by Lance T. Izumi, Fellow in California Studies
Pacific Research Institute
April 1997

Announcer lead: Time for Perspectives. Lance Izumi says that President Clinton is forcing states to choose ideology over the Constitution..

When the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of Proposition 209, the opponents of 209 acknowledged that the federal government was their last hope to preserve race and gender preferences. One anti-209 attorney observed that Prop. 209 must still be reconciled with federal affirmative action regulations. In other words, federal intervention was needed to keep the whole preference policy structure from collapsing.

So far, President Clinton has not disappointed preference partisans. In 1995, the UC Board of Regents voted to eliminate race and gender preferences in its admissions, employment and contracting policies. The regents' action was in response to U.S. Supreme Court cases such as the Adarand decision that effectively struck down most race preferences in government programs. In February, however, the U.S. Department of Labor began a review of UC for compliance with federal affirmative action guidelines regarding the employment of minorities and women. If such guidelines are not followed, the Department warns that it will initiate "enforcement procedures." The Clinton administration is evidently willing to enforce these regulations even if they result in the continuation of policies judged unconstitutional by the courts.

The Clinton administration is using similar strong-arm tactics in other states as well. Last year in Texas, a federal judge issued an injunction against a Houston transit authority affirmative action program that set aside 21 percent of contracts for minorities and women. The judge said that the program was almost certainly unconstitutional. Yet, in January the Clinton administration warned Houston authorities to continue race and gender preference programs or risk losing $52 million in federal transportation aid.

By using the awesome power of the federal government to continue unconstitutional preference policies, Mr. Clinton undermines the rule of law. Congress should therefore stir itself out of its current stupor and take a serious look at federal anti-preference legislation. Are you listening, Newt?

With a perspective, I'm Lance Izumi.