2020 California Proposition 16

Proposition 16 is a California ballot proposition that will appear on the November 3, 2020 general election ballot, asking California voters to amend the Constitution of California to repeal 1996's Proposition 209.[2][3] Proposition 209 prohibits the state from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.[4]

Proposition 16
California Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 5
DateNovember 3, 2020 (2020-11-03) (in 2 months)
2020 California Proposition 16
California State Legislature
Full nameAssembly Constitutional Amendment No. 5
StatusSent to ballot
Introduced2019-01-18
Assembly voted2020-06-10 (60-14)[1]
Senate voted2020-06-24 (30-10)
Sponsor(s)Weber, Gipson, and Santiago
GovernorGavin Newsom
CodeCalifornia state constitution, Section 31, Article 1 (Proposition 209)
ResolutionACA 5
WebsiteFull text of the bill
Elections in California

The proposed state constitutional amendment was originally introduced as California Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 5 (ACA 5) by Assembly Members Weber, Gipson, and Santiago on January 18, 2019.[5] ACA 5 passed the California State Assembly on June 10, 2020, and was approved by the California State Senate on June 24.[4] Because it is a proposed constitutional amendment, 2020 Proposition 16 must appear as a ballot proposition and be approved by voters before repealing 1996 Proposition 209's provisions.[2]

Background and content of Proposition 16

The Constitution of California, due to Proposition 209 (the California Civil Rights Initiative), prohibits the state from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. For these purposes, California Constitution defines the state to include the state, any city, county, public university system, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of, or within, the state.[6]:1

Proposition 16 amends the California Constitution by repealing Section 31 of Article I relating to the prohibition against discrimination or preferential treatment, among other provisions. Since the passage of Proposition 209, there have been several legislative attempts to revise the application of its provisions, including 2014 SCA 5. Among these, Proposition 16 represents another attempt, but the first legislative attempt to completely repeal Proposition 209.[6]:12

The measure would repeal Section 31 of Article I of the California Constitution. The following text would be repealed:

  • The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
  • This section shall apply only to action taken after the section's effective date.
  • Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
  • Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the effective date of this section.
  • Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the State.
  • For the purposes of this section, "State" shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the State itself, any city, county, city and county, public university system, including the University of California, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State.
  • The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the injured party's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of then-existing California antidiscrimination law.
  • This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with federal law or the United States Constitution, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that federal law and the United States Constitution permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.

Influence of Proposition 16 in college admissions

One of the biggest debates about the usage of affirmative action is in college admissions. Federal law requires government contractors, subcontractors, and other departments and agencies receiving federal funding to develop and implement affirmative action plans and programs to expand opportunities for minorities. Public colleges and universities are considered federal contractors and must adopt affirmative action in their employment practices. Many colleges and universities across the country have also implemented similar measures in their admissions processes.[7] One of the key terms of affirmative action is the preferential treatment which happens when an applicant (especially in college admission) is more likely to be selected than another applicant with similar or better qualifications due to other factors, such as race, ethnicity, and gender.[7] A common form of affirmative action in college admission is racial preferences.

As of 2020, nine states have enacted provisions to prohibit racial preferences in public college admissions: California, Washington, Arizona, Michigan, Idaho, Nebraska, Oklahoma, New Hampshire, and Florida.[8][9] California became the first state to enact such a ban when voters passed Proposition 209 in 1996. This added a provision to the Constitution of California which prohibited the state from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public education. Other socioeconomic factors can be considered without violating Proposition 209, and state universities responded to Proposition 209 by considering such factors instead of race. For example, UC Berkeley considers "contextual factors that bear directly upon the applicant’s achievement, including linguistic background, parental education level, and other indicators of support available in the home."[10]

However, if voters approve Prop 16 in November 2020, California public colleges and universities would once again be allowed to consider a student's race when making admissions decisions. Racial preferences would be allowed, but not strict racial quotas or race-based point systems. The use of race would be allowed to the extent allowed by U.S. Supreme Court cases such as Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, Grutter v. Bollinger, Gratz v. Bollinger, and Fisher v. University of Texas.

In November 2019, voters in Washington state rejected Initiative 1000 (a measure similar to Proposition 16), which would have repealed Initiative 200 (a measure similar to Proposition 209). Thus, the consideration of race remains illegal in Washington.

Support

The leading author of the bill, Shirley Weber, argued that "Californians have built the fifth largest and strongest economy in the world, but too many hardworking Californians are not sharing in our state's prosperity--particularly women, families of color, and low-wage workers. Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5 will help improve all of our daily lives by repealing Proposition 209 and eliminating discrimination in state contracts, hiring, and education. [This Constitutional Amendment] is about equal opportunity for all and investment in our communities."[6]:3

Assemblywoman Weber further declared the reason to support affirmative action in a press release: “Since becoming law in 1996, Proposition 209 has cost women- and minority-owned businesses $1.1 billion each year...It has perpetuated a wage gap wherein women make 80 cents on every dollar made by men and has allowed discriminatory hiring and contracting processes to continue unhindered.”[11]

“I'm a product of Affirmative Action," added Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego). "Without it, I wouldn't be where I am today. I believe every qualified person from an underrepresented community in California should have the same opportunity I had."[12]

The same arguments for support were summarized as follows in the bill analysis:

California is currently the fifth-largest economy in the world and has the world's largest system of higher education. Despite this, women and people of color are not getting their fair share of opportunities to get ahead:

  • A 2015 study showed that businesses owned by women and people of color lose $1.1 billion annually in government contracts.[13]
  • Women in California earn only 80 cents for every dollar a man earns on average, and women of color and single moms make less than 60 cents on the dollar for the same work as their white male counterparts.
  • Just a third of leadership and tenured faculty positions at the California Community Colleges, California State University, and the University of California are held by Black, Latino, or Asian-American scholars.
  • At the UC, women make up 54 percent of enrolled students, but just one-third of the tenured faculty and less than a third of the members of the Board of Regents.[6]:11–12

These supporters, citing the economic situation of 2020, also state that

Overturning California's ban on programs that promote equal opportunity is long overdue. The growing concerns about the economic harm of the COVID-19 pandemic only heighten the importance of bringing fairness to our public contracting and employment practices. There's no denying that small businesses owned by women and people of color will be the hardest hit by any downturn in the economy. [This Constitutional Amendment] will ensure that any government solution to spur economic growth will actually help the most vulnerable in our community.[6]

The supporters conclude:

In the 21st century, the State of California needs to hire more women to positions of leadership, contract with businesses that reflect the diversity of California, and expand access to higher education for all Californians. We can't continue to deny Californians an opportunity to succeed simply because of how they look or who they are. Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5 will level the playing field and allow all Californians to find a good job, earn a decent wage and get ahead in life and their careers. You can't have shared success without shared opportunity. Let's put California on a path toward true equal opportunity for all.[6]

List of organizations and individuals
The following U.S. organizations and individuals support Proposition 16: [14][6]:14–16
  • AAPI Women Lead
  • AAPIs for Civic Empowerment
  • Abriendo Puertas/Opening Doors
  • Accountability Counsel
  • Advancement Project
  • American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees California
  • AFSCME Local 3299
  • Agricultural Institute of Marin
  • Alliance for Boys and Men of Color
  • Alliance for Children's Rights
  • Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment
  • Alliance of South Asians Taking Action (ASATA)
  • Ambedkar Association of North America (AANA)
  • Ambedkar King Study Circle (AKSC)
  • American Association for Access, Equity and Diversity
  • American Civil Liberties Union, Northern and Southern California, and San Diego and Imperial Counties
  • Anderson Baker Architects
  • Anti-Defamation League
  • Anti-Recidivism Coalition
  • API Equality - LA
  • API Forward
  • AsAm News
  • Asian American Bar Association for the Greater Bay Area
  • Asian American Psychological Association
  • Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus
  • Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Los Angeles
  • Asian Americans for Community Involvement (AACI)
  • Asian Americans in Action
  • Asian Americans Rising
  • Asian Law Alliance
  • Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Los Angeles County
  • Asian Pacific Policy and Planning Council
  • Asian Refugees United
  • Asians4BlackLives
  • Association of Asian American Attorney and CPA Firms
  • Association of California State Employees with Disabilities
  • Axiom Corporation
  • AYPAL: Building API Community Power
  • Bend the Arc: Jewish Action
  • Black Community Clergy & Labor Alliance
  • Black Parallel School Board, Sacramento
  • Black Students of California United
  • Black to the Future Action Fund
  • Black Women Organized for Political Action
  • Boston Coalition
  • Bulosan Center for Filipino Studies
  • CAFE de California – Chicano Latino State Employees Association
  • Cal State Student Association (CSSA)
  • California Association for Bilingual Education
  • California Black Chamber of Commerce
  • California Change Lawyers
  • California Civil Rights Coalition
  • California Climate Change & Agriculture Network
  • California Community Colleges Consultation Council
  • California Council on American-Islamic Relations
  • California Democratic African American Party
  • California Democratic Party Asian Pacific Islander Caucus
  • California Employment Lawyers Association
  • California Farmlink
  • California Federation of Teachers
  • California Faculty Association
  • California Hispanic Chamber
  • California Immigrant Policy Center
  • California Labor Federation
  • California LULAC
  • California National Organization for Women
  • California Pan-Ethnic Health Network
  • California Reinvestment Coalition
  • California Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
  • California State University Northridge - Department of Asian American Studies
  • California Teachers Association
  • California Young Democrats– AAPI Caucus
  • California Young Democrats– LGBTQ Caucus
  • California Young Democrats– Womxn Caucus
  • California Young Democrats Asian Pacific Islander Caucus
  • California-Hawaii State Conference of the NAACP
  • Californians for Pesticide Reform
  • Californians for Safety and Justice
  • Californians Together
  • Campaign for College Opportunity
  • Canal Alliance
  • Career Ladders Project
  • Ceres Community Project
  • Cesar Chavez Foundation
  • Child Care Law Center
  • Children's Defense Fund-California
  • Chinese American Progressive Action
  • Chinese for Affirmative Action
  • CHIRLA
  • Church State Council
  • Civic Design Group
  • City of Oakland - City Attorney's Office
  • Coalition for Asian American Children and Families
  • Coalition of Asian American Leaders
  • Coalition of Seattle Indian-Americans
  • Commission on Status of Women and Girls
  • Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice
  • Community Coalition
  • Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto
  • Congregation B’nai Israel
  • Congregations Organized for Prophetic Engagement
  • Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety
  • Cooper-Woodson College Enhancement Program Sacramento State University
  • Council on American-Islamic Relations, California Chapter (CAIR-CA)
  • Cope of San Bernardino
  • Del Sol Group, Inc.
  • Democratic Schools and Wellstone Democratic Club Education Committee
  • Desertsong Group, The
  • Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
  • Diversity in Leadership Institute
  • Dolores Huerta Foundation
  • Drug Policy Alliance
  • East Bay Asian Youth Center
  • East Bay La Raza Lawyers Association
  • East Coast Asian American Student Union (ECAASU)
  • Ecology Center
  • Educators for Democratic Schools and Wellstone Democratic Club Education Committee
  • Education Board Partners
  • El Camino Community College District
  • Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated
  • Empowering Pacific Islander Communities
  • Energy Converters
  • Equal Justice Society
  • Equal Rights Advocates
  • Equality California
  • Fathers and Families of San Joaquin
  • Feminist Majority Foundation
  • Fibershed
  • Filipino Bar Association of Northern California (FBANC)
  • Food for People
  • Fortune School of Education
  • Friends Committee on Legislation of California
  • Future Leaders of America
  • GAPIMNY—Empowering Queer & Trans Asian Pacific Islanders
  • Getting Played: Symposium on Equity in the Entertainment Industry and Awards
  • GO Public Schools
  • Greater Los Angeles African American Chamber of Commerce
  • Greater Sacramento Urban League
  • Hindus for Human Rights (HfHR)
  • Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities
  • Hmong Cultural Center of Butte County
  • Hmong Innovating Politics
  • Homeless Action Center
  • Human Impact Partners
  • India Civil Watch (ICW)
  • Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC)
  • InnerCity Struggle
  • Innovate Public Schools
  • International Action Network for Gender Equity & Law
  • Jakara Movement
  • Japanese American Citizens League
  • Jewish Community Relations Council of the Sacramento Region
  • Justice in Aging
  • Khmer Girls in Action
  • Kid City Hope Place
  • Korean American Center
  • Korean Resource Center
  • Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance (KIWA)
  • La Comadre
  • Lao Collective
  • Laotian American National Alliance
  • Latino and Latina Roundtable of the San Gabriel and Pomona Valley
  • Latino Coalition for a Healthy California
  • Latino Equality Alliance
  • LAW Project of Los Angeles
  • Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
  • LEAD Filipino
  • League of Women Voters California
  • Legal Aid at Work
  • Let My People Go
  • Little Manila Rising
  • Long Beach Coalition for Good Jobs and a Healthy Community
  • Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE)
  • Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
  • Los Angeles Community College District
  • Los Angeles Food Policy Council
  • LS Consulting
  • Lutheran Office of Public Policy – CA
  • Martin Food Policy Council
  • Maternal and Child Health Access
  • MBA Association, Hass Business School
  • Mental Health Association for Chinese Communities
  • Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
  • Miller Advocacy Group
  • National Action Network - Sacramento Chapter
  • National Association of Minority Contractors, Southern California
  • National Association of Women Business Owners – California
  • National Center for Transgender Equality
  • National Center for Youth Law
  • National Council of Jewish Women – CA
  • National Council of Negro Women, Sacramento Valley Section
  • National Japanese American Citizens League
  • National Korean American Service & Education Consortium (NAKASEC)
  • National Lawyers Guild-Los Angeles
  • National Women's Law Center
  • Natural Resources Defense Council
  • New America Alliance
  • New Beginnings Consulting & Training, LLC
  • New Life Christian Church
  • NextGen Policy California
  • Nikkei for Civil Rights & Redress
  • North Orange County Community College District
  • Oakland Food Policy Council
  • OCA Sacramento - Asian Pacific American Advocates
  • Occidental Arts and Ecology Center
  • Officers for Justice Peace Officers Association
  • Ollin Strategies
  • OneJustice
  • Organize Win Legislate Sacramento
  • Parent Organizing Network
  • PolicyLink
  • Peralta Community College District
  • Poverty & Race Research Action Council
  • Public Advocates Inc.
  • Public Interest Law Project
  • Reappropriate
  • Regents of the University of California
  • Redemption Ministries
  • Reinvent Stockton Foundation
  • Resilience Orange County
  • Rex and Margaret Fortune School of Education
  • Roots of Change
  • Rubicon Programs
  • Sacramento Food Policy Council
  • Sacramento National Action Network/Cal State National Action Network
  • San Fernando Valley NAACP
  • San Francisco African American Chamber of Commerce
  • San Jose Peace and Justice Center (SJPJC)
  • Service Employees International Union California
  • SF Coalition for Economic Equity
  • Sierra Harvest
  • Sigma Pi Phi Fraternity (aka The Boule)
  • SIREN (Services, Immigrant Rights & Education Network)
  • Social Change
  • Social Justice Collaborative
  • South Asian Bar Association of Northern California (SABA-NC)
  • Southeast Asia Resource Action Center
  • Southeast Asian Community Alliance
  • Southern California College Access Network
  • Speak UP
  • Stonewall Democratic Club
  • Sustainable Agriculture Education and United Food and Commercial Workers
  • Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation
  • Teach for America California, Bay Area, California Capital Valley, Los Angeles, San Diego
  • Teach Plus
  • The Cambodian Family Community Center
  • The Bar Association of San Francisco
  • The Center for Asian Pacific American Women
  • The Desertsong Group
  • The Education Trust – West
  • The Fannie Lou Hamer Institute
  • The Fresno Center
  • The Hawk Institute
  • The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
  • The Praxis Project
  • The Princeton Review Foundation
  • The San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board
  • The Village Nation
  • True Plus
  • Truth Healing Evolution Counseling Services
  • UC Berkeley School of Law
  • UC Chicanx Latinx Alumni Association
  • UCLA Center for the Study of Women
  • Ujima Child and Family Services
  • Underground Scholars Initiative – UC Berkeley
  • United Cambodian Community
  • United Farm Workers
  • United Negro College Fund
  • University Council-American Federation of Teachers
  • University of California Student Association
  • Urban League - Greater Sacramento
  • USC Race and Equity Center
  • Western Center on Law and Poverty
  • Western States Council
  • Women Lead
  • Workplace Fairness
  • Worksafe
  • 10,000 Degrees

Individuals:

Opposition

Opponents of Proposition 16 primarily cite the divisive, discriminatory, and constitutionally questionable nature of Proposition 16, as well as the positive results Proposition 209 has yielded for underrepresented students at California's public universities since its implementation.[15] They also point to deeper, socio-economic issues that must be addressed to achieve better outcomes for underrepresented minorities (URMs), including improving public school outcomes and options for URMs in public K-12 education, inefficient public education spending, unequal access, lack of parental involvement, community segregation, and a shortage of qualified teachers.[16][17][18] Under Proposition 209, California universities and government hiring may still consider economic background in the admissions process, but may not use race. Finally, Proposition 16 opponents believe that Proposition 16 is not a true affirmative action program, but is aimed at legalizing discrimination and government-sanctioned racial favoritism.[19]

Ward Connerly

Ward Connerly was one of the leading African American voices and architect of the successful implementation of Proposition 209 in 1996. At that time, he was a member of the University of California's Board of Regents. Connerly was born in the deep south, saw racial discrimination first hand, and found it to be wrong. As he became older and a UC Regent with a fiduciary duty to the university, he felt that affirmative action was an equally wrong form of discrimination that must be addressed. This would ultimately lead him to be the driving force in support of Prop 209.[20]

Now, in 2020, he is 81 years old and is again a leading voice in defense of Proposition 209 and in opposition to Proposition 16.  He has reportedly moved to Sacramento from Idaho to continue his work in defense of Proposition 209 against Proposition 16, defending his legacy and efforts of a quarter century ago. He is the president of Californians for Equal Rights, a 501 C(4) nonprofit organization registered in the California state with a mission to defend Proposition 209. [21]

Preferential treatment as discrimination

Some critics argue that the plain language of the amendment would, for example, legalize preferential treatment to white candidates over their race without legal consequences, thereby undermining the stated intent of Proposition 16 supporters.[4]

Another Proposition 16 critic, UCLA Professor and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Lee Ohanian, points to what he sees as an intellectual inconsistency among those favoring Proposition 16. Regarding Proposition 16 supporters' assertion that rampant gender biases persist in modern California, for example, he notes women represent nearly 59 percent of the University of California student body. This, he argues, suggests that Proposition 16 is not really about fighting bias and bigotry, but is about justifying preferential treatment for certain government-favored groups.[22]

Steven Choi, a Korean American California state Assemblyman, said, "The act of giving special or preferential treatment to someone based on their race is racism itself, or on sex is sexism. Just ask yourself, is it right to give someone a job just because they are white or black or green or yellow? Or just because they are male?"[2]

Positive Proposition 209 policy outcomes

Proposition 209 has led to a more efficient sorting and matching of minority students, resulting in a significant increase in minority students' graduation rate.[23] The total number of black and Hispanic students receiving bachelor's degrees was the same for the five classes after Prop 209 compared to the five classes before.[24]

Gail Heriot argues that while Proposition 209 critics cite a decrease in minority student admissions at UC Berkeley since its passage, minority students’ enrollment and, "more importantly," academic performance increased at other campuses within the UC system.[15] Her 2001 study showed decreases in minority students in academic jeopardy; increases in minority student graduation rates; increases in minority student grade point averages; and an increase in the number of science or engineering majors. In contrast, at institutions where race was a factor that competed with preparedness, Heriot shows that URM students cluster near the bottom of the class, "a demoralizing position."[15][25]

Heriot further wrote in the San Diego Union-Tribune about how in 1998, “the first year of colorblind admissions” at UC San Diego, the number of freshman year, black honor students (a GPA of 3.5 or better) increased from a single student out of a body of 3,268 in the year before Proposition 209, to a full 20% of the black freshman in 1998.[26] UC San Diego also reported that in 1998, underrepresented students substantially outperformed their 1997 counterparts.[26]

Wenyuan Wu, Director of Administration for the Asian American Coalition for Education, rebuts the dismal picture of URM higher education prospects laid out in the preamble of Proposition 16, which she characterizes as "fabricated," "misleading," and "cherry-picked," by providing additional data showing improved academic outcomes for underrepresented racial minorities in the UC system since the passage of Proposition 209 between 1995 and 2014.[16]

According to the Los Angeles Times the UC system increased the proportion of URM freshmen to 40% from 38% over the previous year.[27]

Evidence of ineffectiveness of race-based affirmative action

African American researcher Thomas Sowell found in Affirmative Action Around the World that race preference programs worldwide have not met expectations and have often produced the opposite of what was originally intended. An excerpt of this book is published by Hoover Institution, an American public policy think tank and research institution located at Stanford University in California.[28]

UCLA Law School professor Richard H. Sander found that law school admissions preferences impose enormous costs on blacks and create relatively minor benefits.[29] The study acknowledges the benefit of affirmative actions to black students in term of total number of those admitted to law schools, as well as the portion admitted to the more elite schools. On the other hand, Sander found that race-based policy imposes six major costs to black students that greatly outweigh its benefits.

Peter Kirsanow of the National Review points out that underrepresented minorities who are granted admission to colleges due to racial preferences are more likely to rank near the bottom of their class or to leave due to attrition, particularly in STEM fields and law.[30] This phenomenon is due in large part to what Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor call the “mismatch effect.” GPAs and SAT scores of those admitted due to affirmative action are dramatically lower than their white and Asian counterparts, leading to preparedness and performance disparities between the former and latter groups. These disparities result in “mismatched” affirmative action students being significantly more likely to cluster in the bottom quartile of their respective classes or drop out entirely.[30]  

The concept of this academic “mismatch effect” and how it disadvantages the very students proponents of Proposition 16 claim to intend to help, is detailed in the book Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It, by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr.[31]

Kirsanow laments that while the discussion of the mismatch effect illustrates how underrepresented minorities are not benefited by racial preferences, and may in fact be harmed by them, it does not address the unfairness that the policies yield for Asian and white students who are denied admission to their preferred university despite stronger academic credentials.[32]

American Council of Trustees and Alumni President Michael Poliakoff, citing the work of Heriot and the Manhattan Institute's Heather Mac Donald, also argues when university admissions practices are not in line with the institution's academic standards, they are unlikely to help the intended beneficiaries. Students drawn into an academic environment for which they are not qualified are likely to avoid rigorous or difficult academic disciplines that are the most direct path to upward economic mobility. He concludes, “overmatched students are likely to feel they are used as mere tools to satisfy metrics and are left academically adrift on campus where they will feel frustrated and alienated.”[33]

Prop 209 reduces the cost of government contracts

An empirical analysis by Justin Marion of the University of California Santa Cruz Department of Economics showed that cost of state-funded contracts fell by 5.6% after the implementation of Proposition 209 compared to federal contracts, which continued to apply preferences in contractor procurement.[34]

Proposition 16 opponents condemn "identity politics"

Given the abundance of objective, empirical evidence that Prop 209 helps URM students, and that race-based preferences are detrimental to them, Kirsanow argues “the only group it benefits are the charlatans of identity politics.” [30]

Jason L. Riley of the Wall Street Journal also criticizes political progressives who support Proposition 16 for seeking to repeal Prop 209 despite the evidence of its yielding positive results for all students, and URM students in particular. Further, Riley observes, “[progressives do not] seem to care that race-conscious policies punish Asian-American students for academic overachievement.”[35]

Mike Gonzales of The Federalist criticizes the proponents of Proposition 16 as engaged in identity politics in order to maintain the division of American society into antagonistic groups with the insidious goal of upending America's institutions, culture, and economic system.[36]

Proposition 16 opponents observe that identity politics attacks are nothing new in the debate on affirmative action. During the 1996 debate on Prop 209, its opponents were known for vicious personal attacks against Prop 209 and its supporters. A Los Angeles city councilor, for example, compared Prop 209 to Adolf Hitler’s autobiographical manifesto, Mein Kampf, while a state senator attacked Prop 209’s chief sponsor, African-American businessman and University of California regent Ward Connerly, in arguably racist terms, stating, “He's married a white woman. He wants to be white...  He has no ethnic pride.”[37][38]

In a March 2020 statement in opposition to Proposition 16, the Asian American Coalition for Education claimed that Proposition 16 “pits racial groups against each other.”[39]

Calls for improvements in Californian public education

Opponents also point to failures in California's public education system as one of the true, root causes of outcome disparities with underrepresented minority groups – namely the significantly lower rate of fulfilling A-G subject requirements, which are foundational requirements for admission to the UC system.[17] According to an analysis by WalletHub, published in July 2019, California ranked 40th in public school educational quality among the 50 states.[22]

According to Proposition 16 opponent, UCLA Professor, and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Lee Ohanian, compared to educational outcomes around the world, US outcomes are in the middle of the global pack in academic achievement and sometimes trailing poorer countries. In math achievement, in particular, even the highest-performing US states significantly trail the countries with the leading education systems. Ohanian also notes that students from low-income families tend to attend the worst-performing schools, while whites and those of Asian descent are more likely to attend a higher-performing school.[22]

He argues that higher performing school systems are an integral part of building a society where “all have the knowledge base and skills to succeed.” He also criticizes California public school performance as inadequate, despite substantial budget increases. Ohanian points to policy failures, rather than budget shortfalls as the root of the problem. Ohanian goes on to lay blame at the feet of California lawmakers and their close political ties with teacher unions on issues such as tenure and promotion, pay criteria, and the high cost of firing a poorly performing teacher.[22]

Wenyuan Wu contends that California's issues with public education cannot be addressed by reinstituting race-based preferential treatment in public institutions. Government preferences, she argues, will only accelerate California's deteriorating public education system, foster a cultural de-emphasis on education and excellence, contribute to a shrinking middle class, and hurt American competitiveness in the global economy.[40]

Constitutional, civil rights, merit-based, and racism arguments

Opponents also argue that Proposition 16's affirmative action goals conflate the concepts of equal opportunity and equal outcome.[41] The Equal Protection Clause commands the elimination of racial barriers, they argue, not their creation in order to satisfy our theory as to how society ought to be organized. As U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts put it, “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” opponents say.[41]

The Asian American Coalition for Education issued a March 16, 2020 statement arguing that Proposition 16 violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which “prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.” The statement goes on to condemn Proposition 16 proponents’ promotion of “a political agenda of discrimination, unjust preferences, and double standards.”[39]

The National Association of Scholars issued a statement in opposition to Proposition 16, applauding Proposition 209 not for preventing California from discriminating in public university admissions and employment, but also for the positive effects of increased graduation rates among underrepresented ethnic minorities.The statement also heralds Proposition 209 as giving constitutional protection to America's “highest civic ideals” and advancing the interests of all Californians.[42]

Former law professor Dr. Lawrence Stephens, another staunch Proposition 16 opponent, suggested that "We saw all the way back to the Bakke ruling where affirmative action leads," and "Out of all the states that do not have affirmative action, California has somehow remained one since 1996. And people there voted to give people jobs and college positions based on merit and experience and not because of factors like race or gender. The best person gets it."[12] Many opponents believe that governments, institutions, and colleges who have adopted affirmative action policies essentially use "reverse racism," which they argue keeps away more qualified people as a result. "It's not dog whistling to call it ‘reverse racism’, because that's exactly what it is. Under the old system, you got ‘points’ for being a different race. How is that equal? I always heard back from colleagues that it was because they have been historically subjected and that education in minority areas is generally lower, so they don't get the same opportunities. But when you use government laws to change it, so that people with lower grades or less experience get in, it's just another form of discrimination. It's not fair at all. And many Californians realize this."[12]

Finally, Wenyuan Wu contends that meritocracy, the belief and system that rewards hard work and high achievement, is a fundamental aspect of American democracy. She argues Proposition 16 would weaken the meritocratic spirit by unceasingly focusing on group victimhood and downplaying individual responsibility.[18]

Strong opposition from Asian-Americans

John Fund, national-affairs reporter for the National Review, notes, among Asian-Americans, who constitute nearly 15 percent of California’s electorate, 2 out of 3 oppose the consideration of race in university admissions according to a 2019 Pew Research survey.[43][44] Fund relays Asian-American voters’ frustration in their children facing a “rigged system” at universities that do not have Prop 209 protections.

These sentiments may have been influenced by statements from politicians such as President Bill Clinton, who is quoted as once having said that because of Proposition 209's prohibition against race-preferences, some California universities might have as students, “nothing but Asian Americans.”[15]

Proposition 16 opponents note that Asian Americans have had their own history of legal and systemic discrimination, as well as xenophobic prejudice against them, including the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the Immigration Act of 1917, which excluded immigrants from many parts of Asia, and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.[45]

Despite their own historical marginalization in the United States, Asian Americans have consistently outperformed other racial groups in academics and standardized testing, according to Mike Gonzales, writing for The Federalist. Gonzales attributes these successes to lower rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births, prioritization of academics, and doing more hours of homework per week than Americans of other origins.[36]

At universities without Prop 209 protections, well-qualified Asian American applicants are fighting for what they see as their rightful places at elite universities. Pending appeal in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, is the lawsuit, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which alleges systematic and blatant discrimination against Asian-American applicants at top universities like Harvard. Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) allege that universities like Harvard have discriminated against Asian-American applicants by scoring them lower on personality traits, such as kindness and leadership, perpetuating stereotypes that Asians are passive, compliant or unimaginative.”[46][47] SFFA points to the highly subjective nature of such characterizations as compared to more objective measures like grade point average, engagement in extracurricular activities, and athletic achievements, as a way of intentionally and artificially suppressing the number of Asian-American students admitted to the university. The case remains pending in the First Court of Appeals and may reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

In an opinion-editorial for the Orange County Register, Shawn Steel, California’s committeeman on the Republican National Committee characterizes Asian American opposition to Proposition 16 in California as “strident,” “organized and fierce,” predicting Republicans in 2020 congressional and legislative elections could benefit from Democrats' insistence on passing Proposition 16.[46]

To illustrate Asian-American opposition to Proposition 16, Steel spotlights George Shen, a first generation Chinese-American who came to the United States in 1993. When Shen came to the U.S. he “was dirt poor and had to work all sorts of odd jobs – cleaning restrooms and toilets, working 12 hours a day in restaurants as dishwasher and waiter, mopping floors, bartending at nightclubs, mowing lawns and landscaping during summer – while putting [himself] through graduate school.” Now that Shen is a successful tech executive and AI solutions consultant, he believes while the American dream is “alive and well,” he fears his hard-earned success will unjustly come at the cost of educational opportunities for his children, due to their being penalized in the admissions process for being perceived as having been provided a “privileged” upbringing.[46]

Ward Connerly, the pioneering civil rights leader behind the 1996 implementation of Proposition 209, said that the Asian-American community knows that with Proposition 16's attack on colorblind admissions, “it’s their children’s future at stake.”[21]

California Congressman Ro Khanna has drawn sharp criticism and backlash from his Asian American constituents and supporters for having reneged on his 2014 pledge to oppose race-based preferences by state institutions of higher education. Since signing this pledge in opposition to race-based preferences, Khanna has reversed his position and “wholeheartedly” endorsed Proposition 16.[48]

The Asian American Coalition for Education issued a statement in May 2020, vehemently opposing Proposition 16 as a “divisive” amendment and called upon “all Asian-American" organizations to join their national alliance to stop Proposition 16's renewed attempt to reinstitute racial preferences in public higher education.[49]

Sander vs. Regents of the University of California

Further at issue is the jeopardy Proposition 16 would pose to a lawsuit filed against the University of California by UCLA law professor, Richard Sander, who alleges that the University of California is both illegally using race in admissions in violation of Prop 209 and withholding evidence that they are doing so.[33]

According to Sander, “If my suit is successful, and the data is disclosed, then a demonstration that UC is widely using preferences would generate a strong reaction,” he wrote in an email to TheCollegeFix.com.[33] If the Prop 209 were repealed first, Sander contends that “the reaction would no doubt be less intense.”  

UCLA and Berkeley officials have long denied that they have sought to artificially cap the number of Asian admissions to achieve more racial balance on campus, but after schools could no longer take an applicant's race into account due to Prop 209, Asian enrollment at both campuses spiked.[35]

Proposition 16's negative impact on U.S. global competitiveness

According to UCLA Professor and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Lee Ohanian, U.S. educational outcomes rank in the middle compared to peer countries around the world. He also notes that in some years, U.S. educational outcomes rank below average and trailing those of much poorer countries. In math achievement, he observes, even the highest-performing US states significantly trail the countries with the leading education systems.[22]

Negative psychological effects of affirmative action

Proposition 16 critics argue that racial preferences foster a sense of victimization in their intended beneficiaries, and erode their incentive to excel. They also contend that racial preferences stigmatize their minority beneficiaries, degrading the perceived worth of their qualifications in the eyes of themselves and others.[41] Other critics contend that racial preferences give intended beneficiaries the impression that they are not capable of success without government intervention. As a result, (in their opinion) any successes that may be the result of racial preferences are undermined and cast into doubt.[50]

Committee hearing controversy

Proposition 16 received much public attention after it was introduced to the California Assembly as Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5 (ACA 5). It was initially scheduled for its first committee hearing in mid-March, but was postponed due to the Coronavirus pandemic. The hearing's eventual May 5 rescheduling would take place with twenty-four hours’ notice on the second day the state legislature reconvened, and while most of the state and the country were still under strict stay-at-home and social distancing orders.

Wenyuan Wu, director of the Asian American Coalition for Education (AACE), wrote on May 5th, the day after the hearing, a harsh critique of the California Assembly for prioritizing the amendment that had “little relevance” to more urgent and pressing matters the Assembly should have been deliberating related to the COVID-19 pandemic. According to Wu, this further illustrated Proposition 16 proponents’ questionable motives in setting a rushed hearing in the midst of the pandemic.[16]

Kenny Xu, of Young America's Foundation, also criticized the bill being brought to a committee hearing and stamped for recommendation to the State Assembly and Senate floor, all on the second day the legislature had reconvened. According to Xu, the rushed and hasty nature of the committee hearing made it “instantly clear” that the bill author had been plotting to push the bill through as quickly as possible during the pandemic. Xu further noted the hearing was accompanied by nearly 100 “on-script leftist organizations” calling in to say how strongly they supported Proposition 16, despite a complete lack of public debate in the legislature.[51]  

Grassroots opposition activities

Residents from various cities have been holding weekly "Car Rallies Protesting Prop 16" events since July 3, 2020.[52][53] The car rallies drew voter attention and media reports.[54][55]

List of organizations and individuals
The following U.S. organizations and individuals oppose Prop 16 (ACA 5): [56]

Organizations:

  • 80-20 Educational Foundation, Inc. (80-20)
  • 80-20 DC Chapter
  • Aborn Institute
  • American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI)
  • American Freedom Alliance(AFA)
  • ArchiteG, Inc.
  • Asian American Coalition for Education (AACE)
  • Asian American for Equal Rights (AAER)
  • Asian American Legal Foundation (AALF)
  • Asian Industry B2B (AIB2B)
  • Asians not Brainwashed by Media (ANBM)
  • Association for Education Fainess (AFEF)
  • Bay Area Homeowners Network (BAHN)
  • Better Milpitas (BM)
  • Better Mountain View
  • California Association of Scholars (CAS)
  • California Federation of College Republicans (CFCR)
  • Californians for Equal Rights (CFER)
  • Central California Chinese Cultural Association (CCCCA)
  • Chinese American Civic Action Alliance (CACAAUS)
  • Chinese American Citizens Alliance Greater New York (CACAGNY)
  • Chinese American Citizens Alliance Orange County (CACAOC)
  • Chinese American Equalization Association (HQH)
  • Chinese American Institute for Empowerment
  • Chinese Americans Shooting Sports Club (CASSC)
  • Coalition of Contra Costa County Voters
  • Dallas Fort Worth Political Action Committee (DFW PAC)
  • Equal Rights for All Californians
  • Evergreen Chinese American Association (ECAA)
  • Fair Chance for Asians
  • Greater San Gabriel Valley Safe Community Foundation
  • Ivymax Foundation
  • MorningLight Education Group (MEG)
  • National Association of Scholars (NAS)
  • National Review Editorial Board[57]
  • Northern California Chinese Culture-Athletic Federation (NCCCAF)
  • Orange County Chinese Ladies Group (OCCLG)
  • Pacific Research Institute[58]
  • Panda Kung Fu Center
  • People Encouraging People (PEP)
  • Promoting Leadership in Aspiring Youth (PLAY Leadership)
  • San Diego Asian Americans for Equality (SDAAFE)
  • Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF)[59]
  • Silicon Valley Community United (SVCU)
  • Silicon Valley for Better Environment (SVFBE)
  • Southlands Christian School (SCS)
  • Students for Fair Admissions
  • Take Back America
  • TOC Foundation (TOCF)
  • Tri-Valley Asian Association (TVAA)
  • University of California Chinese Alumni Association (UCCAA)
  • Uttar Pradesh Mandal of America (UPMA)
  • Vote NO on Prop 16
  • WA Asians for Equality (ACE)
  • Wall Street Journal Editorial Board[60]
  • Xi'an Jiaotong University Alumni Association of Northern California
  • Zeidman Consulting

Individuals:

  • Tom Campbell, former U.S. Congressman and former California State Senator
  • Patricia Bates, State Senator
  • Ling Ling Chang, State Senator
  • Ed Chau, State Assemblymember
  • Steven Choi, State Assemblymember
  • Kansen Chu, State Assemblymember
  • Peggy Huang, U.S. Congressional Candidate, California's 45th District
  • Ritesh Tandon, U.S. Congressional Candidate, California's 17th District
  • Gaurang Desai, Media Chair, Tandon for Congress
  • Dr. Melanie Burkholder, Assembly Candidate 76th District
  • June Cutter, Assembly Candidate 77th District
  • Gang Chen, Mayoral Candidate for Irvine
  • Liangfang Chao, Cupertino City Councilmember
  • Dr. Lanhee Chen, Director of Domestic Policy Studies at Stanford University
  • Ward Connerly, President of ACRI
  • Wen Fa, Attorney and Pacific Legal Foundation member[61]
  • John Fund, Journalist[43]
  • Prof. Gail Heriot, Professor of Law at University of San Diego
  • Richard Kahlenberg, The Century Foundation[62]
  • Peter Kirsanow, Attorney and United States Commission on Civil Rights member
  • Peter Kuo, Vice Chairman of California Republican Party
  • Dr. Christina Lin, Center for Transatlantic Relations[63]
  • Linda Liu, Vice President of U.S. Asian Art & Culture Association
  • Michelle Steel, Orange County Supervisor[64]
  • Shawn Steel, Republican National Committee member[65]
  • Tri Ta, Mayor of Westminster
  • Wenyuan Wu, Administrations Director of AACE
  • Robert Zeidman, Engineer
  • Over 137,000 individuals who signed the "Vote No On Proposition 16 (ACA-5)!" petition at Change.org as of July 17, 2020.

The states that also attempted or adopted measures similar to Proposition 209, prohibiting racial discrimination and preferential treatment, are: Washington (adopted by initiative statute in 1998), Florida (adopted by Executive Order of the Governor in 1999), Michigan (adopted by initiative constitutional amendment in 2006), Nebraska (adopted by initiative constitutional amendment in 2008), Colorado (failed initiative constitutional amendment in 2008), Arizona (adopted by constitutional amendment in 2010), New Hampshire (adopted by statute in 2011), and Oklahoma (adopted by legislatively referred constitutional amendment in 2012).[6]:8

Public opinion regarding affirmative action

Public opinion polls on affirmative action have varied significantly. It is likely that survey design and the framing of the survey question itself may have significant effects on the survey results.

In a survey conducted by Gallup in 2013[66], 67% of U.S. adults believed college admission should be solely based on merit. According to Gallup: "One of the clearest examples of affirmative action in practice is colleges' taking into account a person's racial or ethnic background when deciding which applicants will be admitted. Americans seem reluctant to endorse such a practice, and even blacks, who have historically been helped by such programs, are divided on the matter. Aside from blacks, a majority of all other major subgroups believe colleges should determine admissions solely on merit."

In a national survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2014, among 3,335 Americans, 63% felt that affirmative action programs designed to increase the number of black and minority students on college campuses are a good thing. [67]

In October 2018, APIA Vote and AAPI Data published the results of their 2018 Asian American Voter Survey and found that 66% of Asian Americans favor "affirmative action programs designed to help blacks, women, and other minorities get better access to education."[68] Previous reports by these organizations have found consistent support for affirmative action by Asian Americans over time, in multiple surveys.[69]

In February 2019, Gallup published the results of a November and December 2018 survey and found that support for affirmative action programs was growing.[70] They polled 6,502 Americans. Of survey respondents, 65% favored affirmative action programs for women and 61% favored affirmative action programs for minorities.

Also in February 2019, the Pew Research Center published the results of a January and February 2019 survey and found that 73% of its respondents said that race or ethnicity should not be a factor in college admissions decisions.[71] According to this survey's results, majorities across racial and ethnic groups agree that race should not be a factor in college admissions decisions. White adults are particularly likely to hold this view: 78% say this, compared with 65% of Hispanics, 62% of blacks, and 58% of Asians.

See also

References
  1. Byrne, Ryan (June 15, 2020). "California Assembly passes bill for ballot measure to repeal Proposition 209, which banned considering race and sex in public jobs, education, and contracting in 1996". Ballotpedia.
  2. Koseff, Alexei (June 11, 2020). "California bill asking voters whether to repeal anti-affirmative action Prop. 209 advances". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved June 20, 2020.
  3. "Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures". California Secretary of State. Archived from the original on July 2, 2020. Retrieved July 2, 2020.
  4. "Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 5". California Legislative Information. June 25, 2020. Retrieved August 2, 2020.
  5. "Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 5". California Legislative Information. May 6, 2020. Archived from the original on May 17, 2020.
  6. Bolden, Michael. "05/06/20- Assembly Public Employment And Retirement". California Legislature. Retrieved 6 May 2020.
  7. "Affirmative action in California". Ballotpedia.
  8. Robinson, Jenna A. (October 24, 2019). "Did You Know? Eight States Ban Affirmative Action in College Admissions". James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.
  9. "Idaho governor signs affirmative action ban into law". Associated Press. March 31, 2020.
  10. "Freshmen Requirements". University of California, Berkeley. Archived from the original on July 21, 2020.
  11. "Lawmakers Push to Repeal California's Ban on Affirmative Action". theievoice.com. Voice. March 16, 2020.
  12. Symon, Evan (March 17, 2020). "Affirmative Action Could Return Under New State Constitutional Amendment Proposal". California Globe.
  13. "After COVID-19 'Break,' Law That Would Restore Affirmative Action Passes Committee". Assemblymember Dr. Shirley N. Weber District 79. May 7, 2020.
  14. "Endorsements". Yes on 16. Opportunity for All Coalition. Retrieved 20 July 2020.
  15. "Undoing Ban on Race/Sex-Based Preferences Will Harm Students | RealClearPolitics". www.realclearpolitics.com. Retrieved 2020-06-16.
  16. "Commentary: A hasty hearing on a constitutional amendment that would overturn Prop. 209". CalMatters. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
  17. Izumi, Lance. "Op-Ed: Attempt to overthrow Proposition 209 ignores K-12's responsibility". The Center Square. Retrieved 2020-06-16.
  18. "California Revives Affirmative Action". www.americanthinker.com. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
  19. "Proposition 209 and Affirmative Action – Californians for Equal Rights". Retrieved 2020-06-23.
  20. "Prop 209's Legacy 20 Years Later | VOICE". 2016-07-08. Retrieved 2020-06-23.
  21. McGurn, William (2020-06-01). "Opinion | Ward Connerly Rides Again". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
  22. "Restoring Racial Preferences Will Harm Many Who Are Supposed To Be Helped". Hoover Institution. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
  23. Arcidiacono, Peter; Aucejo, E (2014-09-15). "The Effects of Proposition 209 on College Enrollment and Graduation Rates in California". IZA Journal of Labor Economics. doi:10.1186/2193-8997-3-7.
  24. Sander, Richard; Taylor, Stuart. Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It.
  25. Heriot, Gail L. (June 3, 2001). "The Politics of Admissions in California". SSRN.
  26. "Gail Heriot: How Prop. 209 helped under-represented minority students succeed at California universities". San Diego Union-Tribune. 2020-06-09. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
  27. "UC admits largest and most diverse class ever of Californian freshmen". Los Angeles Times. 2019-07-23. Retrieved 2020-06-16.
  28. Sowell, Thomas. "Affirmative Action Around World". Hoover Institution.
  29. Sander, Richard. "A Systematic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools". Stanford Law Review. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  30. "The Damaging Fraud of ACA-5". National Review. 2020-05-15. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
  31. Sander, Richard; Taylor, Stuart, Jr. (2012-10-02). "The Painful Truth About Affirmative Action". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
  32. "Is California Backsliding on Racial Preferences?". National Review. 2020-05-12. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
  33. Pease, Alexander (2020-05-18). "California lawmakers rush to impose race preferences in education during COVID-19 lockdown". The College Fix. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
  34. Marion, Justin (2009). "How Costly Is Affirmative Action? Government Contracting and California's Proposition 209". The Review of Economics and Statistics. 91 (3): 503–522.
  35. Riley, Jason L. (2020-05-19). "Opinion | In California, the Dream of Racial Preferences Never Dies". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
  36. Politics (2020-05-26). "Why Identity Politics Matters More To Democrats Than Asian Americans". The Federalist. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
  37. "The Enemies of Prop 209". The Patriot Post. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
  38. Wallace, Amy (1996-02-21). "Connerly, Sen. Watson Engage in Shouting Match". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2020-06-23.
  39. "AACE Calls Upon Californian Partners and Citizens to Say NO to ACA-5 | Asian American Coalition for Education". Retrieved 2020-06-20.
  40. "Commentary: Why repealing Prop. 209 won't engineer a more equitable California". CalMatters. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
  41. "Haibo Huang: Why California should keep Prop. 209, which prohibits state institutions from considering race". San Diego Union-Tribune. 2020-06-09. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
  42. "National Association of Scholars - ACA-5: License to Discriminate by National Association of Scholars". www.nas.org. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
  43. Fund, John (2020-05-24). "California Democrats Want to Bring Racial Preferences Back". National Review. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
  44. "Admissions" (PDF).
  45. Kahlenberg, Richard D. (2014-03-12). "Why Liberals Should Let California's Affirmative-Action Ban Stand". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
  46. "ACA 5 threatens a civil rights setback for California". Orange County Register. 2020-06-12. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
  47. "Asians are doing too well – they must be stopped". www.spectator.co.uk. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
  48. "Ro Khanna's trust deficit – Win on Indian Americans' shoulders and flip stand on ACA-5, which will hurt them the most". www.pgurus.com. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
  49. "AACE Call to Action: Join the National Alliance to Defend Equal Education Rights in California | Asian American Coalition for Education". Retrieved 2020-06-20.
  50. "Preserve Prop. 209: Don't let racial discrimination return to California". SFChronicle.com. 2020-05-26. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
  51. Politics (2020-05-21). "Calif. Democrats Try To Legalize Racial Discrimination During Pandemic". The Federalist. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
  52. "No on Prop 16 7/3 Cupertino Car Rally". No on Prop 16. 2020-07-17. Retrieved 2020-07-17.
  53. "July 11 Fremont Car Rally Was a Huge Success!". No on Prop16. 2020-07-17. Retrieved 2020-07-17.
  54. Towne, Erika (2020-07-08). "Car Parade Against Proposition 16 Winds Through Sunnyvale". The Silicon Valley Voice. Retrieved 2020-07-17.
  55. 江, 碩涵 (2020-07-04). "反ACA5 華人草根團體上街汽車遊行". the World Journal. Retrieved 2020-07-17.
  56. "Endorse Us". Californians for Equal Rights. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
  57. "California Abandons Equality under the Law". National Review. 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2020-07-26.
  58. Huang, Josie (2020-06-12). "In California, A Vocal Minority of Asian Parents Helped Defeat Affirmative Action Once Before. This Time It Could Be Harder". LA-ist. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
  59. "Stop Discriminatory ACA-5, Protect our Rights of Education and Employment!". Retrieved 2020-06-20.
  60. "A vote for discrimination". The Wall Street Journal. 2020-06-25. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
  61. Stecker, Tiffany (2020-06-10). "California proposal could bring back affirmative action". Bloomberg. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
  62. Gordon, Larry (2020-06-22). "California universities prepare for possible return of affirmative action in admissions". Ed Source. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
  63. Lin, Christina (2020-07-07). "Radicalization of Democrats and Asian voters". Times of Israel. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
  64. Steel, Michelle (2020-07-11). "Proposition 16 will bring discrimination in the name of equality". Orange County Register. Retrieved 2020-07-26.
  65. Steel, Shawn (2020-06-12). "ACA5 threatens a civil rights setback for California". Orange County Register. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
  66. Jones, Jeffery M. (23 July 2013). "In U.S., Most Reject Considering Race in College Admissions: Sixty-seven percent say decisions should be based solely on merit". Gallup.
  67. "4-22-14 Affirmative Action Topline" (PDF). Pew Research Center. Retrieved 22 April 2014.
  68. Ramakrishnan, Karthick. "Infographic 2018 Affirmative Action Favor - AAPI Data". AAPIData. AAPIData. Retrieved 24 July 2020.
  69. Wong, Janelle; Lee, Jennifer; Tran, Van. "Asian Americans' Attitudes toward Affirmative Action: Framing Matters". AAPIData. AAPIData. Retrieved 24 July 2020.
  70. Norman, Jim. "Americans' Support for Affirmative Action Programs Rises". Gallup. Retrieved 24 July 2020.
  71. "2-25-19 Most Americans say colleges should not consider race or ethnicity in admissions". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 25 February 2019.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.