Editor:

I am writing in regard to your article about the walkout against Proposition 54 and the rhetoric of the “”No on 54″” campaign in general. Listening to the speeches at the rally and reading the literature handed out on Library Walk, it has become clear that opponents of this proposition are avoiding the real issues and instead, are lying directly to the students and citizens of California. They offer up the political red herring that Proposition 54 will somehow stop the collection of data crucial for the tracking of health and racism among the population. Anyone who has read this short piece of legislation can immediately spot the “”No on 54″” campaign¹s utter disregard for the truth. The document states that, “”The Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) shall be exemptŠ lawful classification of medical research subjects and patients shall be exempt”” from the ban on collecting race data. The medical exemption is quite general

and in case it truly needs any further tweaking or some vital program was overlooked, the proposition allows the state legislature to vote on and extend any exemptions. If there are any such technical legal problems regarding health services collecting racial data, as the anti-54 forces claim, then the legislature can surely iron them out before the law would even go into effect in 2005!

The real issue behind Proposition 54 is the ease with which the state government can initiate programs such as affirmative action in school admissions and the awarding of government contracts. If legal and technical reasons do not persuade you, then perhaps pure logic will. This initiative has been sponsored by UC Regent Ward Connerly, who has spent the last 10 years fighting against racial preferences in school admissions, notably chairing the Proposition 209 campaign eight years ago. What motivation would he, or any accomplished civic leader, have in preventing health institutions from collecting vital data that could stem the spread of disease? How could any politician think that a bill specifically aimed at blinding health officials would pass?

Whether one supports or opposes this initiative, it is imperative that the people of California have a chance to discuss the vital

issues that this proposition brings to the forefront. It is my opinion that the “”Stop 54″” campaign and its political allies have robbed us of the chance to keep this important conversation in focus and on topic, distracting and blinding people with irrational worst-case health scenarios and wild accusations of an “”information ban.”” This legislation is essentially a referendum on racial preferences and it should live or die based on that issue alone, for if Proposition 54 fails at the voting booth in this climate, it will not be a vindication of affirmative action or any policy of diversity, but rather a modern testament to V.I. Lenin who observed that “”a lie told often enough becomes the truth.””

‹ Eric J. Gorinstein

Revelle College senior