TAKING ACTION: (From the left) Mel Hannah, Michael Wong, Wilbert Nelson and Essen Otu came together Tuesday night in the Memorial Union to talk about their view on Arizona Civil Rights Initiative, Prop 107. (Photo by Scott Stuk)

An enthusiastic crowd of students attended the August 31 Forum on Ballot Initiative 107, the so-called Connerly anti-equal opportunity ballot initiative named after Californian Ward Connerly who has made a career out of pushing his initiatives in key states across America.

“…Panelist Michael Wong, the vice president of policy for the Undergraduate Student Government, said if Proposition 107 were to pass, it would reinforce inequality at ASU… ‘This proposition is disingenuous if not completely false,’ Wong said. ‘If we’re a truly colorblind society, graduation rates should be parallel. That argument just doesn’t fly.’

…Essen Otu, the diversity and cultural competency director for the Mountain Park Health Center in Phoenix, said beyond education, the passing of this proposition could further devastate the economy.
‘It’ll put the financial stability of our state in a really bad place,’ Otu said. ‘People already don’t want to come to this state and the workforce is aging. How will we fill these positions?’

…Panelist Mel Hannah, the Chairman of Protect Arizona’s Freedom No on 107 campaign and former director of community outreach and job development for the Greater Phoenix Urban League, said that the ballot is being promoted deceptively. ‘The initiative labeling is very misleading,’ Hannah said. ‘It will not treat folks fairly; it will do the opposite.’

…Arizona State Conference NAACP President Wilbert Nelson said similar legislation in other states cut retention programs for underrepresented students, and those states are scrambling to reverse it.
‘California and Texas put in similar legislation,” Nelson said. “It dropped graduation rates, so they’re slowly re- implementing programs.’…”

http://www.statepress.com/2010/08/31/panel-denounces-anti-affirmative-action-initiative/

By Andrew Hedlund August 23, 2010 at 6:41 pm

Getting a college degree is more essential to success than ever before. Yet Arizona voters will see a proposition in November that questions if we should allow minorities access to programs designed to help them earn a diploma to help them succeed.

Proposition 107, also known as the “affirmative action proposition,” could end those programs, if passed.

However, the notion that affirmative action exists in Arizona is a misconception, according to Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix.

“What we do have are equal opportunity programs,” she said. “They are programs that allow people to succeed. Affirmative action is not legal in Arizona.”

Admitting a student of color to a university, with a greater consideration of ethnic background than academic qualifications, would be affirmative action. This is not allowed in Arizona.

“You get admitted [to universities] based on your merit,” Sinema said.

On August 18, 2010, UA Law Professor Barbara Atwood, a member of the PAF Steering Committee made a presentation to the Tucson Women’s Commission about the consequences of Proposition 107.

“… Many thanks to Professor Atwood for her time and a well researched analysis. Finding that it would have a debilitating effect on equal access to education and work for minorities and women, the Commission voted unanimously to express opposition to the proposition…”

January 14, 2010 – Posted by Tyler Lewis

Despite their rising LSAT scores and undergraduate grade point averages between 1993 and 2008, the number of African-American and Mexican-American students admitted to law schools for the same period decreased, according to a new study by Columbia University.

Paradoxically, the study also found that the size of law school classes and the number of law schools increased during the same period, which theoretically should have provided more opportunities for qualified African Americans and Mexican Americans to obtain a law degree.

African Americans and Mexican Americans applied to law schools at roughly the same rate for two decades. However, from 2003 to 2008, 61 percent of African-American applicants and 46 percent of Mexican-American applicants were denied admission, compared with 34 percent of White applicants.

The study suggests that following the 2003 Supreme Court ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger – which said that race can be used as one of many factors in university admissions – law schools have not redesigned their admissions policies to take the more holistic approach. Columbia University School of Law and the Society of American Law Teachers have created a web site with the findings of the study, as well as best practices law schools can use to create diversity-building admissions policies consistent with Grutter.

February 26, 2010 – Posted by Tyler Lewis

Civil rights advocates in Missouri have successfully kept a proposed ballot initiative that would have amended the state’s constitution to eliminate equal opportunity programs in higher education, employment, and contracting off the 2010 ballot.

Political operatives in Missouri affiliated with equal opportunity opponent Ward Connerly filed to withdraw the proposed initiative earlier this week rather than face an ACLU lawsuit challenging the language of the initiative.

“The state of Missouri has a constitutional obligation to ensure that no one is denied opportunity because of unfair and unjust discrimination,” said Stephen Douglas Bonney, legal director for the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri. “America is the land of equal opportunity and these proposed initiatives flew in the face of some of our most cherished ideals.”

Missouri has been a focus of Ward Connerly and his allies, who have been attempting to qualify similar initiatives all over the country for more than a decade. However, this is the second time in the last two elections that they have failed to qualify their anti-equal opportunity initiative for the ballot in Missouri.

In 2008, Missouri was one of five states in which Connerly and equal opportunity opponents introduced ballot initiatives. However, these efforts were unsuccessful in Missouri, Arizona and Oklahoma, due largely to well-coordinated campaigns by local civil rights advocates that successful exposed inconsistencies in the content of the initiative, as well as fraudulent behavior, which prevented Connerly’s allies from gathering enough local support.

In the other two states, Colorado and Nebraska, the initiatives made it onto the ballot. Nebraska, became the fourth state, with California, Washington and Michigan, to pass an anti-equal opportunity ballot initiative.

In Colorado, voters rejected the initiative – the first time voters in any state have rejected a Connerly anti-equal opportunity initiative.

March 12, 2010 – Posted by Tyler Lewis

Last night, the Utah House of Representatives adjourned for the year without voting on HJR 24, a resolution to place an anti-equal opportunity measure on the state’s 2010 ballot.

The resolution, introduced in February, called for a state constitutional amendment banning equal opportunity initiatives in state public higher education, employment, and contracting.

Equal opportunity initiatives ensure equal access to educational and professional opportunities for qualified minorities, women, and members of other underrepresented communities. Equal opportunity opponent Ward Connerly, a California businessman and millionaire, has sought to enact similar bans on equal opportunity through state ballot referendums all over the country for more than a decade.

The loss in Utah is the second defeat that Connerly and his allies have been dealt by equal opportunity supporters in recent weeks. In Missouri, Connerly allies filed to withdraw their proposed measure from the ballot rather than face an ACLU lawsuit challenging its language.

To date, Connerly-sponsored measures have passed in California, Washington, Michigan, and, most recently, in Nebraska. Nebraska was one of five states Connerly targeted in 2008. Local and national equal opportunity supporters were successful in exposing his deceptive practices and tactics, which kept his measure off the ballot in three states: Arizona, Missouri, and Oklahoma. Voters in the fifth state, Colorado, became the first to reject a Connerly anti-equal opportunity measure.

Welcome to Protect Arizona’s Freedom. Please feel free to browse around as there is a fair amount information posted about ensuring equal access to opportunity in Arizona.