Why women should support Proposition 107

The opposition to Prop. 107 is spreading a fear campaign that Prop. 107 is bad for women. Nothing could be further from the truth. Women have been hurt by quotas and preferences. Three of the leading Supreme Court lawsuits in this area of reverse discrimination were brought by women, due to minorities being given preferences over them. And the way things are going, government and universities are starting to give preferences to men since their numbers are now lower. Women lose out in government contracting bids too. Although the City of Tucson gives a 7% bid preference to women and minorities, there are husbands who put their businesses in their wives' names - even though the wife has nothing to do with the business - so they can take advantage of that bid preference. That doesn't help women, it helps men, and hurts other women who may be applying for a bid with a male partner or some other disqualifier. There are plenty of women who are indirectly hurt. What if you're married to a man who bids for a government project under his own name - only to lose that bid to a minority or woman? You may even be a minority woman but it doesn't matter, your husband is hurt by that preference. What about your brother, your son? They are all passed over in favor of women and minorities. Even if they are from disadvantaged backgrounds and the woman or minority is from a wealthy, privileged background. A study by affirmative action supporters found that 86% of black recipients of affirmative action in universities came from middle class or upper class backgrounds. Affirmative action doesn't help women, it simply rearranges the deck. Women should be allowed to compete based on their own merits and not based on their gender, and Prop. 107 would ensure this and treat women as equals.

FACT: HOPWOOD VS. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS 

Cheryl Hopwood sued the University of Texas Law School. Cheryl worked part time while attending community colleges. She could not afford to go to Princeton (where she was accepted) for undergraduate school and therefore, when applying to law school her 3.8 GPA was discounted and ultimately she was rejected from the University of Texas’s Law School. She filed suit alleging racial discrimination.

Source:  http://www.cir-usa.org/articles/38.html

FACT:  GRATZ V. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AND GRUTTER V. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 

Jennifer Gratz, daughter of a police officer and a secretary, grew up in a blue collar suburb of Detroit. She would have been the first in her family to graduate from college and hoped to attend the University of Michigan. The University judged blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans by one admission standard, and everyone else by a separate, higher standard. Jennifer Gratz was rejected and filed suit in 1997.

Source:  http://cir-usa.org/cases/michigan.html 

Barbara Grutter had 2 children and was in her mid-40s when she applied to the University of Michigan’s Law School. Prior to applying Barbara ran her own IT consulting business. Despite higher grades and test scores than some of those who were accepted, Barbara’s application was rejected. When she learned that had she, for example, been a “minority” her credentials would have been enough to be accepted, she filed a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination. 

Source: http://cir-usa.org/cases/michigan.html 

FACT:  SMITH V. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

Katuria Smith was born when her mother was 17, was reared in poverty, and dropped out of high school. From the time her parents divorced when Smith was 11, she lived "hand to mouth" and moved between twelve jobs, detailing cars, cleaning floors, and doing anything else she could get. Click here to read a Seattle-Post Intelligencer story on Katuria's background.

"I was desperate to get out of poverty," Smith told columnist Michelle Malkin. So when Smith was 21, she enrolled in night classes at a community college paralegal program. Holding down jobs during the day, she graduated and enrolled in the University of Washington, where she earned a business degree in 1994. With her 3.65 GPA and LSAT score of 165 (94th percentile), she fully expected to be admitted. Instead, she was rejected with no chance to appeal. Smith filed suit in 1997.

Source:

http://http//www.cir-usa.org/cases/smith.html

 
IN FACT, TODAY, MEN ARE MORE LIKELY THAN WOMEN TO BENEFIT FROM PREFERENCES IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS.

“But a gender gap has reopened: if girls were once excluded because they somehow weren't good enough, they now are rejected because they're too good. Or at least they are so good, compared with boys, that admissions committees at some private colleges have problems managing a balanced freshman class. Roughly 58% of undergraduates nationally are female, and the girl-boy ratio will probably tip past 60-40 in a few years.”

Source:  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1727693,00.html 
And: Britz, Jennifer Delahunty (March 23, 2006) To All the Girls I Rejected, The New York Times. (Copy of article available)

From http://arizonacri.org/Home/MythsOtherResources.aspx