There are a number of theories on what precipitated and sustained the attacks on affirmative action. Some of the more profound and evident reasons are economics, reverse discrimination, preferences, quotas, hiring the unqualified, stifling ambition, social backlash, racism and politics.

The early 90ís brought about a slow down in the economy with the unemployment rate in California
over 7%. Business downsizing, business mechanization, military base closures and relocation of
jobs to foreign labor pools resulted in a devastating loss of jobs and contracts. An early theory was
that minorities and women were considered to be useful scapegoats for the bad economy.

However, by 1994, California, the eighth largest economy in the world, was maintaining one of the highest qualities of life in the world. Not only did it boast a city, San Francisco that was first in the nation and second in the world for business, but also it rated the highest visitor destination in the
world. The economics scapegoat theory began to fade.

Many white males argued that they should not be held accountable for what their grandfathers or forefathers did to take advantage and profit from discrimination past the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, freeing the slaves. Some cited affirmative action as reverse discrimination if they had nothing to do with past discrimination. Affirmative action proponents, taking a broader historical perspective, responded that white males are indeed the beneficiaries of this institutionalized racism
that now delivers white males 95% of the executive power in this country, as per the Dole Federal Glass Ceiling Commission Report and over 90% of all government contracting.

The idea of reverse discrimination against white men grew as a prime reason to dismantle affirmative action. Yet there was no conclusive evidence that the gains made for women and minorities due to affirmative action could be attributed to "reverse discrimination" In fact the contrary seemed to be true, The Department of Labor report prepared by Rutgers University law professor Alfred W. Blumrosen, found fewer than 100 reverse discrimination cases among more than 3,000 discrimination opinions by U.S. District Courts and Courts of Appeal between 1990 - 1994. Reverse discrimination was established in six cases, and the courts provided appropriate relief in those cases. Even so "reverse discrimination" was a "hot button" issue and remained significant throughout the campaign.

Also a mainstay of public opinion was that affirmative action gives preference to undeserving women and minorities solely on the basis of gender and/or race. The response that affirmative action allows competent and qualified women and minorities to compete and excel in areas where they are, or have been, under-represented was not that successfully sold to the public by affirmative action defenders. ìPreferencesî surfaced as the leading soundbite for dismantling affirmative action.

Another argument that prevailed with the public was that affirmative action forces employers to set "quotas" for hiring of minorities and women. Actually, in California quotas are illegal in affirmative
action programs, except by court order. Goals and timetables are set and there are no legal penalties
if goals are not met, as long as good faith efforts to achieve them are made. The word "quotas" continually repeated by California Governor Wilson, anti-affirmative action campaign chair Ward Connerly and others were early indications of a deceptive campaign to affirmative action supporters.

Some of the conservative Republican minorities maintained that it was demeaning and stifling to oneís ambition if minorities and women accept a preference program. Conservative blacks such as author Shelby Steele, Tom Sowell at Stanfordís Hoover Institute, and U.C. Regent Ward Connerly advanced this position. Affirmative action proponents felt that this small group was duped and cited that preference programs brought about by discrimination have shown no evidence of being demeaning or stifling ambition. Certainly it had not stifled the ambition of white males who had been the beneficiaries of continued preferences.

Perhaps, the initial reaction of minority defenders of affirmative action, particularly blacks, was that this was just another racist and greedy attempt of the white male racist system to take minorities and women back 30 years to pre-Civil Rights Act conditions. Eyebrows were raised when on March 17, 1995 the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Assemblyman Bernie Richter, the initial sponsor of the move to end affirmative action, stated in a nationally televised interview "there are complex cultural reasons that very few Americans of African decent get Ph.Dís in mathematics, and it has nothing to do with discrimination." After Ward Connerly emerged prominent in the campaign, the racism charge dissipated slowly.

Since the attacks on affirmative action were primarily being waged by Governor Wilson, U.C. Regent Ward Connerly, State Attorney General Dan Lundgren and the Republican Party, politics easily took center stage. What was the political agenda?