10-08-2003, 11:01 PM
If race or ethnicity had a relevance for someone's medical care (and it definitely does in many cases, like sickle cell anemia), I believe they could use it if needed. The prop was meant to eliminate the tracking and labelling of people by race or ethnicity by the government. The main reason it failed is because minorities DO want discrimination, if it works in their favor. My problem with this is that I do believe in helping people if they really need it, like for education. HOWEVER, I think it should be based on class/economic status rather than race. It so happens that yes, certain ethnicities and communities are lower in economic status, but why track their backgrounds? I may be a bit biased because I am a white, blond-haired, blue eyed born-in-America middle-class college student. Some white people are lower in economic status... but because they are white, someone who is hispanic in the same situation may get more help or opportunity. And in my case, actually, we are not very high up there, because my family makes 42k/year, not counting the 900/month in rent, which places us in a void for my college education... we make too much to qualify for anything, there is not much in the way of scholarships or grants (all my scholarships have to be based on academic performance or some skill). However, we don't make enough to pay for much on our own. The gap is filled in with loans, which will be a pain in the ass for me later on. Point of all of this? I dunno, I went on a tangent. I just think that there are better ways to track people and help them out than using their race or ethnicity... because yes, there is a correlation between some races and their status and opportunities, but it is not a cause-and-effect situation. Targeting an ethnicity to help them does nothing, it can only serve to lower their sense of self-worth by telling them that they need help.