Referendum 88 and the Fight Against Affirmative Action

David Acevedo

Editor's Note: This article was originally published under the name "John David," the former pseudonym of NAS Communications & Research Associate David Acevedo. To learn more about why David no longer writes under this name, click here.


CounterCurrent: Week of 11/3

The war over affirmative action during the last several years has been a complex saga, to say the least. On the one hand, in July 2018, the Department of Education and the Department of Justice announced their plan to repeal seven regulatory documents put in place by the Obama administration. These documents effectively gave colleges and universities free reign to prioritize racial preferences over individual merit in their admissions and hiring practices. 

On the other hand, Massachusetts' District Court recently ruled in favor of Harvard University and their ongoing discrimination against Asian-American students in admissions, a major win for higher education’s progressives. These are but two of countless skirmishes that have kept the war in our country raging since the 1960s. The constant back-and-forth makes it difficult to discern who, if anyone, is “winning”, especially given the influence of radically different presidential administrations.

And now, enter Referendum 88. With this vote taking place next Tuesday, November 5th, Washington State re-enters the affirmative action fray after a brief summer hiatus. The law in question is Initiative 1000, a state statute passed in April, 2019 that permits Washington organizations and institutions to use “characteristics such as race, sex, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, sexual orientation, disability, or veteran status...as factors when considering a person for public education or public employment opportunities.” If this sounds like discrimination to you, you’d be right. 

In this week’s featured article, NAS President Peter Wood breaks down the issue, including the byzantine text of I-1000 itself, and explains why those opposed to racial bias should vote an emphatic “NO” today. But don’t check out if you’re not a Washingtonian; if this statute remains in place, it will set a dangerous precedent for other states to follow suit.


CounterCurrent is the National Association of Scholars’  weekly newsletter, written by Communications & Research Associate David Acevedo. To subscribe, update your email preferences here.

Image: Robert Ashworth, Public Domain

  • Share

Most Commented

November 24, 2021

1.

1619 Again: Revisiting the Project's Troubled Past

New York Times editor Jake Silverstein's new essay on the 1619 Project attempts to glide past the awkwardness that accompanied the project’s early days. Let's set the reco......

December 14, 2021

2.

Confronting Woke Groupthink in Art Education

The dubious notion that the U.S. is a “systemically racist” nation has taken hold in art education, as in virtually every sphere of American life....

January 18, 2022

3.

The White House Is Undermining Science, Not Defending It

Government support of scientific research is not designed to support science, but to harness science to political ends....

Most Read

January 18, 2022

1.

The White House Is Undermining Science, Not Defending It

Government support of scientific research is not designed to support science, but to harness science to political ends....

September 21, 2010

2.

Ask a Scholar: What Does YHWH Elohim Mean?

A reader asks, "If Elohim refers to multiple 'gods,' then Yhwh Elohim really means Lord of Gods...the one of many, right?" A Hebrew expert answers....

January 12, 2022

3.

Press Release: NAS Appoints Dr. J. Scott Turner as Director of the Diversity in the Sciences Project

As project director, Dr. Turner will be conducting research on the scope and deleterious effects of DEI initiatives in STEM programs across the country....