Law students encourage ‘no’ vote on Proposition 107

A yes vote for Proposition 107 is a vote for inequality and regression. The deceptively titled “”Arizona Civil Rights Initiative”” proposes a step backward for women and minorities across the state. Proponents of the measure — many of whom are out-of-state interest groups — have clouded the debate with words like “”civil rights,”” “”quotas”” and “”reverse discrimination.”” This confusing language provides a false promise of justice. For this reason, we and 98 fellow Arizona law students stand against Proposition 107.  

If passed, Proposition 107 would have a devastating impact on public education. The proposition would undo decades of progress and eliminate dozens of university programs that encourage capable but underrepresented students to apply to school, stay in school and thrive.

The measure’s greatest proponent, Californian Ward Connerly, has lobbied to eliminate equal opportunity programs across the country. Connerly’s California interest group has contributed $75,000 to the measure — more than twice as much as all major Arizona contributors combined.  

Proposition 107 would damage Arizona legal education by substantially changing the admissions process.  Admissions committees at Arizona public law schools must choose between thousands of qualified applicants. The admissions departments perform comprehensive reviews which take into account a range of factors in each applicant’s background, including race or ethnicity and gender as well as socio-economic status, personal achievement, public service, area of legal interest and other dimensions of an individual’s identity. This process creates a diverse student body that seeks to reflect the population that we will serve after graduation. Quotas are not used, and are unconstitutional.

Exposure to viewpoints different from our own is crucial to our understanding of the law. Disregarding these unique characteristics will turn back the clock — especially for applicants for whom these characteristics have been defining factors in their interest in law.

Maintain opportunity for all; vote No on Proposition 107.

Meaghan Kramer and Priyanka Sundareshan

Third-year students

James E. Rogers College of Law

Student regent urges peers to vote

Fellow students,

My name is William Holmes, and I serve as one of two student voices on the Arizona Board of Regents. Today, I am writing to stress the importance of voting in the midterm elections, which carry a great deal of weight. The state of Arizona and our Arizona public university system recently endured historic budget insufficiencies. As a university student and member of the Board of Regents, I witness firsthand the labor and efforts our regents put forth to ensure that an affordable and quality higher education enterprise is accessible.

Now, more than ever, Arizonans must also understand the importance of higher education and the fundamental impact it has on recovering our state’s economy and future. This is the opportunity to communicate to our leaders in government that Arizona’s citizens prioritize education, and that they should do the same.

As you go to the polls on Tuesday, several political issues may contribute to your decision of who will serve and represent our state. Understanding that, I ask that you keep higher education as a frontrunner among those issues. As products of our university system, it is time to educate our state on the importance of protecting and supporting its future. In 2008, students showed up to vote in record numbers; I have no doubt that 2010 can bring a record turnout for students in a midterm election. Regardless of how you vote this Nov. 2, just vote.

In service,

William Holmes

Student regent, Arizona Board of Regents