20th Annual Bill of Rights
Art and Essay Contest, 2003-2004

TOPIC:  Should the government stop collecting and using information on race, color, ethnicity, or national origin?

First Prize, High School

by a Pacific High School 12th-Grade Student

"Taking Active Steps Toward the Color-Blind Ideal"

The governments at the state and federal levels gather and use information on race, ethnicity, color or national origin in carrying out their public functions.  There is discussion today whether such practices should be continued.  It is a topic that has invoked much misunderstanding and voicing of opinions on both sides.  At the root of the problem, the issue is whether information on race can be collected and whether that information can be used by the government.  The public has taken a stance that the government should continue to collect information on race, and it is the right one.  The government cannot pretend that the society today is a color-blind society already.  Information that points to the racial inequalities that exist today should be collected, so that they may be redressed in pursuit of reaching the ultimate goal of racial equality.

Information has always been the key to change in American society.  The muckrakers of the Progressive Era were known for their exposés, which, apart from being shocking and disturbing to the public, were remarkably well supported by factual evidence and statistics.  Their works paved the way for many changes, in terms of working conditions and consumer protection.  The key to the success of the muckrakers was due to their painstaking gathering of facts and to the presentation of that information to the masses.  The importance of information, both the gathering of data and the presentation of facts, has only increased over the years.  Before taking action on major issues today, government officials usually have to take into account the various numbers and statistics related to the subject at hand.  Whatever the action may be, effective legislation cannot be carried out if legislators do not have the proper background information.

There is a movement in California today to stop the collection and the use of information on race, color, or national origin.  The argument goes that the collection of such information hampers the realization of an ideal color-blind society.  If society is to be truly color-blind, the government should deal with everyone as individuals, not by relatively meaningless labels such as race.  This spirit is reflected in the Racial Privacy Initiative, or Proposition 54, which states, "The state shall not classify any individual by race, ethnicity, color or national origin in the operation of public education, public contracting or public employment." It is noteworthy pointing out that the initiative does provide for collection of information for medical purposes.

Proposition 54 provides that all races should be treated equally and none should be discriminated against or favored, and to achieve that ideal, the outdated system of classifying people by race should be stopped.  In a way, California has gone a long way toward that goal.  By the state Constitution, the state government cannot discriminate against or give preferential treatment to anyone based on race.  Supporters of Proposition 54 point out that under the current system, the government has no reason to collect information on race.  As the name Racial Privacy Initiative suggests, the point of Proposition 54 is to make race a private matter, like religion.  As the most racially diverse state, California should treat everyone equally.

In spirit, it is difficult to find any point of contention in the text of the Racial Privacy Initiative.  Indeed, a government today has the responsibility to treat its citizens equally, regardless of race.  There are certainly areas in which such information is required, such as for medical purposes, which the initiative allows, at least to some extent.  In addition, upon agreement by two-thirds in both houses of the legislature and subsequent approval by the governor, racial information may be gathered for specific purposes.  The proposition, therefore, does not outlaw collection of any racial data, as some have construed it.  It could conceivably be seen as a first step toward achieving a color-blind society in California, and eventually in the United States.

Despite all of the positive points that the proposition seems to carry, however, it contains a fatal flaw.  Although such action should be carried out some day if a color-blind society is ever to be achieved, that color-blind society is not within sight today.  There is a crucial difference between race and religion.  Catholics are not more likely to succeed than Hindus based wholly on religion.  If such differences exist, it is due to factors that are not intimately related to religion but rather to differences in the composition of people in the several religions.  Indeed, people are often free to choose their own religion; it is a choice among several different beliefs and lifestyles.  Where such freedom of choice exists, neither success nor religion has on impact on one another.

However, race is much more of a complex issue, intimately tied to many other traits inherently tied to success in life.  Certain characteristics of the different races cannot be explained in a more satisfactory manner that by differences in race.  For example, African Americans face much more discrimination and prevailing prejudices today.  They would not face such discrimination were their skin color lighter.  Raised in poor environments with inferior school districts in the inner cities, African Americans are generally much more poorly educated than whites.  In order to achieve comparable success in life, African Americans have to work much more diligently than whites in current society.  Even where open discrimination does not exist, African Americans have to fight through the prevailing notion that they are inferior in intelligence or ability than the whites.  In addition, when they do succeed, they have to face the envy of others who prefer to attribute the success of their African Americans to their race and affirmative action rather than their ability and achievements.  Indeed, it is a cruel world for them, and even upper class African Americans lead lives that are far from the experiences that whites experience.  The society cannot ignore this problem of racial inequality, which affects not only African Americans but also Native Americans, Asian American, and Hispanics, each in their own way.

Collecting information on race, color, or national origin by the state and local governments is necessary to address the issue of racial inequality that exists today.  Making the government color-blind only makes it blind to the problems of race.  If such problems disappear as a result of stopping the collection of racial information, it is only because the government chooses to ignore the problem.  There is no real point to civil rights legislation, if no method exists to make sure such legislation is being carried our properly.  If law enforcement officers are starting to treat African Americans more harshly than whites who committed similar offenses, or if people of Arabic origin are increasingly becoming victims of racially motivated crimes, then under Proposition 54, the government would not be able to deal with such problems.  Thus, Racial Privacy Initiative, by hampering the government's ability to identify racial problems, is a bigger obstacle to achieving a color-blind society than collection of information is.

The arguments point to one question.  Should the government value racial privacy for the sake of keeping the appearance or a color-blind society by ignoring the appearance of gross racial problems in real-life, or should it address the problems that prevent the achievement of a truly color-blind ideal? Currently, under California law, no information on race, color, ethnicity, or national origin can be used to give preferential treatment or discriminate against individuals based on race.  However, the information is used in many valuable ways, to detect discrimination in the job market and schools, to ensure diversity in those areas, to identify and prevent racial profiling and hate crimes, and to help health officials with disease prevention programs.  Although some of these areas are included as exceptions in the text of the Racial Privacy Initiative, professionals in the areas, including educators, health officials, and law enforcement officers have spoken out against the initiative.  Any cession of the flow of possibly useful information on race is highly undesirable at this point, when America has already come so far in terms of civil rights.

In the special election of 2003, the voters of California voted strongly against the Racial Privacy Initiative, recognizing that racial problems exist today and that collection of information about race should continue.  It is not an acknowledgment that a color-blind is not within reach today, but rather an awakening to the reality that stopping the gathering of information on race and ethnicity at this point is more likely to hold back the tide of progress in racial issues than to help California achieve the goal of racial equality.  Achieving the color-blind ideal was very much the goal of the voters who voted against the Racial Privacy Initiative.  Indeed, the people recognized that society has not achieved that goal and that, with the support of the people, the government should take active measures to get there.