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

June 13, 2022

1.

Regime Change: Repelling the DEI Assault on Higher Education

The last few decades have seen a total transformation of higher education's mission in American society. What was once an institution that encouraged innovation, built character, and sou......

May 12, 2022

2.

Mornin’ Ralph, Mornin’ Sam in Anthropology Today

Professor Lowrey recounts her latest encounter with academic cancel culture, this time with an acceptance-turned-rejection at Anthropology Today....

May 31, 2022

3.

Can America’s Colleges and Universities Be Saved?

We urge American citizens and policymakers to reform our higher education system while there is still time....

Most Read

June 13, 2022

1.

Regime Change: Repelling the DEI Assault on Higher Education

The last few decades have seen a total transformation of higher education's mission in American society. What was once an institution that encouraged innovation, built character, and sou......

May 15, 2015

2.

Where Did We Get the Idea That Only White People Can Be Racist?

A look at the double standard that has arisen regarding racism, illustrated recently by the reaction to a black professor's biased comments on Twitter....

June 21, 2022

3.

Press Release: Confucius Institutes Rebrand to Circumvent U.S. Policy, Report Finds

A new report from the National Association of Scholars finds that colleges and universities continue to host Chinese-funded programs similar to Confucius Institutes under new names......