Geoff Metcalf
April 7, 1998

I have been a vocal critic of Proposition 227 (English for the Children) since first having read it. I have been troubled by the differences between perception and the reality of the language.  The perception (that it would end bi-lingual education) is how many were induced to sign the petition to get the initiative on the ballot.  The reality is, it does not end bi-lingual education (even Ron Unz finally conceded that).  In fact, whereas there is NO law at this time requiring bi-lingual education, if or when Proposition 227 were to pass, the requirement for providing bi-lingual education would become law.  I have criticized the expense of $50-Million a year, for ten years (that's A HALF A BILLION DOLLARS).  I have questioned the language of the initiative which includes "all children" to mean "all children"....even illegals.  I have questioned the potential fiscal impact if Proposition 187 is abrogated( that would mean the $1.2-Billion savings of Prop 187 would or should be added to the impact of Prop 227).  I have questioned several elements of the tragically flawed, poorly written initiative, subtle and gross. 

However, I have also maintained that if anyone could change my mind and present a compelling argument to counter my concerns, I was open to be persuaded.  Several community activists have been guests on my radio talk show to discuss the initiative, and most of them share my concerns. Glynn Custred, co-author of Prop 209, Ron Prince, stalwart of Prop 187, Terry Graham, community activist, and Allan Favish, L.A. attorney, have all agreed in varying degrees with my assessment of English for the Children as being bogus.  Assemblyman Tom McClintock has endorsed the initiative but was unsuccessful in presenting any compelling argument to my audience in favor of Prop 227.

I have been trying for three months to get the initiative's author, Ron Unz to come on the air and defend his Initiative.  Although I can understand why Unz might not like what I have said and written, I was surprised when my Producer, Jose Gomez told me "....he'll debate the issue, just not with you."  At first I thought Jose was goofing.  "Come on....he's smarter than me, richer than me, and the polls indicate he's winning." I said.  "Geoff," Jose said, "...it took some pulling, but they said they'd debate anyone except YOU."

Okay, no biggie. If the wealthy, successful  genius won't debate me, we'll find someone else.  Every election year since 1992 I have broadcast a series of debates on significant Propositions.  I feel it is important that voters have an opportunity to hear both sides ballot issues that will eventually impact on the use of their tax dollars.   I make it a point that the first half of the debates are objective, and fair. Each side gets two rounds to outline their position and rebut their opponent.  The second half I ask questions and we take call ins from listeners.

I first thought to propose Terry Graham to debate the con side of the initiative.  However, if Unz is p.o.-ed at my rhetoric, I assumed he'd hide from Graham since she had already kicked his butt on the Ken Hamblin show.  Allan Favish is the attorney who wrote a legal opinion claiming the passage of Prop 227 would nullify Prop 187.  Favish is less volatile than Graham, and even more courteous than me.  We proposed Favish to debate the con side, and again where told "No."  Apparently Unz only wants to debate opponents from MALDEF or Hermandade.  Apparently anyone who will not articulate the concerns I have expressed.  What a no class chickens**t .

Unz can buy whomever he wants, and control his English for the Children charade however he chooses.  However, he will not control MY show, or format the debates.  I work for a network owned and operated radio station in a major market.  THEY don't tell me what to do, or what to say, and they pay me.  Unz can run and hide from me, Graham and Favish.  He can run and hide from Custred and Prince, but I'll be damned if a petty, petulant Silicon Valley mavin is going to set the stage and control the debate to disseminate his flavor of disinformation.  If Unz lacks the courage of his convictions, or testosterone to defend the indefensible, then we'll find someone else who supports Proposition 227 to argue in his place.   And this guy wanted to be Governor?