What is the Problem with Affirmative Action: Chávez and Crosby Attempt an Answer?

Having benefited from affirmative action, Lydia Chávez admits her interest in the policy began with a personal reflection upon her own educational background.

Chávez is a Latin American woman who went to the University of California at Berkley.It is one of the universities affected by California’s affirmative action controversy. Her years as a journalist and her interest in the topic led to the publication of The Color Bind: California’s Battle to End Affirmative Action, a neutral look at the controversy of affirmative action.Chávez is worried about the touchy subject affirmative action, in the mid-1990s and proposes an explanation. The policy, concerned with racial issues, became political at a time of high racial tension in California (Chávez, 1998). To that end, Chávez sets out to illustrate how that growing racial tension in California led to the California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI).

The initiative, spearheaded by two white “bay area academics”, wishing to put the measure on the state ballot as Proposition 209, would end affirmative action in California (Chávez, 1998).The academics developed CCRI out of fear that reverse discrimination was often the end result of the University of California’s admission and employment policies (Chávez, 1998). As evidence that many Californians might hold this same fear, Chávez (1998) talks about the events that led up to Proposition 187, two years before (pg. 34-38).Californians had voted in favor of 187, which eliminated state funding for education and medical care of illegal aliens and their families (xi). Chavez thinks that many critics of affirmative action, supporters of 187, would probably show equal support for Proposition 209 (Chávez1998).

Chavez (1998) was also concerned that about the big picture.outthe inks that al issuesher own  California’s decision on 209 could affect the nation (pg. xiii-xvi). As a state that often leads the nation in trends and policy, California’s drive to end affirmative action could predict a similar drive on the national level (Chávez, 1998).

Chávez (1998) and others proved correct in this concern as the 1996 presidential election got under way and California with its huge electoral vote and affirmative action controversy became national news (pg. 110).Throughout the book, Chávez returns to the reason for CCRI and Proposition 209. Some assert it is the work of “angry white males.” However, Chávez points out that the issue is more complicated and that such statements are particularly vulnerable when one points out that Ward Connerly is one of 209’s most prominent spokesmen.

Connerly, a successful black businessman, often used his rags-to-riches story to prove that affirmative action is unnecessary. He declares that hard work not special opportunities were responsible for his fortune (Chávez, 1998).But Chávez cautions her readers on trusting Connerly. He enjoyed a middle class upbringing and benefited from federal contracts set aside for minorities, i.e. Connerly came across as a hypocrite in his public dislike of preferential treatment.

More important, Chávez insists, Connerly likely saw the political potential or Proposition 209. His friend, Pete Wilson, Governor of California, hoped to be the Republican presidential pick in the 1996 elections (­­­Chávez, 1998).Wilson had capitalized on Proposition 187 to win the Governor’s office in 1994 (Chávez, 1998) and while Connerly successfully drew Republicans behind CCRI and as a result Proposition 209, Wilson hoped to achieve the oval office as its most passionate public champion (Chávez, 1998).In her bid for fairness, Chavez was equally concerned with talking about the efforts of those that opposed Proposition 209.

So, she focuses on the efforts of various women and minority interest groups that tried to warn Californians why they should vote against Proposition 209.When groups like NOW and the NAACP failed to keep 209 off the ballot, they then tried to get Californians to vote in opposition to 209 (Chávez, 1998). According to groups Chávez (1998) interviewed, they were not successful because they united too late and lacked funding (pg. 43, 90-91,159, 238).Equally important, the groups could not get popular Democratic support on an issue that was actually very liberal (Chávez 1998). In fact, Chávez (1998) points out, Republican support for anti-affirmative action groups; in California, definitely outweighed Democratic support for pro-affirmative action groups to the tune of nearly $3.

6 million with $1 million from the state Republican Party (Chávez ,1998).Having followed the controversy of Proposition 209 and the unsuccessful efforts of CCRI and the Republican Party to make it a wedge issue outside California, Chávez concludes the book using the above to outline her concern for both the Californian and American constitution.Her close look at 209’s formation and completion in California illustrates the vulnerability of America’s legislative process (Chávez, 1998). Wealthy self-interest groups unfairly took advantage of the initiative process (putting something on the ballot for consideration) resulting in a manipulation of the process by politicians to the end that the rights of vulnerable minorities were trampled upon and the long term interests of the majority disregarded (Chavez, 1998).As further proof, Chavez points out that the language of Proposition 209 presented problems. It was worded in such a way that anti-Proposition 209 activists often told her in interview that their largest battle lay in convincing voters of the results of voting yes to 209 (Chávez, 1998).

Instead of granting equal opportunity for both whites and minorities, 209 would end any legal ways to ensure equality (Chávez, 1998).In conclusion, Chávez’s book is about the warning with which she ends, the initiative process is vulnerable. Making a new law or changing the state constitution is too important to permit the scheming use of purposely confusing language, especially to serve narrow interests (Chávez, 1998).Her audience could even assume that she is in favor of affirmative action as she points out that in 1997 there was a 30% and 80% drop in Latino and Black enrollment, respectively, at California’s prestigious Boalt Hall School of Law.With minority enrollment dropping in just three years Chavez warns that all those claiming a fight against discrimination, reverse or otherwise, would soon have a chance to prove whether discrimination was ever the issue.