Is the California Civil Rights Initiative an extremist attack on civil rights — or the only way to banish unfair preferences governing state hiring, contracting and education?
An impassioned panel of experts were divided on that question Wednesday of last week, with proponents on both sides trying to capture undecided Jewish votes as the November elections approach.
Much of the organized Jewish community has come out against the initiative: Opponents include the S.F.-based Jewish Community Relations Council, which sponsored the debate along with San Francisco Congregation Sha’ar Zahav. But there are still Jews who steadfastly support CCRI.
“I hope you will view this fresh and anew tonight,” said Lawrence Siskind, an attorney and former Justice Department appointee in the Reagan and Bush administrations, addressing some 50 people at Congregation Emanu-El in San Francisco.
Siskind said he supports CCRI but doesn’t want to see the abolition of affirmative action, as he defined it. The phrase itself never appears in the initiative, also called Proposition 209.
“Affirmative action won’t be banned by CCRI.” To him, the term refers specifically to “outreach efforts and a careful re-examining of hiring and admission criteria. We still need those today. This is a debate about preferences, not affirmative action,” he added.
The bill’s co-chair and state Sen. Quentin Kopp (Independent-S.F.) also insisted that CCRI does nothing to undercut affirmative action as it was outlined in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Supervisor Leslie Katz suggested that while the phrase “affirmative action” is never used in the proposal, the level playing field envisioned by the framers of the Civil Rights Act would be undermined.
Katz warned that if CCRI passes, “race and gender relations will deteriorate beyond our worst nightmares.”
Katz, who is one of two Jewish incumbent S.F. supervisors, also said the bill was not in line with the Jewish mandate for tzedakah. In a sentiment echoed by panelist Mark Schickman, president of the San Francisco Bar Association, Katz said it is the duty of the Jewish community to help oppressed minorities.
“This is a matter of our deepest religious and philosophical traditions,” Schickman said.
Panelist Lee Cheng told personal stories to dramatize his view that race-based admissions policies don’t help those who truly are in danger of discrimination.
Co-founder of the Asian American Legal Fund, Cheng discussed his outrage at realizing that as a Chinese student, he would be held to a higher standard of academic excellence to gain admission to San Francisco’s prestigious Lowell High School. He got into the public school, but took note of those Asian students who did not.
“Those rejected tended to be from the lower class, and more recent immigrants,” he said. “Poorer members of preferred groups share very little of the bounty that is supposed to be for their benefit.”
Comparing the experiences of Chinese and Jewish immigrants, Cheng said, “Quotas were once set for Jews. Preferences serve as a salve to the conscience of the guilty rich. No one should be treated as a second-class citizen under the law: That’s what CCRI says.”
Rabbi Alan Lew also addressed the issue of conscience. The spiritual leader of Congregation Beth Sholom in San Francisco and president of the Board of Rabbis of Northern California, Lew implored the audience to be honest with themselves about their own racism — and vote against CCRI.
“Are our hearts really free of racist urges?” he asked. “We all say the right things about racial and gender balance. Attitude is not enough.”