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

May 15, 2015

1.

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....

October 6, 2020

2.

Pulitzer Board Must Revoke Nikole Hannah-Jones' Prize

We call on the Pulitzer Prize Board to rescind the 2020 Prize for Commentary awarded to Nikole Hannah-Jones for her lead essay in “The 1619 Project.” ...

December 22, 2020

3.

From John David to David Acevedo: Why I’m Leaving Behind My NAS Pseudonym for Good

In this piece, NAS Communications & Research Associate David Acevedo, formerly known as John David, recounts why he chose to write pseudonymously and why he has decided to go public...

Most Read

May 15, 2015

1.

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....

January 12, 2021

2.

Tracking "Cancel Culture" in Higher Education

UPDATED 1/12/21: A repository of 117 administrators, professors, and students who have been "canceled" for expressing views deemed unacceptable by higher education ideologu...

May 26, 2010

3.

10 Reasons Not to Go to College

A sampling of arguments for the idea that college may not be for everyone....