Patterico's Pontifications

2/4/2014

California Democrats Seek Repeal of Proposition 209, Desire to Restore Government’s Ability to Discriminate Based on Race

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:46 am

Democrats, I know your party has a long and storied history of discrimination based on race, but would you just drop it already?

Democrats in the California Senate used their two-thirds supermajority Thursday to pass a measure that would ask voters if they want to repeal the state’s ban on race- and gender-based preferences in government hiring and contracting and university admissions.

With the bare minimum number of votes needed – 27 – the upper house passed and sent to the Assembly Senate Constitutional Amendment 5, which would ask voters if they want to repeal provisions that became law 18 years ago with the passage of Proposition 209.

I oppose the repeal of Proposition 209 for reasons that I have argued at this blog for over ten years: I oppose race-based preferences by the government on principle. As Chief Justice Roberts famously said: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” For me, this is a matter of principle.

But it’s now also personal for me. I have a daughter entering high school next year, and the issue of college is weighing on our minds. If Democrats succeed in restore race discrimination by government, it will torpedo my childen’s chances to get into a top-notch UC school like UCLA or Berkeley. It is my fondest hope that she goes to UCLA — a great university that is local and (while very costly) is less costly than private universities.

It will already be tough. If this crap passes, forget it. And as bad as my daughter will have it, her Asian friends will get it worse. The admissions folks discriminate against Asians like mad — if allowed to.

Frankly, these people violate Proposition 209 anyway and everybody knows it. But if it’s repealed, they get to go back to being blatant about it.

Democrats, it’s past time that you stopped trying to use government to discriminate against citizens on the basis of race. Yes, you’ve moved from discriminating against blacks to discriminating against Asians, and I understand that you’re very proud of that. But you shouldn’t be. Just stop already.

66 Comments

  1. Ding.

    Comment by Patterico (9c670f) — 2/4/2014 @ 7:47 am

  2. Well said, sir. The overwhelming majority of people obsessed with race are leftwingers. They see race in everything and do their best to keep “minorities” on the plantation, feeling hopeless and not in control of their own destinies.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (963e6d) — 2/4/2014 @ 7:55 am

  3. It’s in their blood; a Dem’s gotta do, what a Dem’s gotta do!

    Comment by Mike Giles (760480) — 2/4/2014 @ 7:56 am

  4. Once again, Democrats seek to undermine the will of the people when it isn’t to their liking.

    Welcome to Commiefornistan.

    Comment by SGT Ted (5e4482) — 2/4/2014 @ 8:37 am

  5. Patterico, In a previous post about racial preferences in hiring you stated that supported taking steps to address the continuing impacts of discrimination that happened in the past. I wondered if you could explain what approach you’d like to use instead of using race/gender as a consideration. I agree that racial preferences are bad in principle. But what would you like to do?

    Comment by Time123 (fd0080) — 2/4/2014 @ 9:18 am

  6. One can only imagine the ballot statement that Kamala Harris would write. As in:

    “Should restrictions on how the state of California fights racial discrimination be removed?

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 2/4/2014 @ 9:25 am

  7. The problem with using racial preferences in things like job hiring or college admissions is that it’s a zero-sum game. For every less qualified “under-represented minority” you bring in, a more-qualified Asian or white is shut out.

    And the other thing that really gets my goat is all the white liberals who favor racial preferences, now that they have completed their own education and are set in their own public sinecures. I think that every white academic who supports using racial preferences in admissions is honor-bound to resign his or her tenured position so that a less-accomplished minority scholar can be given that job.

    Comment by JVW (a91019) — 2/4/2014 @ 9:43 am

  8. Asians voted for Obama in 2012 by a 73% – 27% margin. I would guess that they vote for Democrats in California by the same — if not a greater — margin. To a certain degree, they deserve to be screwed over by their allies if they are going to be so devoted to liberalism.

    Comment by JVW (a91019) — 2/4/2014 @ 9:52 am

  9. Democrats, it’s past time that you stopped trying to use government to discriminate against citizens on the basis of race.

    They believe in it as a matter of policy, and they find it politically useful, too. Why should they stop?

    Comment by Scrutineer (08b0be) — 2/4/2014 @ 10:05 am

  10. Affirmative action expands in the hands of liberals. The University of Texas at Austin is a prime example. Not only do its administrators embrace affirmative action in academics — including defending it in the Supreme Court in Hopwood and Fisher – but they also have extended it to hiring, including the football coach. President Bill Powers’ first words in his introduction of new football coach Charles Strong were “This is an historic day” and he wasn’t talking about Strong’s football abilities. He was talking about Strong’s race, as Powers explained more fully later:

    Strong’s hiring comes on the heels of the Supreme Court remanding the case Fisher v. Texas this June, a case in which the university is fighting to uphold its affirmative action admission policies. School president Bill Powers believes Strong’s arrival is another step toward Texas becoming an even more diverse university.

    “We’ve got the right football coach. All the things we were looking for are embodied in Charlie Strong,” Powers said. “It’s important we reflect the diversity of our state and our country so I think this is a very important moment for our university. It won’t be the last. We’ve made tremendous strides in diversity over the last decade. A lot of people have worked very hard on that and this is another very important moment for our university.”

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 2/4/2014 @ 10:29 am

  11. Sigh. Patterico, I know of what you speak; I have a son entering high school next year, too. And I have watched how academicians play games in their weird efforts to create an “ethnocracy” on campus, where what is important is one’s racial background. And the interesting part is the Asian question. There is nothing new under the sun; it reminds me of the “Jewish Quota” at universities prior to WWII. The language is identical.

    I guess it all comes back to “Animal Farm.” You saw Jerry Seinfeld getting smeared on Gawker, right?

    Diversity uber alles. But some differences are more equal than others.

    I weep for our Harrison Bergeron Nation.

    Comment by Simon Jester (c8876d) — 2/4/2014 @ 10:36 am

  12. I would be against repeal, but the universities have long “worked around” the spirit of the law.

    My nieces/nephews are all older than your daughter, but so far all three who applied to medical school have been turned down. Perfect grades, activities, etc. But white lawyer/doctor parents. Gong!

    I would add that even more than ethnicity counts now. A reality show about little people stars a woman who is a doctor. I’m sure she is qualified, but I’m also sure she was sought after as a diversity hire!

    Comment by Patricia (be0117) — 2/4/2014 @ 10:44 am

  13. Voting and not voting have consequences. So too does “single issue” politics.

    Less than 25 years ago California was a different California. Sixteen consecutive years of GOP hegemony over the governor’s mansion. A relatively balanced state legislature. And a relative balanced electorate. Prop. 209 didn’t enact itself. Alas, Pete Wilson committed the grave sin of being pro choice and then even the greater crime of being reelected, and the rest largely is history and now is part of the dustbin of the Golden State’s sorry future.

    Of course there were other factors. But the insanity of the extreme WASP factions out here can’t be denied at least as a key causal factor. The irrationality of single-issue politics is no less disastrous than the irrationality of leftism as policy.

    Comment by Lawrence Westlake (4fc30a) — 2/4/2014 @ 10:56 am

  14. One of the problems that California is dealing with in getting highly-qualified Black and Latino kids enrolled at the UC schools is that those same students are being heavily recruited at schools like Stanford, USC, Northwestern, Chicago, Notre Dame, the Ivy League, MIT, Duke, etc. There was an article a few years back in my local paper about a high school valedictorian with perfect (or near-perfect) SAT scores. He was a Guatemalan (who came here legally!) and was being recruited the same way that star athletes are recruited. Harvard and Princeton flew him across the country to visit their campuses, and everyone was offering him a free education. As great as UCLA and Berkeley are, it’s hard to compete when the elite private schools are begging you to come.

    Comment by JVW (a91019) — 2/4/2014 @ 10:57 am

  15. That’s true, JVW. Hence at the college where I worked, grants were sought and won for remedial aid to all the incoming, unqualified students.

    Comment by Patricia (be0117) — 2/4/2014 @ 11:22 am

  16. According the Supreme Court decision on the homosexuals in Colorado, a State cannot repeal laws giving rights to people.

    Comment by Federale (@Federale86) (805720) — 2/4/2014 @ 11:24 am

  17. The New York Times had a story about the perverse effects of Title IX (equal treatment of men and women’s sports) although maybe they didn’t exactly editorialize it that way.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/27/sports/committing-to-play-for-a-college-then-starting-9th-grade.html?_r=0

    It’s gotten to the point where girls are now being recruited by colleges and offered athletic scholarships in the 8th grade!!

    Haley is not a once-in-a-generation talent like LeBron James. She just happens to be a very good soccer player, and that is now valuable enough to set off a frenzy among college coaches, even when — or especially when — the athlete in question has not attended a day of high school.

    For Haley, the process ended last summer, a few weeks before ninth grade began, when she called the coach at Texas to accept her offer of a scholarship four years later.

    The reason for this is they have to spend equal amounts of money, and if they are going to offer athletic scholarships, they want good atheletes, and there are fewer good women atheletes than scholarshps (the opposite of what it is with men) so they drill down into lower grades in hopes of getting good athletes before other colleges snap then up.

    It gets worse:

    What’s more, some colleges over-recruit, and many girls stay on the bench, because what counts is how much they are spending on womens sports, and not how many girls are playing!!!

    It would violate NCAA rules to contact a player before the junior year of High School is over, but they get around it by contacting the coaches or clubs, and having the students, or their parents, contact various schools.

    Players are not supposed to commit to a college until signing a letter of intent in the spring of their senior year, but that’s not enforceable.

    The committment is probably not enforceable anyway, except against the schools.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (b4888e) — 2/4/2014 @ 11:45 am

  18. apparently, no matter what, you’re not doing enough to fight racism, even if you are a POC…

    http://www.blackgirldangerous.org/2014/02/4-ways-push-back-privilege/

    warning: weapons grade moonbat ravings. click on link at own risk.

    Comment by redc1c4 (abd49e) — 2/4/2014 @ 12:08 pm

  19. there’s a great argument for not passing this bill given in the article linked:

    “If it weren’t for affirmative action, I,Kevin de León, wouldn’t be here today,” he said.

    he’s the fascist who wants to pass more gun laws, because how dare people be armed.

    Comment by redc1c4 (abd49e) — 2/4/2014 @ 12:10 pm

  20. Patrick, it is not too late to change your, and your daughter’s, surname to something more “diverse”-sounding like Manunga (Congolese), Abasi (Kenyan) or al-Shabazz. And get her into her school’s LGBT/WTF group, pronto!

    Comment by Mitch (341ca0) — 2/4/2014 @ 1:03 pm

  21. Everyone is just too racist to realize that discriminating against race is actually the best option. You’re required to have a post-doctorate in racial studies and several peer reviewed papers published before your opinion can be taken seriously. There’s a 99.99% agreement among all race doctors that racial discrimination is the only way to beat racial discrimination.

    Comment by DejectedHead (a094a6) — 2/4/2014 @ 1:06 pm

  22. DejectedHead – Indeed, it’s racist even to consider not discriminating by race. Why even consider ability to benefit in distributing scarce public education resources? Pure crazy talk!

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/4/2014 @ 1:19 pm

  23. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/4/2014 @ 1:19 pm

    Why even consider ability to benefit in distributing scarce public education resources? Pure crazy talk!

    Thomas Sowell, I believe, has said this kind of thing actually decreases college graduation rates for the people who benefit from it.

    People can’t benefit when they are put into a school above their educational level.

    Maybe it wouldn’t decrease the probability of eventual graduation if, after failing, people transferred into easier schools, but few people know to do this, and there’s the money issue.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 2/4/2014 @ 1:30 pm

  24. Sammy

    There’s no money issue. Just get a loan. That’s what the President says.

    Its the fiscally responsible thing to do.

    No downsides at all.

    Also, nobody requires an actual graduation to get a benefit from college…that’s short sighted. The mere act of attending the college is all you need. You get to learn about all the newest advancements in propaganda science.

    People go to college for the experience…not for a degree!

    Comment by DejectedHead (a094a6) — 2/4/2014 @ 1:35 pm

  25. Petterico, start early, get a copy of UCLA’s current catalog and familiarize yourself with today’s admissions standards. Some specific HS courses are highly favored over others, some extracurricular activities are important to admissions officers, advanced HS students can take lower division courses at Community Colleges which are transferable and count toward degree credit at UC campuses (good grades result in letters of recommendation from college instructors which carry weight and demonstrate ability at the college level). And, don’t fixate on UCLA and Berkeley both schools overly emphasize graduate education and too often shortchange undergraduate instruction to concentrate resources elsewhere.

    Prepare in advance for the school of your choice but don’t overlook UC Santa Barbara, best undergraduate education in the UC system. Take the 2 hour drive up to the Goleta campus and look around, talk to the director of admissions, visit the library, get a feel for the place.

    PS: Request an admissions packet now and learn how to put your daughter’s best foot forward. When the time comes you’ll be well prepared to present her application in the best light.

    Comment by ropelight (ae48e3) — 2/4/2014 @ 1:46 pm

  26. People worry too much about college admission, at least the possibility of not getting admitted altogether.

    At the State of the Union speech last Tuesday President Obama told a story about somebody who had gotten many of his fellow students to apply for college and mail it at the same time (gotta organize that – they might not drop it in the mailbox)

    …and then he announced to the entire country that this person had now received news of his college admission, like it was a great thing.

    It was the most absurd moment in the speeech.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 2/4/2014 @ 1:52 pm

  27. Alternate headline: DEMOCRATS STILL WANT JIM CROW

    Comment by Rob Crawford (45d991) — 2/4/2014 @ 2:15 pm

  28. Ah, well known phenomena, different groups have to be treated differently to be treated the same. I learned about 15 years ago when I got hauled in for using the phrase “if you don’t make mistakes you’re not trying hard enough” to woman instead a man like I usually do. Apparently white men interpret this as “don’t be so afraid of making a mistake” while women hear this as “I think you are a lazy cow who cannot be trusted with anything.” Amazing isn’t it?

    Comment by max (131bc0) — 2/4/2014 @ 2:19 pm

  29. The Democrat-run legislature definitely will not title any such proposition by its obvious intent: “The Discrimination Act of 2014″ or “Preferential Treatment of Non-Asian People of Color”.

    They’ll pervert words like “Justice” and “Equality” in pursuit of bias.

    Comment by David (099e1f) — 2/4/2014 @ 2:20 pm

  30. I agree that racial preferences are bad in principle. But what would you like to do?

    A wise man said, “the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race”.

    It’s illegal. It’s immoral. Why is anyone even trying to seek out ways to do it “legal”?

    Comment by Rob Crawford (45d991) — 2/4/2014 @ 2:22 pm

  31. Democrats should be re-labelled as “word shifters”. They redefine common terms to mean what they want them to mean. Torture gets twisted to mean “Any mental anguish”. Racist gets twisted to mean “Criticism of a minority race (even if that race is a majority in that area)”. Affordable gets to mean “More expensive, but possibly less than it would be 10 years from now”. Rape gets to mean “Any part of a man touching a woman…even if she desires the contact.” Intelligence gets to mean “Agreeing with the Democratic party.” Fairness gets to mean “My way.”

    Comment by DejectedHead (a094a6) — 2/4/2014 @ 2:30 pm

  32. I’m thoroughly put out with my own alma mater, the University of Texas, whose admissions policies have been repeatedly, famously, and ruinously corrupted by racial preferences.

    My own four offspring have all instead gone to the University of Houston’s Honors College, where they’ve been welcomed — and been the beneficiaries of very generous merit-based scholarships — despite their Scots-Irish complexions and middle-class status. I recommend it highly, including for Texas ex-pats, Patrick. ;-)

    Comment by Beldar (8ff56a) — 2/4/2014 @ 2:35 pm

  33. “Why even consider ability to benefit in distributing scarce public education resources? Pure crazy talk!

    Thomas Sowell, I believe, has said this kind of thing actually decreases college graduation rates for the people who benefit from it.

    People can’t benefit when they are put into a school above their educational level.”

    Sammy – Your first sentence above referencing Thomas Sowell does not incorporate the ability to benefit I mentioned in my comment. Your second sentence does describe what I was talking about and also what I believe Sowell has written about.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/4/2014 @ 3:10 pm

  34. Democrats; making distinctions on Race since before the Civil War!

    Comment by C. S. P. Schofield (e8b801) — 2/4/2014 @ 3:16 pm

  35. Rev. Sharpton’s gotta eat!

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/4/2014 @ 3:22 pm

  36. If you can’t discriminate by race, how are you ever going to be able discriminate by class?

    Comment by htom (412a17) — 2/4/2014 @ 3:32 pm

  37. Screw all this, I get to work fewer hours AND work with clay! Thank you Preezy 0bama! Thank you 0bamaCare!

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (24650e) — 2/4/2014 @ 3:47 pm

  38. “Screw all this, I get to work fewer hours AND work with clay!”

    Colonel – I have learned about the amazing things you can do with jello molds!

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/4/2014 @ 4:03 pm

  39. “Patrick, it is not too late to change your, and your daughter’s, surname to something more “diverse”-sounding like Manunga (Congolese), Abasi (Kenyan) or al-Shabazz. And get her into her school’s LGBT/WTF group, pronto!”

    A friend of mine was applying to UCSF medical school. This was back in the late 70s. He is Cuban born. His parents sent him to Florida to live with relatives while they tried to get out after Castro took power. They took years to do so and he wound up in an orphanage for a couple of years. They finally got out and he was well prepared for medical school.

    He hadn’t heard from UCSF in several months and finally drove up there to inquire. The girl in Admissions told him his application was still in the “Hispanic committee.” He asked if they could just treat him as “white” and ignore his last name. They said, OK and he got accepted a week or two later. He still wonders if he would have passed whatever criteria they were using.

    Comment by Mike K (cd7278) — 2/4/2014 @ 4:06 pm

  40. I just don’t understand why anyone would support racial discrimination against their own race. I understand opposing all discrimination on principle; and I understand favouring discrimination for ones own kind; but favouring discrimination against ones own kind? That seems literally insane. Self-loathing. Suicidal. The sort of thing that, when not connected to politics, gets people committed.

    And that being so, it seems to me that in any democracy made up of sane people the only possibilities ought to be 1) no discrimination; or 2) discrimination for the majority. How can a democracy end up discriminating for minorities?

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 2/4/2014 @ 4:48 pm

  41. PS: The answer seems to be altruism, in the form that Ayn Rand denounced so graphically. The insane idea that anything that benefits oneself is suspect, and anything that is done only to for the sake of others, with no benefit to oneself at all, is good and pure.

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 2/4/2014 @ 4:50 pm

  42. According the Supreme Court decision on the homosexuals in Colorado, a State cannot repeal laws giving rights to people.

    Thanks for the drive by, but that decision said nothing of the sort. Romer v Evans said that the state could not use its constitution to handicap identifiable groups. In that case and initiative had forbidden the state to add gays to the list of protected groups, and the Court said that this did not pass the laugh rational basis test.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 2/4/2014 @ 4:53 pm

  43. It’s the decision itself that doesn’t pass the laugh test.

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 2/4/2014 @ 4:59 pm

  44. How can a democracy end up discriminating for minorities?

    Where there’s will, there’s a way.

    foxnews.com, February 4: Students and parents at a Colorado high school are outraged after administrators turned down their request for a spirit week day honoring America because it might offend non-Americans.

    “They said they didn’t want to offend anyone from other countries or immigrants,” a 16-year-old member of the student council told me. “They just really did not want to make anyone feel uncomfortable.”

    The irony, said the students, is that they are required to participate in Cinco de Mayo celebrations. One member of the student council pointed out the hypocrisy – and noted that students were not being forced to dress in red, white and blue for “’Merica Day.”

    Comment by Mark (267671) — 2/4/2014 @ 5:44 pm

  45. Patterico, In a previous post about racial preferences in hiring you stated that supported taking steps to address the continuing impacts of discrimination that happened in the past.

    You’d have to provide me with a link and a quote. I believe that our history has something to do with the problems faced by the black community — but I also think it goes deeper than that. I don’t advocate discrimination by government to fix that, and if you can find a quote by me to the contrary I would be very surprised.

    Comment by Patterico (9c670f) — 2/4/2014 @ 6:26 pm

  46. It is interesting to me that, when I teach medical students, most of the black students are from foreign countries. American blacks have a serious psychological handicap and I have discussed this with black students from other countries. The Americans assume they will fail. The foreign kids have no such hangup. I’ve seen it again and again.

    Comment by Mike K (cd7278) — 2/4/2014 @ 6:52 pm

  47. I think culture rather than race is a larger factor;

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Triple-Package-Unlikely-Cultural/dp/1594205469

    leave it to the Dog Trainer, to get it spectacularly wrong,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 2/4/2014 @ 6:57 pm

  48. Mike K., hear hear. Long time no see.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 2/4/2014 @ 7:09 pm

  49. Amazing that with the affirmative action ciphers in the WH that any would consider it a positive.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 2/4/2014 @ 7:09 pm

  50. It was the most absurd moment in the speeech.

    i didn’t watch or listen to thr raving lunatic (quel surprise, no?), but i’d have to say that the most absurd point would have been when the Indonesian Idiot spewed forth the words “My fellow Americans”… if he did.

    Our SCOAMF is no more one of my “fellow Americans” than i was Miss America my senior year of high school (or any other).

    Comment by redc1c4 (abd49e) — 2/4/2014 @ 7:11 pm

  51. In that case and initiative had forbidden the state to add gays to the list of protected groups, and the Court said that this did not pass the laugh rational basis test.

    The biggest problem with that amendment was that it did not equally prohibit the state from adding straights to protected groups.

    Romer v. Evans would have been decided the other way if the state merely prohibited protecting all people (not just homosexuals) from sexual orientation discrimination.

    As for the original subject matter, Jim Crow was a system of racial preferences.

    Comment by Michael Ejercito (906585) — 2/4/2014 @ 7:12 pm

  52. I just don’t understand why anyone would support racial discrimination against their own race. I understand opposing all discrimination on principle; and I understand favouring discrimination for ones own kind; but favouring discrimination against ones own kind? That seems literally insane. Self-loathing. Suicidal. The sort of thing that, when not connected to politics, gets people committed.

    Jim Crow laws prevented white people from using certain restrooms, certain water fountains, attending certain schools, etc. Hell, white people were prohibited from serving with the Tuskegee Airmen.

    And yet, a majority of white people back then supported these policies that discriminated against whites. I wonder what the reason was…

    Comment by Michael Ejercito (906585) — 2/4/2014 @ 7:20 pm

  53. Why is the voluntary manslaughter of a person eighteen years and one day old only worth fifteen years in prison, and the voluntary manslaughter of a person seventeen years and 364 days old worth thirty? Ayn Rand’s half-baked, animalistic musings are not helpful. Societies can choose to give a helping hand, and extra protection, to those of their members whom they consider in need and vulnerable. Choosing who those members are and how they should be helped is not easy. It requires some measure of wisdom so that society as a whole is itself not harmed in the process. It may require setting aside self-interest and identity politics. Is the California legislature (heck, the California electorate) known for its wisdom, and its disregard of short-term self-interest and identity politics for the greater good of the state?

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 2/4/2014 @ 8:12 pm

  54. Forget California, how does it work in your neck of the woods, nk,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 2/4/2014 @ 8:18 pm

  55. UIC is very determined not to be Harvard on Halsted Street, the last I heard. It has no desire to be an elite school but it provides a very good education anyway. The complaints I have heard about the “good” U of I at Champaign-Urbana are that it recruits too many out-of-state students because it wants their bigger tuition. If we can, we will not send our daughter to either. We will send her to the University of Chicago. If her grades and SATs will only get her into a second-tier school, there’s a great many out there.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 2/4/2014 @ 8:30 pm

  56. And that’s the thing. We’re talking about the small cup of the brassiere curve — the top five percent of applicants competing for public universities with pretensions of being Yale at LA or Harvard at Austin. It is not an issue with applicants to unpretentious public universities, who see their mission being to educate and not to increase their prestige.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 2/4/2014 @ 8:37 pm

  57. Let the will of the people of California be taken, known, and acted upon.

    Strange that they want a vote. Can’t they just get somebody to sue, the state to not defend it, and a judge to overturn it? Works every time.

    Comment by ErisGuy (76f8a7) — 2/5/2014 @ 5:33 am

  58. Strange that they want a vote. Can’t they just get somebody to sue, the state to not defend it, and a judge to overturn it? Works every time.

    The Ninth Circuit already upheld Prop 209, so only the en banc Court or the Supreme Court can undo what the Ninth Circuit did.

    http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/U-S-appeals-court-hears-challenge-to-Prop-209-3312625.php

    “[Judge Tashima] said the only recourse for opponents of Prop. 209 would be to ask the full appeals court for a new hearing…”

    Comment by Michael Ejercito (906585) — 2/5/2014 @ 7:14 am

  59. I just don’t understand why anyone would support racial discrimination against their own race. I understand opposing all discrimination on principle; and I understand favouring discrimination for ones own kind; but favouring discrimination against ones own kind? That seems literally insane. Self-loathing. Suicidal. The sort of thing that, when not connected to politics, gets people committed.

    They don’t see it as discriminating against their kind, but that other kind. Upper-class, well-connected urban whites won’t have any problems getting into schools they want, but suburban and rural, middle-class, working family whites and Asians, will.

    Comment by Rob Crawford (45d991) — 2/5/2014 @ 6:38 pm

  60. Romer v. Evans is simply an utterly incoherent Supreme Court decision. It distorted precedent to obtain a politically correct result. And its incoherence still haunts the Supreme Court. Its a stupidly reasoned decision like Lawrence.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 2/5/2014 @ 6:56 pm

  61. Romer is actually pretty to understand. In a nutshell, if anti-discrimination protections are generally available to heterosexuals, they must be generally available to homosexuals as well.

    Comment by Michael Ejercito (906585) — 2/5/2014 @ 9:21 pm

  62. Romer is actually pretty to understand. In a nutshell, if anti-discrimination protections are generally available to heterosexuals, they must be generally available to homosexuals as well.

    That is word salad. Bibble-babble. It can’t be parsed into anything sensible. The whole point of constitutions is to restrict the kind of laws that the legislature can make; if the CO amendment in question discriminates against those who would like to have the legislature ban discrimination against gays, then the first amendment to the federal constitution discriminates against those who would like to have Congress ban Islam. Opponents of discrimination against gays are a group distinguished by a political opinion; so are opponents of Islam. Why should one have a constitutionally protected right to try to persuade the legislature of their position, while the other does not?

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 2/5/2014 @ 10:27 pm

  63. If anyone is feeling bored, the US Commission on Civil Rights put out a 200-page report when the ABA was considering mandating affirmative action in law schools. Aside from the First Amendment considerations, it discussed Richard Sander’s mismatch theory in great detail. Fascinating reading.

    Comment by bridget (6c6095) — 2/6/2014 @ 6:16 am

  64. Nope. Romer v. Evans established an important precedent. “Don’t single out a small and despised minority for a stupid law, or we’ll find something in Due Process or Equal Protection to strike it down with.” And the Colorado amendment was stupid. In concept and in execution. So Aspen wanted to attract gays to its ski slopes and said, “We’ll make hotels, lodges and restaurants treat you like you’re normal people, and even make it a special crime for people to beat you up because you’re gay”. And people who did not live in Aspen, and maybe some who did, got butthurt and said “We can’t let that happen here”. Fine, don’t elect legislators who pass laws like that. Contrast it with Prop 209 which was upheld.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 2/6/2014 @ 6:40 am

  65. if the CO amendment in question discriminates against those who would like to have the legislature ban discrimination against gays

    the amendment in question banned laws that prohibited discrimination against gays, while allowing laws that prohibited discrimination against straights.

    here is the law in question.

    Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.”

    Note that the word “heterosexual” is missing. Under that law, heterosexual “orientation, conduct, practices or relationships” may constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons “to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination”

    If heterosexuals were excluded from these protections as well, the law would have been upheld, for it would have applied equally to homosexual and heterosexual.

    Comment by Michael Ejercito (906585) — 2/6/2014 @ 7:29 am

  66. Even stupider. Traditional marriage laws give preference to heterosexuals. It would have been an equal-rights-regardless-of-sexual-orientation amendment. Same-sex marriage, boom!

    It should have been left alone, and up to the legislature and the home rule units to determine who among them needed protection from discrimination.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 2/6/2014 @ 7:37 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2692 secs.