\doc\web\98\07\quota.txt ACRI educational ad on I-200 (courtesty of ACRI) 9/24/98 The Supreme Court has made clear that some quotas are not prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Paradise, 480 U.S. 149 (1987), for instance, upheld "a 50% promotional quota in the upper ranks" of the Alabama Department of Public Safety. ********** ACRI. :60 RADIO: FLAG Children in classroom: I pledge allegiance to the flag. Little Girl: Does it matter what color someone is? Children: With liberty and justice for all. Little Girl: Should it matter? Woman: Voting yes on I-200 would prohibit the State of Washington from giving someone a job, a place in a school or a government contract based on the color of that person's skin. Man: Voting no means the State of Washington could continue to give someone a job, a place in a school or a government contract based on the color of that person's skin. Woman: Today affirmative action itself can discriminate. Little Girl: What does I-200 say? Man: I-200 says our government cannot discriminate. Woman: In government jobs, schools or contracts. Man: Eye-200 says no preferences. Girl: What would Eye-200 mean? Man: I-200 means that affirmative action could reach out with opportunity. Woman: But not keep out with quotas. Man: We in the Evergreen State believe in equal opportunity. Woman: Understanding I-200. Little Girl: Bringing us together. Man: An educational message paid for by the nonpartisan American Civil Rights Institute. ----- BACKGROUND ON ACRI AD: FLAG Ad: "I pledge allegiance (to the flag)...Does it matter what color someone is? Should it matter? Voting YES on I-200 would prohibit the State of Washington from giving someone a job, a place in a school or a government contract based on the color of that person's skin. The operating clause of I-200, the Washington State Civil Rights Initiative reads, "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, 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." Ad: Voting NO means the State of Washington could continue to gie someone a job, a place in school, or a government contract based on the color of that person's skin. If I-200 is rejected by the voters, government programs which operate using racial, ethnic or gender preferences will remain unchanged. Ad: "Today affirmative action can discriminate." Affirmative action programs that give a preference on the basis of race, ethnicity or gender discriminate against one group to benefit another. Such preferences have been struck down by courts ("Consistency does recognize that any individual suffers an injury when he or she is disadvantaged by the government because of his or her race." Adarand, 115 S. Ct. at 2114.). After California voters passed Proposition 209 in 1996, which was upheld by federal courts, several counties revised their contracting programs which gave extra points to some businesses which qualified as minority- or women-owned. Ad: What does I-200 say? I-200 says our government cannot discriminate in government jobs, schools or contracts. I-200 says no preferences. The operating clause of I-200, the Washington State Civil Rights Initiative reads, "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, 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." Ad: What would I-200 mean? I-200 means that affirmative action could reach out with opportunity. The courts have ruled that affirmative action includes, but is not limited to, race-based programs. If racial preferences are eliminated, many affirmative action programs can continue. After eliminating racial preferences in its admission process, the University of California is aggressively reaching out to high school students in all areas of the state. In the admission process, the University is not just admitting students using only grades and test scores. In an report on outreach that was presented to the Regents last year, the UC Task Force on Outreach wrote that "the term 'disadvantage' or the phrase 'disadvantaged circumstances' is defined broadly to include not only economic forms of disadvantage such as low family income, but other forms of educational and social disadvantage as well, including but not limited to: * attending a school with a limited college preparatory curriculum; * being the first generation in one's family to attend college; * residence in a community with low college-going rates; * enrollment in a school with below-average SAT/ACT exam scores; * and/or belonging to a group with below-average UC eligibility and enrollment rates." UC admission officers are allowed to consider some or all of this "special criteria" in the admission process. Ad: But not keep out with quotas. Quotas-where the government says "10% of university students must be of this race"-are the most obvious sort of race discrimination. But it's also discrimination when the government says "people of one race will have 100 points added to their entrance test scores." "Goals" are likewise quotas in disguise: Goals are invitations to discriminate. Finally, the claim that quotas are already illegal is false: Some quotas have been struck down by courts, but others have been found to not be prohibited by existing law. The Supreme Court has made clear that some quotas are not prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Paradise, 480 U.S. 149 (1987), for instance, upheld "a 50% promotional quota in the upper ranks" of the Alabama Department of Public Safety. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a San Francisco Fire Department quota that mandated "the hiring of minorities and women in percentages equal to their representation in the labor market . . . and the promotion of minorities and women in percentages equal to their representation in the relevant labor market." Davis v. City and County of San Francisco, 890 F.2d 1438, 1447 (9th Cir. 1989). Likewise, Middleton v. City of Flint, 810 F. Supp. 874 (E.D.Mich. 1993), upheld "a 1:1 quota" in promotions. Aiken v. City ofMemphis, 37 F.3d 1155 (6th Cir. 1995), made clear that a "20% promotion `floor'" based on race was constitutional. Other courts have struck down particular quota plans, but made clear that some quotas were permissible. See, e.g., Quirin v. City of Pittsburgh, 801 F. Supp. 1486, 1491 (W.D. Penn. 1992); North State Law Enforcement Officers Ass'n v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Dep't, 862 F. Supp. 1445, 1457 (W.D.N.C. 1994); Associated General Contractors v. City of New Haven, 791 F. Supp. 941, 949 (D. Conn. 1992) (dictum); Mallory v. Harkness, 895 F. Supp. 1556 (S.D. Fla. 1995). In the words of Professor Girardeau Spann, a noted supporter of race preferences, "[T]he degree to which the Court will permit the use of racial quotas remains [an] unresolved issue." Girardeau Spann, Affirmative Action and Discrimination, 39 Howard L.J. 1, 321995). Ad: We in the Evergreen State believe in equal opportunity. Understanding I-200. Bringing us together. An educational message paid for by the nonpartisan American Civil Rights Institute. The American Civil Rights Institute in a non-profit, 501(c) 3 organization dedicated to educating Americans about issues relating to race and ethnicity. .