Discrimination exists in America in ways the purveyors of identity politics do not like to talk about. It is often disguised as the pursuit of diversity, showered with government support and doled out in the form of quotas and preferences. The upshot, however, is always the same: Americans are discriminated against on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, and other immutable characteristics.
Two decades ago, the state of Washington banned this sordid practice. Today, the state legislature and powerful interest groups are aggressively trying to turn back progress. Their attempt echoes high-profile efforts to reinstitute or defend discrimination elsewhere in America, including at elite universities such as Harvard and in states such as California.
Should the attackers of equal opportunity prevail in Washington state, it will have a cascading effect across the country.
In 1998, the voters of Washington passed the Washington Civil Rights Act, a ballot initiative that declared, “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.”
Perhaps it is the initiative’s utter clarity, linguistic and moral, that opponents could not tolerate. This past April, the Washington legislature passed a measure with the goal of repealing the Washington Civil Rights Act and allowing the state to once again consider race, sex, ethnicity, and other factors in determining candidates for public education, hiring, and contracting. In other words, this latest measure would once again legalize state-sponsored discrimination.
Outraged Washingtonians have forced the legislature’s anti-Washington Civil Rights Act onto this year’s ballot as Referendum 88. If voters approve the referendum, allowing the legislature’s action to stand, then Washington would once again be able to use different rules for different races, genders, and ethnicities when deciding who gets admitted to state colleges and universities, who gets hired for a public job, and who gets a government contract. Additionally, the governor would create a costly, unelected and unaccountable bureaucracy to impose the desired quotas and preferences.
Proponents argue that since the passage of the Washington Civil Rights Act, government contracts for minority- and female-owned businesses have dropped and state university admissions rates for black, Native American, and Hispanic students are not proportional to the respective percentages they make up in the overall state population.
But whenever the identity politics industry talks about proportionality, they end up pitting racial groups against each other. If some minorities are underrepresented, then other groups must be overrepresented. For instance, without the use of racial quotas and preferences, Asian Americans have achieved an admittance rate of 27.3% at the University of Washington, even though they make up only 8.11% in the overall state population. If the system allows race to be considered again, such “overrepresentation” will no doubt be corrected.
Voting by mail began last Friday and will continue until Election Day, Nov. 5, 2019. (Washington state does not have in-person voting.) In the next few weeks, voters have a chance to reject Referendum 88 and affirm our commitment to equality of opportunity.
Should they fail to do so, allowing this measure to become law, then proponents of quotas and preferences will be emboldened throughout the country. All other states where discrimination has been banned by ballot initiative or legislation will be under renewed assault. California, which in 1996 passed the California Civil Rights Initiative, a referendum after which the Washington Civil Rights Act was modeled, has seen repeated challenges by the purveyors of identity politics.
In 2010, 2011, and 2014, the California legislature tried to repeal portions of the California Civil Rights Initiative that banned quotas and preferences for race, ethnicity, and gender in public universities. The efforts failed, but that does not mean its proponents have given up. They persist in trying to force other Americans to worship at their altar of identity politics-induced injustice.
Meanwhile, institutions that engage in systematic racism will take heart if state-mandated discrimination returns to Washington. Earlier this month, a Massachusetts District Court judge ruled that Harvard University violated no law with its blatant and brazen racism against Asian American applicants. In that lawsuit, the plaintiffs’ research models show that an Asian American applicant with a 25% chance of admission would have a 35% chance if he were white, a 75% chance if he were Hispanic, and a 95% chance if he were African American.
This is grossly unfair and unjust, but it is exactly what happens when an institution uses race as “one factor among many” to determine who’s in and who’s out. Similar practices would prevail at public universities in Washington should proponents of quotas and preferences win at the ballot box this November.
We cannot allow that to happen. I am a first-generation immigrant who supports the Washington Civil Rights Act that voters passed two decades ago. This year, I am leading the campaign to reject Referendum 88 and keep the Washington Civil Rights Act as law, so that my state strides forward, and not stumble backward.
Americans outside of Washington have good reason to pay attention as well: Efforts to stomp on the principle of equal opportunity may be coming soon to a neighborhood near you.
Linda Yang is the campaign co-chairwoman of Let People Vote — Reject Referendum 88 in Washington.
