BetterDonkey.org

Skip to content

Hey Tim-Tim! Your White Hood is Showing!

Submitted by amy on February 4, 2006 - 11:33pm.

Way back in 1998, Tim Eyman launched I-200, an initiative to end affirmative action policies anywhere that state tax dollars came to rest. This was a direct copycat of California's Prop. 209, a white middle class "fuck you" to California's immigrant population. Washington's voters, experiencing what I've got to hope was some kind of psychotic break, passed I-200, which amended the civil rights legislation we've been hearing so much about lately.

Lucky for Washington, our tax dollars go to some pretty smart people. Seattle Schools kept its racial tiebreakers until a lawsuit knocked them down in 2002; UW continued collecing demographic info and would offer scholarships to minority kids it admitted; Sound Transit kept following Federal guidelines on getting bids from women & minority contractors first.

Well. Seems that little Tim-Tim is wetting his white robe over this one. Not content just to be famously and profitably anti-gay, he's going after minorities, again. Eyman slipped I-914 under the radar a month ago, and it's yet another direct hit on affirmative action... and the City of Seattle.

This one is a real beauty. First off, he has the balls to call this thing the "Civil Rights Act." Then, he starts it off with a criminally misleading paragraph about how "Discrimination is wrong," complete with a quote from JFK. What does he think we are, dumb?

But that's just a little warm-up. The real kicker is this: Eyman specifically cites UW, Seattle Schools, the City of Seattle, Sound Transit, and-- oddly enough-- the Seattle Monorail. As in,

Any government, including but not limited to higher education institutions such as the University of Washington, shall not use race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin as a factor in its policies, including, but not limited to, its admission policy. Any public college or university that uses, in whole or in part, a holistic system in its admission policy shall be prohibited from collecting any information from the applicant that provides, directly or indirectly, their race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. Such information may be obtained after the applicant is admitted, not before. Such discriminatory policies are in direct violation of the intent, policies, and purposes of this act.

Are you fucking kidding me?? Are you fucking kidding me??? A'ight y'all, in unison: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY. Allowing centuries of institutionalized racism to determine government policy? That's discriminatory. Specifically singling out Seattle in a statewide initiative? That's discriminatory.

Giving deserving minorities a level playing field? That, my friends, is the government doing its job.

Posted in Civil Rights | Initiatives | Reforming the System (WA State) | amy's blog
The best role for

The best role for affirmative action is to identify individuals (not groups) who are lacking behind and provide appropriate services so they become competitive., whether it is in education or business.
Using affirmative action to advance less qualified, low achievers in one group over more qualified, higher achievers in another is discriminatory.

Submitted by zorkpolitics (not verified) on February 5, 2006 - 9:58am.
PDC

when/how can we get PDC information for Eyman's new's initiatives?

Submitted by grant on February 6, 2006 - 11:32am.
I understand what you mean...

But the difficulty is that those are basically the same idea except that you make the distinction between individuals and groups. It seems to me that the whole point is to help out individuals who are lagging behind *because* they belong to a certain group - be it race or gender. And if you are talking about something like university admissions - well that really falls into both cases, you are providing "appropriate services" to the individuals who are lagging behind, but you are also "advancing" less qualified people (lower GPA or whatever) over more qualified people by denying admission to those "more qualified" people. So is this good or bad?

Submitted by annemariem on February 6, 2006 - 1:12pm.
Diversity is a compelling interest of the State.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Diversity is a compelling interest of the State. It ruled that race could be considered as one factor in admissions. Academics will always be key to gaining admission into universities. However, shouldn't life experience be considered equally as participation in high school sports or the band? For example, the school of dentistry at the University of Washington has a merit based admissions program - and not surprisingly, there are no underrepresented minorities in the entire school of dentistry.

The problem is not limited to higher education. We should start with pregnant minority parents. We should tell them that their children will face challenges everyday and at every grade throughout their educational path. Washington State has a compelling interest to fund education at the K-12 levels. Why should these kids not be helped when they enter college. Opponents of affirmative action think the playing field is level. They claim that if there are two students completely equal, one white and one black, why should the black student be admitted and not the white student. But Blacks are not equal. People of color are not equal. Racism is quiet. During the sixties, people would block the doors of education and threaten violence to prevent people of color not to come to school. Now people just whisper to them everyday that they are not equal.

Submitted by Nick (not verified) on February 7, 2006 - 10:37am.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.