Jerry Brown Agrees with the Diversity-Bake-Sale Activists--Well, Sort of
On Saturday, Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed SB 185, a bill that would allow California universities to consider race in admissions. The bill was authored by state senator Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina). Rob Charles, a staff member for Hernandez, said, "What we're saying is, you can at least look at race and other factors for a more holistic approach to the process. It doesn't set up quotas, it just says you can consider those factors."
However, when California voters passed Proposition 209, the following language became part of the California Constitution: "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."
SB 185 clearly violates the Calif. Constitution. In my judgement, anyone who claims otherwise is simply dishonest.
Here are my awards for the people or groups who have been especially dishonest or honest on this issue. At the end, I give a special award to an organization which was simply slimy.
Dishonesty Awards
1) State senator Ed Hernandez, and his staff member Rob Charles. Despite Charles' claim above, the bill clearly violates the constitution.
2) The Los Angeles Times. In this article, journalist Lee Romney claims that "[SB 185] would not violate [Prop. 209]. Instead it would permit schools to consider things such as ethnicity, much as they do extra-curricular activities, when weighing candidates."
Honesty Awards
1) Gov. Jerry Brown. In his veto message Brown wrote, "I wholeheartedly agree with the goal of this legislation...[However] Our constitutional system of separation of powers requires that the courts -- not the Legislature -- determine the limits of Proposition 209...Signing this bill is unlikely to impact how Proposition 209 is ultimately interpreted by the courts; it will just encourage the 209 advocates to file more costly and confusing lawsuits."
2) The Daily Bruin. In this article, journalist Kelly Zhou notes in the subtitle, "Constitutionality of SB 185 in question as it sparks controversy, debate across UC campuses."
3) Upper-level University of California administrators. The same article notes:
The UC, however, has made it clear that its admissions policy would not change [even if Brown signs the bill], citing constitutional reasons. In 1996, voters passed Proposition 209, which banned affirmative action in public universities in California.
“We would not change the way we do admissions because Proposition 209 is part of the California constitution,” said Ricardo Vázquez, a spokesman with the UC Office of the President. “We follow the constitution.”
Slimy Award
1) The Huffington Post. Based on my quick search, the first news outlet to report Gov. Brown's veto was the UC Berkeley student newspaper, the Daily Californian. Its headline was "Brown Vetoes Affirmative Actionlike SB 185." Approximately eight hours later, The Huffington Post ran this headline, "SB 185 Vetoed: Jerry Brown Vetoes Affirmative Action-Like Bill." In fairness to The Huffington Post, the text of the report did contain the phrase "according to the Daily Californian," and it also contained a link to the Daily Californian article. Still, to me the post seems to plagiarize student journalists, and it seems a little slimy.
- Comment (4)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Apr '11
Re: Jerry Brown Agrees with the Diversity-Bake-Sale Activists--Well, Sort of
Does Brown's Honesty Award need an asterisk? Does the California Constitution really require "that the courts -- not the Legislature -- determine the limits of Proposition 209". It isn't that way under the Federal Constitution, though it is often asserted.
Re: Jerry Brown Agrees with the Diversity-Bake-Sale Activists--Well, Sort of
Jerry played this one right. The Legislature shouldn't be in the business of messing with initiatives. And 209's going through a legal challenge (Brown, as AG, having filed in support of the challenge). Same reason why Arnold vetoed similar legislation.
Interestingly, UCLA's Daily Bruin ran an editorial criticizing SB 185. Here 'tis. And make sure to reader the readers' comments!!
Shows the real divide in CA when it comes to this topic. Even college campuses don't agree.
Dec '10
Re: Jerry Brown Agrees with the Diversity-Bake-Sale Activists--Well, Sort of
The original affirmative action merely reduced the evidentiary requirements for bringing a discrimination lawsuit to trial (late 60s). By 1973 quota based affirmative action completely turned things upsidedown. Now, it was no longer about proving actual discrimination but about demonstrating some theoretical statistical imbalance. The statistical imbalance would then be remedied by what can only be called reverse racism. I remember the change so well. What had been an honorable quest for justice was now transformed into insanity. Now 40 years later I think we are all finally waking up to the truth.
Dec '10
Re: Jerry Brown Agrees with the Diversity-Bake-Sale Activists--Well, Sort of
California, what an odd place to hear "it's not in the constitution so we can't do it."