Proposition 209—Twenty Five Years Later
[link removed][UNIQID]
CounterCurrent: Week of 7/19
Proposition 209—Twenty Five Years Later
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 - The Effects of Proposition 209 on California by Charles Geshekter and David Randall ([link removed][UNIQID])
------------------------------------------------------------
When I last wrote ([link removed][UNIQID]) to you on the subject, Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5 (ACA-5) ([link removed][UNIQID]) was up for a vote in the California state legislature, a measure written to pave the way for an affirmative action bill to make it on the ballot this November. Since then, the amendment passed the State Assembly and State Senate ([link removed][UNIQID]) in landslide victories, with the “ayes” in both houses comprising at least 75% of the votes cast. That in turn gave birth to Proposition 16 ([link removed][UNIQID](2020)) , a new bill that, if passed by California voters, will overturn Proposition 209 and reinstate race, sex, and ethnicity preferences in the state's government, colleges, and universities.
Proposition 209 passed ([link removed][UNIQID](1996)) in 1996 with 54% of voters approving the measure. Supporters saw it as a way to protect equal opportunity hiring and admissions in the state’s public sector, while opponents claimed it would further entrench the various forms of social inequity that held minority groups back.
The National Association of Scholars and our regional affiliate, the California Association of Scholars, were instrumental in helping convince Californians that state-sanctioned racial discrimination should be outlawed. Those arguments pushed Prop. 209 into law. Remarkably, it has survived the nearly twenty five years since passing and has led the way for other states to follow suit, including Washington ([link removed][UNIQID](1998)) , Michigan ([link removed][UNIQID](2006)) , Nebraska ([link removed][UNIQID](2008)) , Arizona ([link removed][UNIQID](2010)) , and Oklahoma ([link removed][UNIQID](2012)) .
California voters considering Proposition 16 in November must ask: what effects has Proposition 209 had on higher education since it was approved in 1996? Did it hurt ethnic minorities and women as critics claim? Or did it actually help these groups?
In 2008, NAS went about answering these questions and published an extensive study ([link removed][UNIQID]) by Dr. Charles Geshekter, professor emeritus of history at California State University, Chico, titled “The Effects of Proposition 209 on California: Higher Education, Public Employment, and Contracting ([link removed][UNIQID]) .” At the time, Geshekter found that:
Despite the temporary declines in enrollments that were noticeable only at the state’s two most elite public universities, the overall population of underrepresented minority students rose steadily as more entered and more graduated from the institutions for which they were fully qualified. …
Ending racial preferences and gender double standards in California has produced none of the social traumas that Proposition 209 opponents swore would occur. …
This week’s featured article ([link removed][UNIQID]) is an expanded update of Geshekter’s research, compiled and revised by NAS Research Director David Randall. The study now contains data from 1996 to 2019 and further confirms Geshekter’s original conclusions. Indeed, Randall writes that:
from 1999 to 2018, the number of black students who earned baccalaureate degrees from the UC and from the CSU systems increased from 3,856 to 5,919, a 54% jump in 21 years. Over that same 21-year period, the number of Hispanic students who earned a baccalaureate degree from both systems combined grew from 14,330 to 54,420, a 280% increase. [up from 19% and 38%, respectively, in Geshekter’s original 1999-2006 numbers] …
Gender differences that persist among college majors or in occupational concentrations anywhere in America primarily reflect individual differences in career choices, not discriminatory barriers to women’s advancement. In 2005–06, women earned 66% of all doctorates in both education and the health sciences, and 59% of those in the social sciences. ...
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.
NAS stands by the fact that Proposition 209 helps the very groups it was accused of hurting. Over twenty years of data proves that merit, not state-sanctioned racial discimination, promotes equity. If passed in November, Proposition 16 would return California to a racial spoils system, one that time and time again has hurt minorities.
Until next week.
John David
Communications Associate
National Association of Scholars
Read More ([link removed][UNIQID])
For more on Proposition 209 and racial preferences in higher ed:
[link removed][UNIQID]
July 13, 2020
** Black Lives Matter on the Ballot ([link removed][UNIQID])
------------------------------------------------------------
John Rosenberg
Proposition 16 is much bigger than affirmative action—it's a tacit endorsement of the BLM agenda.
[link removed][UNIQID]
July 08, 2020
** Scheming to Revive Racial Preferences in California ([link removed][UNIQID])
------------------------------------------------------------
Gail Heriot
ACA 5 has passed both houses of the California State Legislature and threatens to revive affirmative action in the state if its resulting bill, Proposition 16, is approved by voters in November.
[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]
November 13, 2019
** Washington Voters Reject Referendum 88 ([link removed][UNIQID])
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Wood
Washington voters reject a legislative initiative to enforce racial preferences, setting an example for those in other states to follow suit.
** 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])
.
