used?

If the answers to both questions is "Yes", then I don't see how it contributes anything towards a "colour blind society", it seems to contribute to a willful ignorance of potential Racial Issues though.
Gathering racial data CREATES racial issues.

Hispanics and blacks make less money for the same reason many whites and asians make little money...because they come from households which encourage underachieving. Let's stop saying poverty is a racial issue and start looking at the REAL problems and causes of poverty. As it is, blacks are being told they're poor because they're black. Why the HELL would they try to better their situation when they're being told that changing their income level is about as easy as changing their skin color?
How do you know that? Racial based data gathering?
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Maybe I missed something, but this Proposition only seeks to eliminate the collection of Race based data? It does not address the issue of How the data is to be used?

If the answers to both questions is "Yes", then I don't see how it contributes anything towards a "colour blind society", it seems to contribute to a willful ignorance of potential Racial Issues though.
Gathering racial data CREATES racial issues.

Hispanics and blacks make less money for the same reason many whites and asians make little money...because they come from households which encourage underachieving. Let's stop saying poverty is a racial issue and start looking at the REAL problems and causes of poverty. As it is, blacks are being told they're poor because they're black. Why the HELL would they try to better their situation when they're being told that changing their income level is about as easy as changing their skin color?
How do you know that? Racial based data gathering?
Yes. What's your point?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
67,840
2,943
126
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Maybe I missed something, but this Proposition only seeks to eliminate the collection of Race based data? It does not address the issue of How the data is to be used?

If the answers to both questions is "Yes", then I don't see how it contributes anything towards a "colour blind society", it seems to contribute to a willful ignorance of potential Racial Issues though.
Gathering racial data CREATES racial issues.

Hispanics and blacks make less money for the same reason many whites and asians make little money...because they come from households which encourage underachieving. Let's stop saying poverty is a racial issue and start looking at the REAL problems and causes of poverty. As it is, blacks are being told they're poor because they're black. Why the HELL would they try to better their situation when they're being told that changing their income level is about as easy as changing their skin color?
How do you know that? Racial based data gathering?
Yes. What's your point?
That is my point.
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Maybe I missed something, but this Proposition only seeks to eliminate the collection of Race based data? It does not address the issue of How the data is to be used?

If the answers to both questions is "Yes", then I don't see how it contributes anything towards a "colour blind society", it seems to contribute to a willful ignorance of potential Racial Issues though.
Gathering racial data CREATES racial issues.

Hispanics and blacks make less money for the same reason many whites and asians make little money...because they come from households which encourage underachieving. Let's stop saying poverty is a racial issue and start looking at the REAL problems and causes of poverty. As it is, blacks are being told they're poor because they're black. Why the HELL would they try to better their situation when they're being told that changing their income level is about as easy as changing their skin color?
How do you know that? Racial based data gathering?
Yes. What's your point?
That is my point.
1. Since you agree with him, and both of your points have been established, racial based data gathering is no longer needed, is it?

2. It does not make it illegal for privately funded groups to create their own statistics.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
67,840
2,943
126
Originally posted by: Lucky
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Maybe I missed something, but this Proposition only seeks to eliminate the collection of Race based data? It does not address the issue of How the data is to be used?

If the answers to both questions is "Yes", then I don't see how it contributes anything towards a "colour blind society", it seems to contribute to a willful ignorance of potential Racial Issues though.
Gathering racial data CREATES racial issues.

Hispanics and blacks make less money for the same reason many whites and asians make little money...because they come from households which encourage underachieving. Let's stop saying poverty is a racial issue and start looking at the REAL problems and causes of poverty. As it is, blacks are being told they're poor because they're black. Why the HELL would they try to better their situation when they're being told that changing their income level is about as easy as changing their skin color?
How do you know that? Racial based data gathering?
Yes. What's your point?
That is my point.
1. Since you agree with him, and both of your points have been established, racial based data gathering is no longer needed, is it?

2. It does not make it illegal for privately funded groups to create their own statistics.
Of course it's still needed, how else can you know if things are changing?
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Maybe I missed something, but this Proposition only seeks to eliminate the collection of Race based data? It does not address the issue of How the data is to be used?

If the answers to both questions is "Yes", then I don't see how it contributes anything towards a "colour blind society", it seems to contribute to a willful ignorance of potential Racial Issues though.
Gathering racial data CREATES racial issues.

Hispanics and blacks make less money for the same reason many whites and asians make little money...because they come from households which encourage underachieving. Let's stop saying poverty is a racial issue and start looking at the REAL problems and causes of poverty. As it is, blacks are being told they're poor because they're black. Why the HELL would they try to better their situation when they're being told that changing their income level is about as easy as changing their skin color?
How do you know that? Racial based data gathering?
Yes. What's your point?
That is my point.
Your point is that we used racial based data gathering to gather racial based data?

Because of racial based data gathering, I know that people of every race are poor. If a higher percentage of blacks are poor than whites, that does NOT lead to the logical conclusion that those poor black people are poor because they're black. That conclusion is racist. If you want to help poor black people, then help poor people and, because a higher percentage of blacks may be poor than whites, you're effectivly helping blacks while at the same time not leaving out in the cold, people of other racial groups who may also be poor and by so doing you are not showing prejudice, good or bad, towards people because of the color of their skin. And, best of all, every poor black child will grow up in a household that is being viewed as 100% equal except for their income level which they share with people of other races...and these kids won't grow up with the demotivating stigma you insist on placing upon them that they're poor because they're black.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Boalt Hall Class of '63 admissions meeting:

Dean Whiteasthedrivensnow: Hmm, there's no negroes in this class.
Dean PastyWhite: Why is that surprising . . . we've never had any negroes at Boalt Hall.
Dean Whiteasthedrivensnow: Oh, OK.

Boalt Hall Class of '98
Dean son of Whiteasthedrivensnow: Hmm, there's a bunch of negroes in this class.
Dean son of PastyWhite: That's surprising . . . considering there were none last year that accepted admissions (first year of Prop 209?)
Dean son of Whiteasthedrivensnow: You know . . . if we stop counting (and stop aggressive outreach) we could get back to the glory days.

UC-Berkeley Law School admissions after Ward Connerly's first crusade
 

tm37

Lifer
Jan 24, 2001
12,436
1
0
Originally posted by: sandorski

Of course it's still needed, how else can you know if things are changing?

Once you elimnate race from the equation you can begin to take action to correct the problems.

The problems facing minorities have nothing to do with the color of their skin they have to do with the socio-econoomic conditions that exist in poorer communities.

Why is the plight of the single white mother any different than that of the black or hispanic.

Are the solutions any different for an asian community that is poorly educated and poor any different if they are say of arab desent?

The problem isn't race yet that is what is is defining most of the government solutions. The problem is money and giving someone money because they are of a race other than white is wrong. Why should any race be given more than another the basis of any goverment service should be need not the color of one's skin.

You will never see if anything is changing if you continue to IGNORE THE PROBLEM. Rather than researching why blacks don't get into college why not look at the economic factor that contribute to it.

The fact is that a poor black student has a much better chance at getting into college than a poor white student. When all thing but race are equal the inequities really come out.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,824
0
76
Without data, victims of discrimination in state employment or contracting won?t have the data needed to meet court standards in proving discrimination. This initiative is designed to erase the record?and make it nearly impossible to track discriminatory practices.
Text

Sounds like granting freedom to discriminate at will eh?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,673
7,765
126
I'm confused... for government to discriminate is not discrimination, but for government to not discriminate is discrimination?

Just when are we supposed to start living in that color blind world that MLK Jr. dreamt about?
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
The fact is that a poor black student has a much better chance at getting into college than a poor white student. When all thing but race are equal the inequities really come out.
Prove it. The ability to find one poor black kid that gets into college and one poor white kid that doesn't . . . is not evidence enough to substantiate policy.

I wholeheartedly support affirmative action for people without means. In fact, that cohort (assuming they have adequate achievement/ability) should ALWAYS be at the front of the line b/c they will rarely get their soley based on merit. This country is not a meritocracy. It is the rare individual that does not take advantage of their "birthrights" . . . wealth and political influence are probably the primary offenders. Accordingly, our dismal social welfare/educational systems have done little to level the playing field for poor whites, blacks, latinos, or asians.

My university has plenty of less than wealthy asians (I include Indians since they are on the continent) working their arses off. Merit, effort, and perserverance should always be rewarded. Alas in this country (and most others) being born into the right place with the right parents produces reward by default while having the wrong mix of unalterable circumstances puts you on the short track to mediocrity.

Collecting racial data will NOT solve our structural problems of poor K-12, welfare that rewards laziness, corporate welfare, legacy, nepotism, political corruption, or discrimination based on any criteria . . . but it has the potential to highlight areas that need addressing. For instance, most landfills find their way into poor communities and curiously being a poor black community dramatically raises the odds.


Dumping in Dixie
Black communities still suffer from institutionalized discrimination. Discriminatory practices occur at various levels of government and affect the location of polling places, municipal landfills, and toxic-waste dumps. Discrimination, thus, involves a "process of defending one group's privilege gained at the expense of another."[13] Black communities and their inhabitants must defend themselves against hostile external forces that shape land-use decisions and environmental policies.

 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
67,840
2,943
126
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Maybe I missed something, but this Proposition only seeks to eliminate the collection of Race based data? It does not address the issue of How the data is to be used?

If the answers to both questions is "Yes", then I don't see how it contributes anything towards a "colour blind society", it seems to contribute to a willful ignorance of potential Racial Issues though.
Gathering racial data CREATES racial issues.

Hispanics and blacks make less money for the same reason many whites and asians make little money...because they come from households which encourage underachieving. Let's stop saying poverty is a racial issue and start looking at the REAL problems and causes of poverty. As it is, blacks are being told they're poor because they're black. Why the HELL would they try to better their situation when they're being told that changing their income level is about as easy as changing their skin color?
How do you know that? Racial based data gathering?
Yes. What's your point?
That is my point.
Your point is that we used racial based data gathering to gather racial based data?

Because of racial based data gathering, I know that people of every race are poor. If a higher percentage of blacks are poor than whites, that does NOT lead to the logical conclusion that those poor black people are poor because they're black. That conclusion is racist. If you want to help poor black people, then help poor people and, because a higher percentage of blacks may be poor than whites, you're effectivly helping blacks while at the same time not leaving out in the cold, people of other racial groups who may also be poor and by so doing you are not showing prejudice, good or bad, towards people because of the color of their skin. And, best of all, every poor black child will grow up in a household that is being viewed as 100% equal except for their income level which they share with people of other races...and these kids won't grow up with the demotivating stigma you insist on placing upon them that they're poor because they're black.
Of course it doesn't mean they're poor because they are Black, or does it? That's why you need Racial based Data, to determine the reasons. It may be a cultural thing, if it is, you need to gather the data in order to know the specifics. The gathering of the Data has nothing to do with Racism, though it certainly can be used for Racist purposes.
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
Originally posted by: flavio
Without data, victims of discrimination in state employment or contracting won?t have the data needed to meet court standards in proving discrimination. This initiative is designed to erase the record?and make it nearly impossible to track discriminatory practices.
Text

Sounds like granting freedom to discriminate at will eh?
yeah, that's it! just keep posting crap even after every single things you've posted before it debunked! Surely sooner or later one of them might be true! data on discrimination will be exempted for ten years or even later as determined by congress. pretty simple.
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
Prove it. The ability to find one poor black kid that gets into college and one poor white kid that doesn't . . . is not evidence enough to substantiate policy.


And the ability to find a substantial number of black kids that live in run down ghettos, have bad parents, and goto bad schools does not substantiate the policy of awarding all blacks an advantage. Because you can find a substantial number of white kids in the same situation.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Try reading my entire post . . . government at all levels should practice vigorous outreach for all people that need a helping hand to overcome difficult socioeconomic circumstances. When I do science enrichment at my wife's school I mandate affirmative action b/c without such an intervention the school's demographic base would lead to few if any white kids having an exceptional opportunity. Am I denying some poor black kid an opportunity? Despite the troubling issues of males (in particular black males), I go out of my way to overrepresent girls and whites. Granted, I'm starting to question that strategy considering the poor performance of all males at the undergraduate level.

 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,361
8
0
because in today's society everyone is treated equally and fairly. no one is discriminates except those that are for a.a. and the like.
 

tm37

Lifer
Jan 24, 2001
12,436
1
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The fact is that a poor black student has a much better chance at getting into college than a poor white student. When all thing but race are equal the inequities really come out.
Prove it. The ability to find one poor black kid that gets into college and one poor white kid that doesn't . . . is not evidence enough to substantiate policy.
I can do you one better you know what it took my sister to get state GRANTS she changed her last name to Enriquez.

I also had a black friend in High school with simalar grades that took the SAT and scored a whopping 960. He was excepted into three UC schools. I would have needed to get at least a 1300 TO QUALIFY to get into SDSU.
 

tm37

Lifer
Jan 24, 2001
12,436
1
0
Originally posted by: Lucky
Prove it. The ability to find one poor black kid that gets into college and one poor white kid that doesn't . . . is not evidence enough to substantiate policy.


And the ability to find a substantial number of black kids that live in run down ghettos, have bad parents, and goto bad schools does not substantiate the policy of awarding all blacks an advantage. Because you can find a substantial number of white kids in the same situation.

But because we use race as a benchmark there plight is not nearly as bad as you would think because there are plenty of rich white kids to off set the the kids at the bottom of the rung.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,824
0
76
Originally posted by: Lucky


health care is exempt! you have been LIED to!
In the continued wrangling over how much Proposition 54 would affect medical care in the state, a Superior Court judge has ordered the ballot summary rewritten to more narrowly portray how the measure could affect the collection of health data.

The statewide initiative, written by University of California regent Ward Connerly and appearing on the Oct. 7 recall ballot, would block public agencies from acquiring and using many types of racial data.

It would provide an exemption for ``medical research subjects and patients,'' according to the proposition's wording. But opponents say the measure could prevent officials from collecting racial data on birth or death certificates and in public surveys -- the sources of many epidemiological and public health findings.

The ballot summary said the exemption applies to ``all medical and health-care subject matter,'' which supporters say was their intent when they wrote the measure.

But Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Gail D. Ohanesian said Friday that the language was too broad and ordered that it be replaced with the exact language in the initiative.

The legal victory for opponents Friday follows a court victory for Connerly on ballot summary wording earlier this month.

That ruling ordered Attorney General Bill Lockyer to amend the ballot summary to include the medical exemption. The original summary included only the proposition's exemptions for law enforcement descriptions, prisoner and undercover assignments, and actions taken to maintain federal funding.

Connerly said the original summary carried a ``glaring omission'' that could mislead voters. He pointed to an independent analysis of the proposition by the state Legislative Analyst's Office, which said, ``state and local agencies collect a variety of public health information through the use of surveys of the public, which may include race-related information. It appears that this activity could continue under the measure's medical research exception.''

But opponents argued Friday that the wording before Ohanesian also was misleading to voters.

In addition, Ohanesian ordered the voter pamphlet changed to read that collection of racial data for surveys and general sources used by public health officials ``might continue'' under Proposition 54, showing that the exact impact of the measure is uncertain in some areas.

The judge's ruling Friday ``tells the average voter that this exemption is very narrow, and they need to worry about it if it passes,'' said Maria Blanco, attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which challenged the wording in Superior Court.
Whereas the actual wording only says "Otherwise lawful classification of medical research subjects and patients shall be exempt from this section."

Not so clear is it?

"Civil rights enforcement" as you call it is exempt for 10 years and can easily be extened by a 2/3 votes in the states congress if needed.
So it affects Civil Rights Enforcement as claimed but you're counting on an exemption and possible later 2/3 vote to fix the problem?

Law enforcement: PARAGRAPH (g): ?Nothing in this section shall prevent law enforcement officers, which carrying out their law enforcement duties, from describing particular persons in otherwise lawful ways?.? Also it does not require them to not keep the data, it says the state cannot force local and regional authorities to keep it. They can if they want, or not.
So as I said they can discriminate at will with no need to keep any records that would enable anyone to track it.

Looks like you are dead wrong on every single count of your post.



 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,824
0
76
Originally posted by: Lucky
Originally posted by: flavio
Without data, victims of discrimination in state employment or contracting won?t have the data needed to meet court standards in proving discrimination. This initiative is designed to erase the record?and make it nearly impossible to track discriminatory practices.
Text

Sounds like granting freedom to discriminate at will eh?
yeah, that's it! just keep posting crap even after every single things you've posted before it debunked! Surely sooner or later one of them might be true! data on discrimination will be exempted for ten years or even later as determined by congress. pretty simple.
Is that some new trick used to pass bogus legislation? Make it not kick in for a few years so you can act like there's no need to worry about it?

That's pretty transparent, but keep posting your crap so it can be debunked.

 

herkulease

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2001
3,923
0
0
Originally posted by: tm37
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The fact is that a poor black student has a much better chance at getting into college than a poor white student. When all thing but race are equal the inequities really come out.
Prove it. The ability to find one poor black kid that gets into college and one poor white kid that doesn't . . . is not evidence enough to substantiate policy.
I can do you one better you know what it took my sister to get state GRANTS she changed her last name to Enriquez.

I also had a black friend in High school with simalar grades that took the SAT and scored a whopping 960. He was excepted into three UC schools. I would have needed to get at least a 1300 TO QUALIFY to get into SDSU.
that's my hating of the UC system.

I scored 1220 but my gpa was 2.42 and was denied. Yet I know of someone who did 1000 with a 2.00 gpa get accepted for what, throwing a stupid ball. Some how he shows potential? I guess because i'm asian I'm supposed to be some genius. I got bored with the courses my junior year. But I knew my stuff, I scored higher than 5 of the 10 valdevictorians we had. 8 of them went to either Stanford, Cal, Harvard and 1 person brown university.

But now that I look back I don't mind going to SJSU. Living at home lets me be closer to family and I can see all the nieces/nephews grow up and have fun with them. Plus I found someone so not being accepted wasn't so bad.
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
Whereas the actual wording only says "Otherwise lawful classification of medical research subjects and patients shall be exempt from this section."

Which is exactly what I said in my post.



So it affects Civil Rights Enforcement as claimed but you're counting on an exemption and possible later 2/3 vote to fix the problem?

Did you notice the quotes used as sarcasm?


RPI and California?s civil rights laws

PARAGRAPH (e): ?The Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) shall be exempt from this section with respect to DFEH-conducted classifications in place as of March 5, 2002.?

California?s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) is the largest and oldest state-level civil rights enforcement agency in the country. With offices across the state, it investigates and prosecutes violations of California?s civil rights laws. While California?s ever-increasing multiraciality highlights how close we are to the goal line of equality, RPI recognizes that we aren?t there yet. Discrimination continues to occur in some circumstances, and perpetrators need to be held accountable. To make sure that California does not have to wait for legislative approval of the classifications DFEH may need, RPI exempts DFEH.

This exemption for DFEH does not, however, allow DFEH to ?impute a race, color, ethnicity or national origin to any individual.? [PARAGRAPH (e)(2)] That is, DFEH may not assign a person declining to classify himself or herself by race.

PARAGRAPH (e)(1): ?Unless specifically extended by the legislature, this exemption shall expire ten years after the effective date of this measure.?

Because RPI heralds the day when race will be an ancient relic, RPI sunsets DFEH?s exemption ten years from January 1, 2005, the day RPI takes effect [PARAGRAPH (l)]. Postponing the effective date of the measure gives the state ample time to review what classifications the federal government mandates and make appropriate changes to state forms in an orderly phase-out period so that taxpayers do not have to finance the overnight replacement of millions of questionnaires. Should California continue to require racial classifications as it enforces the state?s civil rights laws after the sunset date, RPI allows the legislature to extend the DFEH exemption.




So as I said they can discriminate at will with no need to keep any records that would enable anyone to track it.
No, you didnt say that and I proved you wrong when you said they are not allowed to keep data.

RPI and law enforcement

PARAGRAPH (g): ?Nothing in this section shall prevent law enforcement officers, which carrying out their law enforcement duties, from describing particular persons in otherwise lawful ways?.?

The law enforcement exemption allows officers in the course of their duties to ?describe particular persons in otherwise lawful ways.? This clause recognizes the delicate balance the law enforcement community must strike between community and officer safety, and immoral and counterproductive racial profiling. In cases dealing with racial profiling, judges are at the very least finding the practice highly suspect and often unlawful. As paragraph (c) makes clear, RPI would explicitly prohibit racial profiling for the first time in the state constitution. At the same time, preventing officers from using all lawful descriptive terms (as opposed to illegal profiling) would increase the risk to officers and the public.

? Otherwise lawful ways? refers to the Supreme Court guidelines identifying when law enforcement officers may consider race or ethnicity. The Supreme Court has ruled that the 4th Amendment prevents law enforcement personnel from relying solely on racial or ethnic appearance in deciding whether to stop a motorist or frisk a suspect. Rather, it requires them to be able to explain the particular factors that, in light of the total circumstances and their experience, led them to suspect that the person in question has committed, or is about to commit a crime.

PARAGRAPH (g), continued: ??Neither the governor, the legislature nor any statewide agency shall require law enforcement officers to maintain records that track individuals on the basis of said classifications, nor shall the governor, the legislature or any statewide agency withhold funding to law enforcement agencies on the basis of the failure to maintain such records.?

Recognizing that, like discrimination, racial profiling still exists in some circumstances, RPI supports current efforts to identify and root out this illegal practice. We are not convinced, however, that racial data collection is a panacea. Agencies such as the California Highway Patrol and police departments in Sacramento, San Francisco and San Jose have voluntarily adopted data collection programs, but the results (based on something as unscientific as ?race? or ?perceived race?) have triggered wide-ranging disagreement on whether a problem exists all, to what extent it exists and, if so, how to address it. With not less but more racial obsession, police departments and communities such as Cleveland and Seattle have been torn apart by the phenomenon of ?de-policing? as a reflexive reaction by officers to avoid being accused of racism. In short, data collection may have, at best, a placebo effect on our desire for the problem to be solved; at worst, it is forcing officers to withdraw from some of our most crime-ridden neighborhoods most in need of protective and preventative services. In the process, entire departments and professions are being attacked, yet the few rotten apples in the barrel are not being held individually accountable for wrongdoing. Because the value of data collection is dubious and the cost potentially enormous, RPI prohibits state-mandated data collection in the context of law enforcement but does not foreclose the possibility should local agencies want to bear the costs and risks of this experimental reaction.

PARAGRAPH (h): ?Otherwise lawful assignment of prisoners and undercover law enforcement officers shall be exempt from this section.?

Paragraph (h) is similar to paragraph (g), in that it allows law enforcement officers to consider race when assigning officers to undercover duty and in assigning prisoners. The prison riots of the last decade have often been fought along racial lines, with race-based gangs often requiring administrative segregation. To insure that law enforcement officers can prevent potential violence among prisoners, paragraph (h) allows them to consider race, provided they abide by existing legal constraints and court decisions in considering race. Similarly, paragraph (h) allows the law enforcement community to consider race when assigning officers to undercover duty, so long as they are following existing legal guidelines.

Looks like you are dead wrong on every single count of your post.


HAH! What post would that be? :confused:
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Try reading my entire post . . . government at all levels should practice vigorous outreach for all people that need a helping hand to overcome difficult socioeconomic circumstances. When I do science enrichment at my wife's school I mandate affirmative action b/c without such an intervention the school's demographic base would lead to few if any white kids having an exceptional opportunity. Am I denying some poor black kid an opportunity? Despite the troubling issues of males (in particular black males), I go out of my way to overrepresent girls and whites. Granted, I'm starting to question that strategy considering the poor performance of all males at the undergraduate level.
I read the entire post and wholeheartedly respect that you put much time and rational thought into your posts. To me, that line represented something I disagree with and I responded accordingly.

on a side note i've read articles in the past that suggest that boy's poor performace (starting in primary schools) might be due to teacher's paying too much attention to girls in apparent "overcorrections" of past wrongs.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,824
0
76
Originally posted by: Lucky
Whereas the actual wording only says "Otherwise lawful classification of medical research subjects and patients shall be exempt from this section."

Which is exactly what I said in my post.
Yep, and it looks like it could be fairly threatening to medical research. Even Connerly admits he worded it badly.


So it affects Civil Rights Enforcement as claimed but you're counting on an exemption and possible later 2/3 vote to fix the problem?

Did you notice the quotes used as sarcasm?


RPI and California?s civil rights laws

PARAGRAPH (e): ?The Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) shall be exempt from this section with respect to DFEH-conducted classifications in place as of March 5, 2002.?

California?s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) is the largest and oldest state-level civil rights enforcement agency in the country. With offices across the state, it investigates and prosecutes violations of California?s civil rights laws. While California?s ever-increasing multiraciality highlights how close we are to the goal line of equality, RPI recognizes that we aren?t there yet. Discrimination continues to occur in some circumstances, and perpetrators need to be held accountable. To make sure that California does not have to wait for legislative approval of the classifications DFEH may need, RPI exempts DFEH.

This exemption for DFEH does not, however, allow DFEH to ?impute a race, color, ethnicity or national origin to any individual.? [PARAGRAPH (e)(2)] That is, DFEH may not assign a person declining to classify himself or herself by race.

PARAGRAPH (e)(1): ?Unless specifically extended by the legislature, this exemption shall expire ten years after the effective date of this measure.?

Because RPI heralds the day when race will be an ancient relic, RPI sunsets DFEH?s exemption ten years from January 1, 2005, the day RPI takes effect [PARAGRAPH (l)]. Postponing the effective date of the measure gives the state ample time to review what classifications the federal government mandates and make appropriate changes to state forms in an orderly phase-out period so that taxpayers do not have to finance the overnight replacement of millions of questionnaires. Should California continue to require racial classifications as it enforces the state?s civil rights laws after the sunset date, RPI allows the legislature to extend the DFEH exemption.
[/quote]

Point?

So as I said they can discriminate at will with no need to keep any records that would enable anyone to track it.
No, you didnt say that and I proved you wrong when you said they are not allowed to keep data.
I said "Sounds like granting freedom to discriminate at will eh?" which is what they would be able to do.


RPI and law enforcement

PARAGRAPH (g): ?Nothing in this section shall prevent law enforcement officers, which carrying out their law enforcement duties, from describing particular persons in otherwise lawful ways?.?

The law enforcement exemption allows officers in the course of their duties to ?describe particular persons in otherwise lawful ways.? This clause recognizes the delicate balance the law enforcement community must strike between community and officer safety, and immoral and counterproductive racial profiling. In cases dealing with racial profiling, judges are at the very least finding the practice highly suspect and often unlawful. As paragraph (c) makes clear, RPI would explicitly prohibit racial profiling for the first time in the state constitution. At the same time, preventing officers from using all lawful descriptive terms (as opposed to illegal profiling) would increase the risk to officers and the public.

? Otherwise lawful ways? refers to the Supreme Court guidelines identifying when law enforcement officers may consider race or ethnicity. The Supreme Court has ruled that the 4th Amendment prevents law enforcement personnel from relying solely on racial or ethnic appearance in deciding whether to stop a motorist or frisk a suspect. Rather, it requires them to be able to explain the particular factors that, in light of the total circumstances and their experience, led them to suspect that the person in question has committed, or is about to commit a crime.

PARAGRAPH (g), continued: ??Neither the governor, the legislature nor any statewide agency shall require law enforcement officers to maintain records that track individuals on the basis of said classifications, nor shall the governor, the legislature or any statewide agency withhold funding to law enforcement agencies on the basis of the failure to maintain such records.?

Recognizing that, like discrimination, racial profiling still exists in some circumstances, RPI supports current efforts to identify and root out this illegal practice. We are not convinced, however, that racial data collection is a panacea. Agencies such as the California Highway Patrol and police departments in Sacramento, San Francisco and San Jose have voluntarily adopted data collection programs, but the results (based on something as unscientific as ?race? or ?perceived race?) have triggered wide-ranging disagreement on whether a problem exists all, to what extent it exists and, if so, how to address it. With not less but more racial obsession, police departments and communities such as Cleveland and Seattle have been torn apart by the phenomenon of ?de-policing? as a reflexive reaction by officers to avoid being accused of racism. In short, data collection may have, at best, a placebo effect on our desire for the problem to be solved; at worst, it is forcing officers to withdraw from some of our most crime-ridden neighborhoods most in need of protective and preventative services. In the process, entire departments and professions are being attacked, yet the few rotten apples in the barrel are not being held individually accountable for wrongdoing. Because the value of data collection is dubious and the cost potentially enormous, RPI prohibits state-mandated data collection in the context of law enforcement but does not foreclose the possibility should local agencies want to bear the costs and risks of this experimental reaction.

PARAGRAPH (h): ?Otherwise lawful assignment of prisoners and undercover law enforcement officers shall be exempt from this section.?

Paragraph (h) is similar to paragraph (g), in that it allows law enforcement officers to consider race when assigning officers to undercover duty and in assigning prisoners. The prison riots of the last decade have often been fought along racial lines, with race-based gangs often requiring administrative segregation. To insure that law enforcement officers can prevent potential violence among prisoners, paragraph (h) allows them to consider race, provided they abide by existing legal constraints and court decisions in considering race. Similarly, paragraph (h) allows the law enforcement community to consider race when assigning officers to undercover duty, so long as they are following existing legal guidelines.
Thanks for the biased opnion piece but it's way off the mark.

Looks like you are dead wrong on every single count of your post.
HAH! What post would that be? :confused:
Looks like you're going for all of them.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY