RACIAL DIVIDE: CON BANNING BOXES A HELP TO NO ONE.

Byline: Andrew Sabl

Most Californians don't know much about Proposition 54 on the Oct. 7 recall ballot. If they do know about it, it's probably under its proponents' name: the ``Racial Privacy Initiative.'' The attorney general rejected that title. The initiative is now called Classification by Race, Ethnicity, and National Origin, or CRENO.

Early press coverage has portrayed CRENO as ``Son of 209,'' the successful 1996 initiative that banned affirmative action. Many predict the usual divides: conservative and libertarian opponents of ``color-conscious'' policies will support the measure, and only minorities and racial liberals will oppose it.

This would be a huge mistake. Proposition 54 has nothing to do with affirmative action, and endangers the enforcement of classic, ``colorblind'' civil-rights laws that both proponents and opponents of affirmative action support.

My study of policies surrounding racial classification has taught me that the arguments are almost always complex. It's rare that one side of a debate is completely right. Proposition 54 is an exception. There are no good arguments for it and many against it.

Let's look at the facts:

CRENO would essentially ban boxes on forms. State government would no longer be allowed to ask people how they identify by race or ethnicity, and there would no longer be an easy way for those who wanted to have government programs note their race or ethnicity to do so. Proponents hope that if people are no longer asked about their race and ethnicity, they'll think less about them.

The initiative makes random exceptions that undercut its own rationale. There is an exemption for medical research but not for public health studies. The state could collect race data for fighting housing discrimination but not employment discrimination. The state is banned from recording people's race but not their sex, language preference or sexual orientation.

Though few have noticed, CRENO bans information on ethnicity, not just race. It would prevent state government from finding out whether Iranian-, Vietnamese-, or Armenian-Americans were being mistreated in their jobs or suffering from poor access to health care.

CRENO proponents have been unable to cite a concrete problem that the initiative would solve. And this makes sense. After all, Proposition 209 already bans affirmative action by state government, including the University of California.

People determined to flout that law won't be thwarted by a ban on gathering racial information, unless proponents of the ban also want to censor UC applicants' admissions essays, or, for that matter, personal names. (An affirmative-action supporter faced with applicants named NaShauna Jones, Antonio Lopez, Michiko Watanabe and Thor Petersen couldn't be sure of their ethnicities, but could make pretty good guesses and hope to be right over time.)

Some CRENO supporters mention the fact that thousands of UC applicants (in fact, a small fraction of the total) decline to state their race. But the fact that students already do this shows why ``privacy'' can't be the reason for this proposal. Those who want to keep their race private already can. The measure would only frustrate people who want to have their race counted - because they want government to help them against discrimination, or sympathize with those who do.

Proposition 54's real impact would be on plain old anti-discrimination laws - the kinds of ``colorblind'' policies that everyone should support. If the measure passed, such laws would still exist, but state government would be banned from finding out where they were most needed or which enforcement measures worked best. It would tend to make civil-rights laws applied most where they are needed least.

Though supported by self-proclaimed libertarians and conservatives, Proposition 54 in fact reflects enormous faith in government. It makes sense only if one thinks that California state government creates racial thinking by its actions and has the power to end it by striking a few categories on official forms.

In fact, government can't do that. What it can do - and what CRENO would make harder - is find out where racial discrimination exists and debate a range of solutions to such discrimination. Knowledge is power; ignorance is not strength; and Proposition 54 is no solution.