ACA-5 v.s. Proposition 209
[link removed][UNIQID]
CounterCurrent: Week of 5/31
ACA-5 v.s. Proposition 209
CounterCurrent is the National Association of Scholars’ weekly newsletter, bringing you the biggest issues in academia and our responses to them.
[link removed][UNIQID]
Category: Racial Preferences; Reading Time: ~2 minutes
------------------------------------------------------------
** Featured Article - Another Scheme to Justify Racial Preferences by John S. Rosenberg ([link removed][UNIQID])
------------------------------------------------------------
In 1996, California voters were faced with Proposition 209, an amendment ([link removed][UNIQID](1996)) to the California Constitution introduced “to prohibit public institutions from discriminating on the basis of race, sex, or ethnicity.” Predictably, supporters of the bill saw it as a means to preserve equality in admissions while opponents viewed it as just the opposite—it was but an episode in the larger affirmative action saga. Prop. 209 went on to narrowly pass ([link removed][UNIQID](1996)) with a 54.6% majority, effectively banning admissions preferences based on race, sex, and ethnicity within the state’s colleges and universities.
And it worked. The amendment did not only succeed in preventing admissions discrimination in California higher education, but also helped the very populations it was accused of hurting. According to a comprehensive study ([link removed][UNIQID]) conducted by Charles Geshekter and published by the National Association of Scholars,
“They [The applicants] were judged as individuals by their own character and merits, not by the color of their skin, their gender, or stereotypes. In the years since Proposition 209 was enacted, the gaps in California public employment rates between men and women, and between whites, blacks, and Hispanics have continued to narrow. Racial favoritism and gender preferences are not the reasons for the redistribution of public employment jobs, as the magnitude and nature of those shifts remain small.”
Proposition 209 was an unambiguous success and remains in law to this day. However, as Geshekter highlights, “the ‘diversity industry’ remains stubbornly unable to join the celebration.” And they’re not just refraining from celebrating—opponents of Prop. 209 are actively working to overturn the law and reinstate discriminatory admissions practices in California.
Enter Assembly Constitutional Amendment (ACA) 5 ([link removed][UNIQID]) , first introduced to the state assembly in January 2020. This new amendment is a direct challenge of Proposition 209 and will overturn it if passed in November. The National Association of Scholars strongly opposes ([link removed][UNIQID]) ACA-5 on the grounds that it would give California colleges and universities license to discriminate between applicants on the basis of their race, sex, and ethnicity.
This is wholly unjust and corrupts higher education at its core. It’s also unfair to the students who are granted or denied admission based on factors out of their control, while diminishing the importance of those that are.
In this week’s featured article ([link removed][UNIQID]) , John S. Rosenberg at Minding the Campus examines the content and motivation of ACA-5, as well as the legal arguments for and against the amendment. He also places the amendment in context with California’s recent decision to eliminate ([link removed][UNIQID]) its SAT/ACT requirement and the 2020 presidential election. Rosenberg writes:
“Democrats and their progressive allies never recovered from the shock produced by substantial majorities of voters in liberal states voting to prevent blacks and Hispanics (supported by their progressive followers) from bestowing preferential treatment on themselves, and they have been resisting that result from the very beginning. ...
Repealing Prop. 209, ACA 5’s black and Hispanic sponsors claim, will produce the magic of more ‘diversity’: ‘the destruction of stereotypes, the promotion of cross-racial understanding, the preparation of a student body for an increasingly diverse workforce and society, and the cultivation of a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry.’ The wonders of repeal will never cease.”
And yet we know this is simply not the case. Discriminatory admissions practices hurt all parties involved, including the very students they are designed to help. NAS stands against ACA-5, and we hope that you will join us with your support, and if possible, your vote.
Until next week.
John David
Communications Associate
National Association of Scholars
Read More ([link removed][UNIQID])
For more racial preferences in college admissions:
[link removed][UNIQID]
May 26, 2020
** Testing Affirmative Action ([link removed][UNIQID])
------------------------------------------------------------
George W. Dent and Hal R. Arkes
The Supreme Court has held that courts must strictly scrutinize systems that give preferences to people based on their race. Judges need to insist on disaggregated data and evidence that a university has truly proven that “diverse” classrooms lead to better education.
[link removed][UNIQID]
April 19, 2020
** No More Merit ([link removed][UNIQID])
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Kendall
Fred Hess proposes that higher education switch all admissions processes to a random lottery. While the idea is unique, it is likely to create more problems than it solves.
[link removed][UNIQID]
February 26, 2020
** Department of Justice Files Amicus Brief Supporting SFFA ([link removed][UNIQID])
------------------------------------------------------------
NAS
The Department of Justice joins NAS in filing to support racial equality in admissions.
[link removed][UNIQID]
November 13, 2019
** Washington Voters Reject Referendum 88 ([link removed][UNIQID])
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Wood
Washington voters reject a legislative initiative to enforce racial preferences.
** About the NAS
------------------------------------------------------------
The National Association of Scholars, founded in 1987, emboldens reasoned scholarship and propels civil debate. We’re the leading organization of scholars and citizens committed to higher education as the catalyst of American freedom.
============================================================
Follow NAS on social media.
** Facebook ([link removed][UNIQID])
** Twitter ([link removed][UNIQID])
** YouTube ([link removed][UNIQID])
** Website ([link removed][UNIQID])
** Donate ([link removed][UNIQID])
| ** Join ([link removed][UNIQID])
| ** Renew ([link removed][UNIQID])
| ** Bookstore ([link removed][UNIQID])
Copyright © 2020 National Association of Scholars, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website, membership or donation forms, contact forms at events, or by signing open letters.
Our mailing address is:
National Association of Scholars
420 Madison Avenue
7th Floor
New York, NY 10017-2418
USA
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can ** update your preferences ([link removed])
or ** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
.
