A Need for Civility in a Critical Public Debate : Let’s have reasoned argument, not unseemly invective

The so-called California Civil Rights Initiative, a proposed ban on affirmative action in state government and public universities, is expected to qualify soon for the November ballot. UC Regent Ward Connerly, a leader on this divisive issue, can take credit, with the help of state Republicans, for rejuvenating the campaign, which collected 1 million signatures in time to meet Wednesday’s deadline. It is now expected to be on the November ballot. As the battle heats up, Californians need to agree to disagree reasonably, and without lasting rancor.

The ballot measure would prohibit the consideration of race or gender in state government hiring and contract decisions, a standard affirmative action practice intended to level a public playing field that has traditionally excluded or shortchanged minorities and women. Even when the state’s goals were unchallenged, women and minorities--who make up the majority in this state--got only a small portion of state business.

Gov. Pete Wilson has already issued an executive order directing all state agencies to immediately disband their affirmative action committees, which oversaw how well the state was meeting its goal of awarding 15% of the money spent on state contracts to minority-owned businesses and 5% to women-owned businesses. Wilson also asked the state appellate court to strike down statutes that set up affirmative action programs. Minority entrepreneurs and women who own businesses already see the result: silent fax machines, unreturned phone calls and a precipitous drop in government business. And there are lessons to be learned from other areas. After Minneapolis dropped its affirmative action program, awards to minority contractors fell from 11.2% to 2%. What’s to prevent that from happening here if the goals that deter discrimination are removed?

A reasoned debate cannot tolerate the incendiary ad hominem attacks and childish name-calling that marred an exchange between Connerly and State Sen. Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles) in Sacramento on Tuesday. They engaged in a nasty shouting match during a hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Higher Education that was considering UC’s tradition of shared governance, weakened by the regents’ rollback of affirmative action.

Watson attacked Connerly for his lead role in the regents’ decision to end affirmative action on UC campuses. Connerly called Watson a lightweight and a bigot, charging that she had made past remarks about his wife, who is white. What does that have to do with the CCRI?

Watson also accused Connerly, a black businessman, of benefiting from the very affirmative action polices he fights so hard to deny to others. Though that is a more cogent point, both lost in their bitter exchange-- Watson the moral high ground, Connerly any lingering perception, if such there was, that he is above the political fray.

Unfortunately, this ballot measure cannot be divorced from presidential politics. Wilson gave it great prominence during his aborted run for the White House, and continues to support it. The close identification of the measure with state Republicans and the fact that some odd maneuvering by Democrats placed it on the November ballot also fuels the expectation that the ballot measure will affect the outcome of the presidential contest in California.

The passions brought to the arguments for and against the CCRI are a measure of the deep threat perceived by various groups. Those who think that the CCRI is necessary are under the misimpression that women and minorities are getting “too much” of the economic and educational pie in California. The facts say otherwise. And facts, not name-calling, are what make for the persuasive argument. It is in the best interest of the state to debate the California Civil Rights Initiative civilly.