Arizona Bans Affirmative Action

Arizona Bans Affirmative Action

1690
10
SHARE

Arizona voters approved Proposition 107 during Tuesday’s election.  By approving Prop. 107, Arizona joins Michigan, Nebraska, Washington, and California in banning  “affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to or discriminate against any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.”

Arizona voters and legislators recently signaled to the nation their increasingly exclusionary sentiment toward people of color as they passed the bill which “orders immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there’s reason to suspect they’re in the United States illegally,” CNN reported.

It should come as no surprise then that Arizona moved to squash Affirmative Action programs.  The cause of the state’s recent moves on minorities could be the first signs of politics in anticipation of new Republican leadership in 2011. With Jan Brewer, who garnered approval from voters earlier this year after signing a tough immigration law, at the helm as Governor, and solid Republican Congressional representation, Arizona will likely become a stronghold for uber-conservative ideology.

Regardless of political motivations or its divisive electorate, Arizona seems to be gaining ground on the historical ideologies of Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama with repect to policies that impact minority communities.

10 COMMENTS

  1. Isn't sad that a state announces that it will brook NO discrimination based on race is castigated for no longer favoring minorities? Are you saying that the only way for all races to be treated equally are for the races you think that deserve it to be treated more equally? What a ridiculous philosophy!

  2. Another Rethuglican Teabagger putting in their two cents. Learn proper English grammar, then come back and post a comment….. And how can you treat someone "more equally"?? That doesn't even make any sense….. SMMFH

  3. hi i'm from arizona and i voted no on 107 , but then i voted no on all of the ballot propostions …. truth be told i had no idea that 107 passed until i got curious about it today … personally i think it's great … our economy is hit pretty hard down here , we can't afford to be giving out jobs to people based on skin color , things need to be completely fair for everyone ..

    also by the way , we're not a racist backward state , it's just we have too many illegal immgrants down here , that's why we passed SB 1070 … i'm a poor person so i live in the poor areas and they are litearly being transformed into mexico .. the rich people or anyone with any money just moves away from it , but people like myself are stuck in neighbor hoods where people don't even understand english , it's not fair to people like myself to have to bear the social brunt of illegal immgration .

  4. I am a totally independent Arizona voter. I voted for Republican, Green party, Libertarian and Democrat candidates all based on who the person was and how sound the plan offered was. I do not, and will never, vote on party lines because all parties and the politicians they run are greedy, dangerous, power-hungry megalomaniacs. I voted for 107 but I'm wholly opposed to SB 1070. Since the people of AZ didn't vote on SB 1070, it is wrong to say that even a simple majority agree with it. The law gives too much power to the police and removes law-abiding citizens’ right to seek employment as they see fit.
    As to 107, we can only be equal if we treat everyone as equals. We should help ALL Americans born into poverty equally, and not just some that happen also to be part of a favored group. Affirmative Action was the wrong approach from the very beginning. It has channeled countless resources away from our ever increasing lower class to a very few select groups that are no worse off than others in the same economic status. Additionally, it sends the message to the favored groups that they are naturally inferior to those that don’t receive preferential treatment. 90% of ALL Americans will die in the same economic status they were born into, regardless of race, creed, religion or sex. What makes one group of higher value than any other?

    • <DIV id=idc-comment-msg-div-108545562 class=idc-message><A class=idc-close title="Click to Close Message" href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(108545562)"><SPAN>Close Message</SPAN>
      Comment posted.
      <P class=idc-nomargin><A style="TEXT-DECORATION: none" class=idc-share-facebook onclick=IDC.ui.fb_wrapper(108545562) href="javascript: void(null)"><SPAN class=idc-share-inner><SPAN>Share on Facebook</SPAN></SPAN> or <A href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(108545562)">Close MessageWrong. Studies have shown that minority rural poverty is worse than white rural poverty reasons speculated to amount to historical biases when it comes to, for example, industry (jobs).

      Affirmative action is correct in that it seeks to minimize the punitive effects of racial discrimination and historical grievance perpetuated upon minorities. Not all American groups have equal histories, and thus to assume that they should be treated the same with regards to important public policy such as education is to be naive.

  5. affirmative action programs that dont discriminate based on sex, religion, race, etc. are still allowed though, so this doesnt need to be a big deal. the way affirmative action usually works is, they look for signs of discrimination–these are based on a juxtaposition of qualified applicants from one group vs hired/admitted peoples of that group; they look for disproportion that could indicate discrimination and then take action to redress that. that isnt discrimination based on race, sex, etc. so would not be hurt by the law.

    a lot of people have trouble understanding how this isnt based on race, etc., so i will give a real-world example.

    asians were aided by affirmative action in great numbers a few decades ago
    asians are no longer aided by affirmative action as much now

    race component = asians

    the race didnt change, so what did?

    the level of disparity afflicting asians is what changed.

    therefore, affirmative action is based on trends of disparity and not race.

    if affrimative action were based on race, asians would still be aided by it regardless of their hire/admissions numbers. but this isnt the case. knowing this, and still calling affirmative action racist, is an example of cognitive dissonance. dont live in denial, folks. aa can still fly despite this outcome in AZ. dont be fooled.

  6. I voted yes on 107. Now things will be based on merit. Asians getting a 200 point penalty on their SAT scores because the are Asian is crazy. If that's not racism, I don't know what is. Leave it to the fools in the gov to try and fight racism by building it into their own policies. Really?…. how stupid are these people and the people that support this trash?

  7. The fact of the matter is that America hasn't always had equal laws applied equally and if it did then perhaps we wouldn't be in this precarious situation. Because America has created for itself entrenched inequalities in some groups through discrimination and prejudice, it needs to seek to find ways to rehabilitate those it has harmed.

    Accepting that a bird in a cage since birth should be given the same expectations as one that has flown from day 1 is naive and stupid.

  8. James' logic is unintelligible. Affirmative action is based on race, since racial achievement is the factor when choosing people, not individual achievement. The purpose of these initiatives is to disallow the classification of applicants by race.

    Race-based affirmative action gives inappropriate value to race itself, as opposed to actual individual advantage/disadvantage. Rich blacks are in a far better position than immigrant Russians, or any poor whites. Yet, leftists want to give the rich blacks preference.

    People often claim that racial identity is a critical part of one's identity. But it should not be. Race in the American sociological sense is very different from richness of one's ancestral heritage. We should not encourage identity development based on the former (race in the American sociological sense). To value it in diversity judgments encourages this destructive development.

    Plus, there is a piece of irony I want to note specially. Preference lovers claim subconscious racism is a serious issue. Well, if university officials are fighting relentlessly to use preferences, then it seems awfully unlikely that they would subconsciously discriminate against blacks in any situation.

    It should be noted that minorities often have higher rates of teenage pregnancy and drug use. Those factors are the fault of individuals, not society. Therefore, a lower average income is to be expected and is not unjust. No intelligent, virtuous people should have to pay the price for that.

    It is also bizarre that Liberals want to extend affirmative action to other minorities besides blacks, who had no ancestors in the U.S. until very recently. That is so egregiously unfair to whites that no serious discussion is needed.

    Plus, plenty of whites did not have ancestors here at the time of slavery or even not until much more recently. They especially should not have to pay any price for non-achievement of minorities.

    People can call me "bigot" and "racist" or anything they want, but I stand by everything I wrote. I do not take seriously these terms or "hate" when Liberals use them.

    Good job to the people of Arizona.

LEAVE A REPLY