It has been a year since the Supreme Court declared in Students for Fair Admissions that eliminating racial discrimination meant eliminating all of it. Eliminating discrimination means treating all individuals, regardless of race, equally. The government must once and for all get out of the business of advantaging and disadvantaging Oregonians based on race.
Oregon has a proud history of civil rights achievements, but it also has its own sordid history of discrimination. Yet if we continue to institutionalize forms of discrimination in Oregon, we can’t credibly move on from our worst mistakes to become our best selves. Allowing any form of state-sponsored racial discrimination is an affront to the dignity of Oregonians and shows a lack of seriousness in protecting opportunity for all.
The Economic Equity Investment Program (EEIP) is one source of racial discrimination the state should eliminate (or at least, significantly reform). Launched in 2022 with additional funding allocated to it this year, EEIP gives taxpayer funding to organizations that provide services to disadvantaged individuals. But not all disadvantaged individuals. When Oregon’s Legislative Counsel Office took a close look at the program, it found the legislative intent behind EEIP was “to provide assistance to ‘Black, Indigenous, and Latinx communities,’” and that “providing resources to improve the economic circumstances of white people would not further the stated intent of the EEIP to close economic gaps between people of color and white people.”
In other words, only disadvantaged people of a certain race are worthy of Oregon’s support. This is plainly discriminatory — which is why the Legislative Counsel believes the EEIP would not survive a legal challenge. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids the state from treating citizens differently based on race.
In practice, the EEIP has fulfilled its discriminatory intent. The program awarded over $11 million to projects and organizations that target specific racial groups. For instance, one project provides housing counseling and down payment assistance to “Latinx” people. Another program provides grants to business owners who identify as Black or Indigenous persons of color.
Housing and business development are certainly worthy goals, but we should not be achieving them through racial discrimination. If any of the groups benefiting from EEIP funds are excluding those in need because of race, the program must be reformed to make it clear that no recipient can racially discriminate. Oregon cannot permit non-profits to discriminate with taxpayer dollars.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time the state has engaged in such discrimination. Oregon implemented the Behavioral Health Workforce Initiative to recruit and retain behavioral health providers who are “persons of color.” To that end, one of the programs offered under the initiative was a loan repayment program for behavioral health workers that prioritized minority applicants, or those who identify with the ethnicity or culture of underserved communities.
At a time when more behavioral health workers were desperately needed, the state should not have preferred workers on the basis of race. Oregonians in need of care could not afford to have the state encourage only some providers to give treatment. Expanding the behavioral health workforce required a policy of addition, not discriminatory division. The state should have encouraged every qualified applicant.
If such race-based treatment continues, the state will be vulnerable to lawsuits similar to the one filed earlier in 2024 against the Oregon Teacher Standards and Practices Commission. The Commission provided reimbursement of teaching license fees exclusively to “diverse educators.” Non-minority teachers need not apply. It was forced to backtrack after one deserving teacher challenged the program in court with the help of Pacific Legal Foundation.
Oregon can avoid costly and needless litigation with simple reforms to its programs like the EEIP and the Behavioral Health Workforce Initiative. The legislature can clarify that race will not be a factor in determining who gets funding or how the funding will be used. Even better, we can specify that programs will not give preferential treatment based on race.
Eliminating government discrimination will not only reduce the state’s liability and fulfill its constitutional obligations, but it is also the right thing to do. The government should not reduce any Oregonian to their skin color. While it is important for the state to address the needs of underserved residents, it should not stereotype individuals as having those circumstances based on race. Moreover, prioritizing need over race will also address root causes of the state’s problems. If race is not the problem, then it should not be the solution. And if discriminatory laws exist that explicitly deny individuals equal treatment, the state should move quickly to get rid of them. Likewise, if state programs are intended to remedy past discrimination, then they should prioritize individuals that have actually suffered from discrimination. The state should not assume that every individual of a certain race has the same experience.
Eliminating government discrimination will not be easy, as some will incorrectly see it as taking opportunities away from minority Oregonians. To the contrary, refraining from treating individuals differently based on race means that no one can be excluded based on such immutable traits. All individuals could still apply for programs like the EEIP or the Behavioral Health Workforce Initiative without racial preferences. The difference is that race will not serve to diminish any individual’s chance of benefiting from a state program. When Oregon provides opportunity for all, it should truly mean it.
Ed Diehl represents the 17 District in the Oregon House of Representatives. Andrew Quinio is an attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation a public interest law firm that defends Americans’ Americans’ liberty against government overreach and abuse free of charge.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller.
