CONNERLY ACT TO ALTER LITTLE BUT TEMPERS.

Byline: Thomas D. Elias

WHENEVER the vote comes on the possible recall of Gov. Gray Davis, it will have to share the ballot. Also up for a vote will be the so-called Racial Privacy Initiative, which doesn't yet have a proposition number.

By the time the polls open, be it for a special election this fall or the regular presidential primary next March, count on feelings running almost as high on the racial privacy issue as on the recall. When it comes to race, emotions are always intense.

But this may be one initiative that's not worth all the energy. For this might as well be called the Non-Sequitur Proposition.

Sure, initiative sponsor Ward Connerly says his measure will prevent state and local governments from using race to classify students, contractors or public employees. Connerly is the University of California regent whose efforts in 1996 led to passage of the Proposition 209 ban on affirmative action.

That law had dramatic effects, but it's doubtful this proposed one ever could. In spite of what opponents say, it has too many loopholes to be much more than a symbol.

Opponents, for instance, loudly claim that putting a stop to racial record-keeping would prevent medical researchers from tracking diseases that affect some racial and ethnic groups more than others. Sickle-cell anemia, for one, affects African-Americans but almost no one else. Virtually all Tay-Sachs disease victims are Jews. More Hispanics than any others die today of smoking-related illnesses.

We wouldn't know these things without racial and ethnic classification, the argument goes, and thus the Racial Privacy Initiative measure would prevent either alerting potential victims or pinpointing prevention programs.

Wrong. For the Racial Privacy Initiative couldn't have that effect.

``Otherwise-lawful classification of medical research subjects and patients shall be exempt,'' says clause (f) of the proposed law. So it would not interfere with medical research.

``I don't want to die,'' said Connerly. ``Why would I promote something that would put us all at risk?''

OK, then, say opponents, the proposal would still prevent police from tracking the racial identities of people they arrest. This means racial profiling could continue unchecked.

But wait. Clause (j) says ``Nothing in this (measure) shall be interpreted as invalidating any valid consent decree or court order.''

So consent decrees demanding that police departments clean up their discriminatory acts would be unaffected. What's more, if the practices of cops not covered by consent decrees prove overtly racist, the initiative allows the Legislature to override its prohibition on racial classification.

Even so, say opponents, this plan would not allow tracking of how well public school students of various races and national origins are doing, so targeting remedial programs would be very difficult.

Wrong again. Clause (i) exempts any classifying required by federal law and any that's needed to attract or retain federal funding for any program.

``President Bush's 'Leave No Child Behind' act demands that schools track students by ethnicity,'' says Connerly. ``That will not stop if this passes.''

In fact, this measure would spur very few changes. Yes, it probably would prevent state and local governments from tracking how many contracts they give minority-owned companies. And it might stop some ethnic record-keeping at the college level.

But Connerly contends many of today's racial distinctions are bogus anyway. He notes that students and others can claim whatever racial identity they like when filling out forms, and they often do, with no one checking their veracity.

``If substantial numbers of Hispanics often categorize themselves as 'white' on some occasions and 'Hispanic' on others, how accurate and reliable is the data that is being collected?'' Connerly asks.

He wonders what ethnic group could properly claim an individual who is half American Indian and half black? Or one who is half Latino and half Anglo?

``In reality,'' Connerly said, ``almost all of us are some kind of mix, so why not just say we're all Americans?''

So in many - maybe most - ways, Connerly's latest effort appears to be nothing more than tokenism because it wouldn't change much. But he insists it's more than that.

``It sends a message when we tell state and local governments we don't want them asking about race or ethnicity except where there's a pressing need,'' he said.

Which means this initiative really is more about sending government a message than changing much of anything. Not that this fact will in any way diminish the emotional campaigning guaranteed by its very name.