TITLE

Racial privacy initiative ignites upset;

Connerly plan would limit agencies' collection of data

Tanya Schevitz, Chronicle Staff Writer

March 15, 2002

University faculty and public policy researchers are up in arms over a proposed initiative that would bar most public agencies from collecting individual racial and ethnic information.

The Racial Privacy Initiative is the latest project of University of California Regent Ward Connerly, chairman of the American Civil Rights Coalition and the architect of Proposition 209, which banned the use of racial preferences in California hiring and university admissions in 1996.

Opponents said the proposed initiative would deprive them of data they rely on for research. And if it is implemented, they said, it would become impossible to evaluate the effectiveness of policies intended to eliminate discrimination against any group. "Then the policy has to go away, no matter how effective it is," because it can't be proved that it's making a difference, said economist Roger Noll, director of Stanford's Public Policy program.

But Connerly, who hopes to gather enough signatures to put the initiative on the November ballot, argues that putting people into racial boxes is divisive.

"The very act of classifying people divides us. It gives us the mind-set that we are somehow different. The government doesn't need to be meddling in that stuff," he said. Lines between races are blurring, he said, noting that the 2000 Census had 63 combinations of race, more than ever before.

Critics said the initiative could be devastating to social science and public policy research, which relies on racial data for study of such issues as racial profiling in traffic stops or whether minority students are being disproportionately assigned to special education. It may also prevent faculty from getting federal research contracts or grants, because proposals must often include information on ethnicity and race.

"It is going to make it difficult for us as an institution," said Chand Viswanathan, chairman of the UC systemwide faculty Academic Council. "(Faculty) need the demographic background, the race and ethnic background, to draw the conclusions they are driving at. They will not be able to carry out research."

POLITICAL SPILLOVER

The issue has spilled over into UC politics as well. UC Regent John Moores, who was voted in as chairman of the Board of Regents yesterday, was reprimanded by Gov. Gray Davis for holding a $10,000 fund-raising event for the initiative at his home in January.

Some insiders believe that Davis, who appointed Moores to the board in 1999, fears that if the initiative qualifies it will draw hard-line Republicans to the polls in November who will then also vote against him.

Davis declined to comment for this story. Moores, who has said that now that he is chairman of the regents he will not take a position on ballot issues, could not be reached yesterday.

Another regent, Peter Preuss, contributed $10,000 to the initiative.

The proposal is seen by opponents as the latest in a series of attacks on UC admissions.

UC adopted a new admissions policy in November that allows campuses to judge undergraduate applicants not only on academics but also on their socioeconomic status and the adversity they had to overcome. Connerly and his allies feared that it would become a way to give extra weight to minority candidates.

Kevin Nguyen, executive director of the American Civil Rights Coalition, said that the new initiative would no longer allow the university to ask about their race, ensuring there is no "hanky panky" in the admissions process.

"We acknowledge that this is a way to drive a nail into the coffin of race-based preferences and affirmative action," he said.

UC and some state and local agencies will still have to report racial information under federal requirements, Nguyen said, but the initiative would bar the collection of race on admissions or job applications and in contracting if federal money is not involved.

The initiative exempts the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which investigates discrimination complaints, as well as medical research subjects and patients.

CHP PROGRAM WOULD END

It would end a program under which the California Highway Patrol, at Davis' direction, collects traffic-stop data to see if there is a pattern of racial profiling. However, any police agency would retain the right to collect such data as long as it is not mandated by the state.

Claudia Mitchell-Kernan, vice chancellor for graduate studies at UCLA, said many of the variables that researchers are interested in are affected by background, race and ethnicity. She is currently studying marriage issues, such as dating and birthrates, which vary by race. If the initiative passes, she would not be able to interview her subjects about their racial and ethnic backgrounds because as an arm of the state, UC would be covered under the initiative.

"It would make many of our findings uninterpretable," she said. "If you want to plan for certain city services, such as education and medical services, you need that data."

Connerly called the critics' concerns "baloney" and said that researchers would be able to get what they need from the census.

Hugh Price, president of the National Urban League, said it is naive to think that not collecting racial data about certain kinds of issues will make them go away. Much of the data needed for public policy, is not available federally or through the census, he said.

UC San Diego professor Hal Pashler said essential data collection efforts can still continue, under federal mandates.

"Most people find the idea of government asking people their religious (affiliation) slightly obscene," he said. "RPI says that Californians find government asking about race and ethnicity obscene, too."

Initiative backers have until April 17 to file just over 670,000 valid signatures and expect to collect enough to qualify for the ballot. If passed, it would go into effect Jan. 1, 2005.