Last week, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of California’s controversial Proposition 209.

The measure, called the California Civil Rights Initiative, was passed by California voters in last year’s election. It was intended to eliminate racial preferencing in higher education and in the granting of state contracts. Since then, the law has been in a state of limbo as many groups have appealed the constitutionality of the law and won an injunction against enforcement of the law.

In August, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld the initiative and did not continue the injunction. Now the Supreme Court has in effect stated that Prop 209 is constitutional.

Opponents of the ban continue their protests, while supporters feel they have achieved a great victory.

Does the existence of Prop 209 turn back the clock for minorities in America or does it mean that all people will truly be equal?

Clearly the latter is true. Affirmative action’s purpose was to end racism and was started with good intent. The law was meant to level the playing field for those who have been slighted in the past.

Unfortunately, as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Affirmative action, for all its benefits, still excludes people on the basis of race.

We cannot expect to have equal rights when people are still excluded because of skin color. Whites and Asians (excluded in the old affirmative action laws of California) can be discriminated against just as much as blacks or Hispanics.

Yes, there are still major racial problems in this country. This is evident in the recent lawsuit against Texaco, where it appears a system of racism has existed for many years. True prejudice must be fought at all levels.

However, there are many more avenues for those who have been discriminated against than there were when President Johnson started affirmative action back in the 1960s.

Those who are victims of racism can file complaints with the Justice Department, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or resort to the civil court system. The existence of Prop 209 does not mean the end of those organizations or avenues.

As far as black and Hispanic contractors are concerned, they should not be affected by Prop 209. They exist in the free market system, so those companies that offer the best value for the state’s money will be awarded contracts, regardless of race.

Since Prop 209 was passed, black and Hispanic enrollment in California colleges has declined. However, this does not mean that they were victims of de jure (law-based) racism.

Those students who benefited from affirmative action came from California’s inner cities, like Oakland, South Central and Eastern Los Angeles. These are places where high school students suffer more from poor schools and poor teachers than they do from racism.

These poorly run and poorly financed schools do not adequately prepare students for a college education. Should we exclude those who are adequately prepared simply because of economic limitations placed upon inner city students? No.

It is important to eliminate de jure racism at all levels. The law cannot do anything about de facto (pre-existing) racism, however, because documents like the Constitution do not mention anything about equality of income or the dissociative nature of racially homogeneous neighborhoods.

What we need to do is improve these inner-city areas. The schools are a good place to start. The administrators need to emphasize basics like science, math and phonics, not ebonics and new math. The governments should spend their money more wisely and ask for help from businesses when improving these schools.

Giving low-income students private-school vouchers truly would give them a chance at equal opportunity in education as well.

They could have the same chances as other students to attend private schools. As you can see, there are ways we can improve minority attendance at colleges and universities without abridging other people’s rights.

Prop 209 is now the law of the state of California. Those who continue to oppose it are breaking the law, like San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. He mentioned after the Supreme Court ruling he will continue to oppose Prop 209.

His comments sound hauntingly familiar to those of a certain governor from Alabama in the 1960s who said he would “… stand in the schoolhouse door …” to keep blacks out of white schools. Mayor Brown should be looking at ways to improve his schools and not acting like a black George Wallace.

America is truly a land of opportunity. We need our laws to mirror that and not make excuses for our population, which is what affirmative action did.

Let’s spend our energies on fighting racism and prejudice, not on punishing or excluding those in the majority for wrongs committed by other people.

---

Robert Zeis is a senior in finance from Des Moines.