California's Proposition 16
Post One on Prop. 16
Sacramento Capitol Building
Background:
Proposition 16, put on the November 2020 ballot by the California State Legislature, is a measure to repeal 1996 ballot initiative 209. Proposition 209 passed in 1996 by 55%.
Link to this post: http://meetingthetwain.blogspot.com/2020/06/repealing-prop-209-1.html
Women preferences unnecessary by Grace Chin:
Allowing "race" to be a factor would not help anyone and would hurt a lot of people:
Effects of Prop 209 were positive:
Prop 209, the "California Civil Rights Initiative" (CCRI) outlawed any consideration of race, sex, or ethnicity in California state government. Specifically, it addressed public employment, public contracting, and public education. Prop 209 was modeled on the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. It attempted to ban race-based quotas on college admissions, contracts, and employment. While "affirmative action" is still allowed, quotas based on race are not.
Signing of Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964
Affirmative action attempts to redress inequities arising from historical injustices. The idea is to give those who were held back enough preferential treatment to give them a chance to make up for lost time and catch up with those not historically disadvantaged.
The ACA-5 bill that became Prop 16 can be found here:
History:
The foundation of Prop 209 can be traced to the Supreme Court Case, Bakke vs. Regents of U. of California.
UC Davis School of Medicine
A brief summary of that case: Allan Bakke applied to the Univ. of Cal.-Davis medical school in 1973. He was a very good candidate, but was rejected twice. He sued on the basis that the spots reserved for minorities gave them preference and by reducing the number of openings available to others made it harder for non-minorities to gain entrance.
The California Supreme Court agreed with that argument and ordered him admitted. The case went to the US Supreme Court which agreed with the California Supreme Court.
California Supreme Court Building in San Francisco
That this was binding precedent was confirmed by the US Supreme Court in 2003 in Grutter vs. Bollinger, where the majority opinion held that quotas were unconstitutional. However, the court held in that case that consideration of race was desirable under some conditions to repair the effects of historical injustices, and to provide a classroom environment of diverse backgrounds. The opinion stated that eventually (25 years was suggested) preferences would no longer be necessary.
Bakke had applied to two other med schools but they had rejected him because of his age - he was 32 years old. Age discrimination was accepted in those days. The U. of California fired the admissions official, Assistant Dean Peter Storandt, who gave Bakke the names of two lawyers who might explain the situation to him. They ended up taking on his case. The official said later he felt it was just a matter of time before someone sued over the situation.
The dean of the medical school usually let in 5-6 special candidates to curry favor of those who could benefit the school. In one case, an influential state Assemblyman's son was admitted even though he hadn't applied to the medical school. This practice was eventually ended as the case drew attention to it.
C.f.:
Prop 209:
Bakke vs U of CA
Fisher vs U of TX
