Racial preferences remain illegal in the Golden State
[link removed][UNIQID]
CounterCurrent:
California Voters Reject Prop. 16
Racial preferences remain illegal
in the Golden State
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 Press Release - California Votes to Keep Ban on Race and Sex Discrimination ([link removed][UNIQID])
------------------------------------------------------------
If you’re anything like me, you spent way too much time reading the news last week. Presidential results, Senate results, House results, local results—the list goes on and on. And while a Biden-Harris administration appears to be confirmed (for more on what that may look like, click here ([link removed][UNIQID]) ), much is still uncertain. Four states have still not been called for either candidate. In some that have been, lawsuits and recount requests abound. Republicans made significant, unexpected gains in the House and Democrats still have a chance to gain control of the Senate.
One local measure that received far less national coverage was Proposition 16. Outside of California, many were not even aware of its existence. The ballot measure ([link removed][UNIQID](2020)) was a proposed amendment to the California state constitution, one that would overturn Proposition 209 ([link removed][UNIQID](1996)) , the state’s ban on race and sex preferences passed in 1996.
The National Association of Scholars is pleased to report that Proposition 16 has failed ([link removed][UNIQID]) and anti-discrimination law remains on the books in California.
Perhaps surprisingly, Prop. 16 was rejected by a significant margin ([link removed][UNIQID](2020)) ( 56.52% to 43.48%). That’s even wider than that which decided the vote to approve Prop. 209 in the 90s (54.55% to 45.45%). This leaves many wondering: how could a state like California, one that is thought to be so progressive, reject an “affirmative action” measure like Prop. 16 by such a wide margin?
Gail Heriot, member of the NAS Board of Directors and leader of the charge against Prop. 16, believes that pro-Prop. 16 advocates simply misread their audience. Speaking to Inside Higher Education ([link removed][UNIQID]) , she says "I think California voters voted their conscience on the issue … People think everyone votes according to their race and sex. Californians reject identity politics."
Frederick Hess at the American Enterprise Institute seems to agree, in an op-ed aptly titled “Election results raise questions about education’s racial narrative ([link removed][UNIQID]) ”:
Californians said no to Proposition 16 even as they handed Biden a massive 32-point statewide victory … Because it can be tough to publicly object to any of this [e.g., affirmative action], the ballot box may have offered a safe place to share those doubts.
On the other side of the debate, Shirley J. Wilcher, executive director of the American Association for Access Equity and Diversity, argued ([link removed][UNIQID]) “there may not have been enough time to ‘educate the electorate’ about Prop 16.” Regardless of time, there was certainly enough money—as per NAS’s press release ([link removed][UNIQID]) , the pro-Prop. 16 coalition raised nearly $31 million, compared to the opposition’s measly $1.6 million.
Discussing the results, NAS President Peter Wood says, “The people of California have once again shown that they are nowhere near as biased and fanatical as their local leaders … Almost twenty-five years ago the people of California said ‘no’ to discrimination and they’ve said it again today.”
The efforts of racial preference advocates have now failed or stalled in California, Washington ([link removed][UNIQID]) , and New York ([link removed][UNIQID]) , three of the bluest states in the country. If “affirmative action” measures can’t be passed there, then where can they? Is it only a matter of time before they will succeed, or will this issue always polarize Americans? Time will tell, but for now, Californians can be confident that they will be judged by their merits, not by the color of their skin.
Until next week.
John David
Communications Associate
National Association of Scholars
Read More ([link removed][UNIQID])
For more on racial preferences in American higher education:
[link removed][UNIQID]
September 23, 2020
** Bleemer Blooper: How UC is Using Fake Research to Promote Prop. 16 (MTC) ([link removed][UNIQID])
------------------------------------------------------------
John S. Rosenberg
Everyone is familiar with fake news. Now the University of California (UC) has presented us with what can only be described as fake research.
[link removed][UNIQID]
July 20, 2020
** Misreading Polling Data on Race (MTC) ([link removed][UNIQID])
------------------------------------------------------------
John S. Rosenberg
Surveys on racial issues often obfuscate and confuse more than they clarify because their findings are notoriously susceptible to variations in what opinion is being sought and how terms are defined.
[link removed][UNIQID]
July 13, 2020
** Black Lives Matter on the Ballot ([link removed][UNIQID])
------------------------------------------------------------
John S. Rosenberg
Proposition 16 is much bigger than affirmative action—it's a tacit endorsement of the BLM agenda.
[link removed][UNIQID]
July 16, 2020
** The Effects of Proposition 209 on California ([link removed][UNIQID])
------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Geshekter and David Randall
This study, originally published in 2008 and updated in 2020, examines the effects of Proposition 209 on racial and gender diversity in California higher education over a 20 year span.
** 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])
.
