Jennifer Gratz Prop 107
Jennifer Gratz, spokeswoman for Proposition 107, the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative. Ari Cohn/AFN

Proposition 107, the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative, may not have received much attention yet, but in November, voters will be asked whether they want to amend the state's Constitution to ban affirmative action.

"We should be judging people on their character and their merit and not their skin color or their sex," said Jennifer Gratz, a Prop 107 advocate with the Sacramento-based nonprofit American Civil Rights Coalition.

Gratz, who was in Ahwatukee Foothills this week, entered the national spotlight in the mid-1990s when she sued the University of Michigan based on the claim that she unfairly was denied entry to its law school because of affirmative action policies. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Gratz's favor, striking down the policy. Since then, she has joined forces with former University of California regent Ward Connerly, who has campaigned for laws banning affirmative action in several states.

The Arizona ballot initiative, locally championed by state Rep. Steve Montenegro (R-Litchfield Park), mirrors policies adopted in states like California, Washington, Florida, Michigan and Nebraska, Gratz said. Proponents failed to get the issue on the ballot in Arizona in 2008.

"It typically takes two shots to get the momentum building," Gratz said.

If adopted, the law would prohibit the use of affirmative action in public employment, public education and public contracting.

"There are actual programs in this state that discriminate against some to give preference to others. Any programs that do give preference or discriminate based on race or sex would have to be opened up to everyone," Gratz said. "It's the basic argument that the government shouldn't be picking winners and losers based on race or sex."

Not everyone is lining up to support the measure. State Rep. Rae Waters (D-Ahwatukee) said the challenge is to make sure the measure doesn't go too far and have unintended consequences.

"Quite frankly, I think we are putting way too many things into the Constitution," she said. "I think it's too much government, which I think is shocking coming from a Democrat."

When it comes to education, there needs to be some discretion, Waters said. Diversity and equality aren't necessarily in opposition to one another, she said.

"You need to address the issue of the individual child," Waters said. "If you are put into this position where you have to treat everyone with the same formula, I don't think it works."

But Gratz said it's better to focus on socio-economic status. Affirmative action policies aren't necessarily targeted to help those in need, she said.

"If there's anyone we're going to help, it should be kids that have struggled and didn't have all the advantages," she said.

Affirmative action policies can have negative effects, such as causing resentment among people who may feel, fairly or not, that they've been discriminated against, Gratz said. Such policies also potentially can foster the perception that individual women and minority members may have benefited from such programs unfairly, even though their achievements were based on merit, she said.

It's important to have racial and gender diversity, but not at the expense of people's right to be treated equally by the government, she said.

"I think there are still pockets of racism and I fully understand we have a horrible history in this country when it comes to racism, but two wrongs don't make a right," Gratz said.

(1) comment


While I'm fairly liberal in most things, I personally believe that affimative action, as well as "hate crimes" legislation is the biggest bunch of PC garbage that I've eve heard of in my 66 years of life. Reverse discrimination is exactly the same as regular discrimination, no matter what the fools in DC or state capitols say. Hate crime laws are insane because they indicate that the law knows what you were thinking when you committed the crime, which is obviously not true. Also, why is it worse to kill someone because of their seual orientation or color than to kill them just because? It's not. It's exactly the same and should be punished exactly the same. On a similar note, it is just as offensive to me to have a black student union as it would be to have a white student union. If we are to become truly one people, we must get rid of the PC trash and have NO sub-groups in this country being catered to by the government. We must become Americans first and foremost, who just happen to be white, black, gay, handicapped, asian, jewish, athiest, etc. NO special groups, no preferred groups, no nothing like that at all. Everyone treated as individuals irregardless of any unique traits they may have, otherwise we'll be having this stupid discussion in another 100 years.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.