Letter: ‘Referendum 88 claims to help minorities without preferences or quotas. False’

‘Referendum 88 effectively nullifies I-200 and allows preferences, discrimination, and quotas’

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the author alone and do not reflect the editorial position of ClarkCountyToday.com.

Referendum 88 claims to help minorities without preferences or quotas. False.

John Aberti
John Aberti

That is what Initiative 200 has been doing for 20 years. Outreach, education and any other measures to increase opportunity for minorities without discrimination are permitted (and extensively practiced) under I-200.

Referendum 88 effectively nullifies I-200 and allows preferences, discrimination, and quotas by an Orwellian change to the commonly understood definition “preferences” and renaming of de-facto quotas.

Please read R-88 carefully; it is as intentionally misleading as it is racist.

The Ballot Title dishonestly says “… affirmative action, without quotas or preferential treatment (as defined”, but:

Section 3.11(d) defines “preferential treatment” as “using race, [etc.], as the sole qualifying factor to select a lesser qualified candidate …”

Thus, absurdly, decisions based 99 percent on race would be perfectly legal, no matter how unjust.

Example: “Contractors wanted; license required, Whitey (or Jews, Asians, Blacks, Irish, or anyone currently out of favor) need not apply.”

3.11(c) permits de-facto quotas if they are called “goals,” “timetables,” or “diversity.”

If you are excluded because of discrimination in pursuit of a “goal,” or “diversity,” it is exactly the same as being excluded because of discrimination in pursuit of a “quota.”

Section 5 creates a massive unelected, unaccountable “Commission on Diversity Equity and Inclusion” responsible for monitoring, and enforcing de-facto quotas with no meaningful checks or balances.

The central premise of R-88 is that government must inflict discrimination on innocent citizens whenever it suspects that someone else of a “protected” demographic has been discriminated against.

This may (or may not) reduce some arbitrary statistical “disparity” on some quota sheet, but it does not prevent discrimination (It is discrimination.). Neither does it help individuals who actually were discriminated against.

It only inflicts harm and injustice on innocent people and perpetuates racial animosity.

Reject R-88.

John Aberti
Vancouver

Advertisement

About The Author

Related posts