Economics of discrimination essay

economics of discrimination essay
Help me write an essay about essay, which is required in the attachment I send. Please write this essay as if it were written by a foreigner, because I am not a native English speaker.I will upload a copy of my previous homework. Please follow my writing habits as much as possible .Thank you

 

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Economics of discrimination essay
Just from $10/Page
Order Essay

writing assignment 2
The article begins with a reference to the social impact of Floyd’s event, which caused a
sensation in the United States, many of the government’s American businesses have made
commitments to ensure racial equality. But the author expresses his concern that this can only
curb racism to some extent, but not eliminate structural racism in the economic system. Later, in
order to testify his point of view, the author quotes several famous racial equality activities in
American history, such as Congress’s decision in 1966 to raise the minimum wage and extend it
to workers in previously unprotected industries led to a significant decline in income inequality
between black and white Americans in the United States. Two other notable events were the
famous march on Washington in 1963 to raise the minimum wage, and the passage of the Fair
Labor Standards Act in 1966. The author also lists the impact of the minimum wage increase on
the colored labor force in the United States. In 1967, the newly covered industries employed
about 8 million workers between the ages of 25 and 55, about 21 percent of the prime age labor
force in the United States. On top of that, nearly a third of black workers are employed in these
industries. This is a significant increase from the previous year, when more blacks were offered
jobs through the law. And the income of black people in these new coverage industries has also
increased greatly, which is 10% higher than before, and double that of white people. Moreover,
according to the author’s analysis, the income gap between black and white workers narrowed by
20% between 1967 and 1980, and the minimum wage increase act was one of the reasons for this
narrowing. But at the same time, there are still many improvements in the treatment of black
labor force in American society. For example, the percentage of black wages in white wages has
remained unchanged since 1963. The outbreak of the new coronavirus has revealed that many
people of color are still facing difficulties in life. In addition, inflation will also have a certain
impact on it. The author’s intention is to tell the author that if contemporary American leaders
really want to reduce racial inequality, they must implement simple, bold measures, such as
doubling the federal minimum wage. Without these bold reforms, the United States may miss a
good opportunity, because it is a good opportunity to improve racial inequality.
According to articles and charts, black people are most likely to lose their jobs after the
bill is enacted, Because in the United States at that time, most black people were low-income
workers in low-tech fields. If the minimum wage was raised, some low wage jobs would be
reduced. In this case, black people were the biggest victims. From the perspective of education,
Hispanic will become the main group of career. Because in the histogram, we can see that
throughout the 1960s Hispanic’s education level can be defined as zero. It’s far below the
education level of black and white people. So if companies look at education, Hispanic becomes
the largest group of unemployed people
If the cost of investment is not zero, low skilled workers will realize that they have been
in these fields and can’t earn the ideal salary. They may start a new career, receive some specific
education in some places and places, so as to enrich their skills. If the minimum wage is increased
blindly, these workers will lose the motivation to explore their own potential, even the interest in
work. Imagine that the government has raised the minimum wage by a large margin. Many
workers realize that they can have enough food and clothing as long as they do a basic job. This
will even make them lose interest in work. This phenomenon will make future generations have a
general interest in education, because the temptation to enter the field of high-tech work is not so
great, so my argument is: the government should continue to raise the minimum wage, because
this is an effective way to improve racial inequality, but on the other hand, the minimum wage
can not be increased blindly. The income gap in different work fields can make people want to
more The completion of the education process, the appropriate gap between the rich and the poor
and a sense of crisis can stimulate the enthusiasm and potential of many people, which will make
our society better.
My friend Kevin has read my essay.

 

 

10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 1/15
Racial and Ethnic Identity
When you are writing, you need to follow general
principles (/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-freelanguage/general-principles) to ensure that your
language is free of bias. Here we provide guidelines
for talking about racial and ethnic identity with
inclusivity and respect.
Terms used to refer to racial and ethnic groups
continue to change over time. One reason for this is
simply personal preference; preferred designations
are as varied as the people they name. Another
reason is that designations can become dated over
time and may hold negative connotations. When
describing racial and ethnic groups, be appropriately
specific and sensitive to issues of labeling as
described in general principles for reducing bias
(/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/generalprinciples) .
Racial and ethnic
identity is covered
in Section 5.7 of the
APA Publication
Manual, Seventh
Edition
(/products/publicationmanual-7th-edition)
This guidance has been
expanded from the 6th
edition.
Home Style and Grammar Guidelines Bias-Free Language
Racial and Ethnic Identity
STYLE AND GRAMMAR GUIDELINES PRODUCTS
INSTRUCTIONAL AIDS BLOG
10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 2/15
Race refers to physical differences that groups and
cultures consider socially significant. For example, people
might identify their race as Aboriginal, African American or
Black, Asian, European American or White, Native
American, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Māori, or
some other race. Ethnicity refers to shared cultural
characteristics such as language, ancestry, practices, and
beliefs. For example, people might identify as Latino or
another ethnicity. Be clear about whether you are referring
to a racial group or to an ethnic group. Race is a social
construct that is not universal, so one must be careful not
to impose racial labels on ethnic groups. Whenever
possible, use the racial and/or ethnic terms that your
participants themselves use. Be sure that the racial and
ethnic categories you use are as clear and specific as
possible. For example, instead of categorizing participants
as Asian American or Hispanic American, you could use
more specific labels that identify their nation or region of
origin, such as Japanese American or Cuban American.
Use commonly accepted designations (e.g., census
categories) while being sensitive to participants’ preferred
designation.
Spelling and Capitalization of Racial and Ethnic
Terms
Racial and ethnic groups are designated by proper nouns
and are capitalized. Therefore, use “Black” and “White”
instead of “black” and “white” (do not use colors to refer to
other human groups; doing so is considered pejorative).
Likewise, capitalize terms such as “Native American,”
“Hispanic,” and so on. Capitalize “Indigenous” and
“Aboriginal” whenever they are used. Capitalize
10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 3/15
“Indigenous People” or “Aboriginal People” when referring
to a specific group (e.g., the Indigenous Peoples of
Canada), but use lowercase for “people” when describing
persons who are Indigenous or Aboriginal (e.g., “the
authors were all Indigenous people but belonged to
different nations”).
Do not use hyphens in multiword names, even if the
names act as unit modifiers (e.g., write “Asian American
participants,” not “Asian-American participants”). If people
belong to multiple racial or ethnic groups, the names of
the specific groups are capitalized, but the terms
“multiracial,” “biracial,” “multi-ethnic,” and so on are
lowercase.
Terms for Specific Groups
Designations for specific ethnic and racial groups are
described next. These groups frequently are included in
studies published in APA journals; the examples provided
are far from exhaustive but illustrate some of the
complexities of labeling.
People of African Origin
When writing about people of African ancestry, several
factors inform the appropriate terms to use. People of
African descent have widely varied cultural backgrounds,
family histories, and family experiences. Some will be from
Caribbean islands, Latin America, various regions in the
United States, countries in Africa, or elsewhere. Some
American people of African ancestry prefer “Black,” and
others prefer “African American”; both terms are
acceptable. However, “African American” should not be
10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 4/15
used as an umbrella term for people of African ancestry
worldwide because it obscures other ethnicities or
national origins, such as Nigerian, Kenyan, Jamaican, or
Bahamian; in these cases use “Black.” The terms “Negro”
and “Afro-American” are outdated; therefore, their use is
generally inappropriate.
People of Asian Origin
When writing about people of Asian ancestry from Asia,
the term “Asian” is appropriate; for people of Asian
descent from the United States or Canada, the appropriate
term is “Asian American” or “Asian Canadian,”
respectively. It is problematic to group “Asian” and “Asian
American” as if they are synonymous. This usage
reinforces the idea that Asian Americans are perpetual
foreigners. “Asian” refers to Asians in Asia, not in the
United States, and should not be used to refer to Asian
Americans. The older term “Oriental” is primarily used to
refer to cultural objects such as carpets and is pejorative
when used to refer to people. To provide more specificity,
“Asian origin” may be divided regionally, for example, into
South Asia (including most of India and countries such as
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal), Southeast
Asia (including the eastern parts of India and countries
such as Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Indonesia, and the
Philippines), and East Asia (including countries such as
China, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea and North Korea, and
Taiwan). The corresponding terms (e.g., East Asian) can be
used; however, refer to the specific nation or region of
origin when possible.
People of European Origin
10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 5/15
In North America, the collective terms “Native
American” and “Native North American” are acceptable
(and may be preferred to “American Indian”). “Indian”
usually refers to people from India. Specify the nation or
people if possible (e.g., Cherokee, Navajo, Sioux).
Hawaiian Natives may identify as “Native American,”
“Hawaiian Native,” “Indigenous Peoples of the
Hawaiian Islands,” and/or “Pacific Islander.”
In Canada, refer to the Indigenous Peoples collectively
as “Indigenous Peoples” or “Aboriginal Peoples”
(International Journal of Indigenous Health, n.d.);
When writing about people of European ancestry, the
terms “White” and “European American” are acceptable.
Adjust the latter term as needed for location, for example,
“European,” “European American,” and “European
Australian” for people of European descent living in
Europe, the United States, and Australia, respectively. The
use of the term “Caucasian” as an alternative to “White” or
“European” is discouraged because it originated as a way
of classifying White people as a race to be favorably
compared with other races. As with all discussions of race
and ethnicity, it is preferable to be more specific about
regional (e.g., Southern European, Scandinavian) or
national (e.g., Italian, Irish, Swedish, French, Polish) origin
when possible.
Indigenous Peoples Around the World
When writing about Indigenous Peoples, use the names
that they call themselves. In general, refer to an
Indigenous group as a “people” or “nation” rather than as
a “tribe.”
10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 6/15
specify the nation or people if possible (e.g., People of
the First Nations of Canada, People of the First Nations,
or First Nations People; Métis; Inuit).
In Alaska, the Indigenous People may identify as
“Alaska Natives.” The Indigenous Peoples in Alaska,
Canada, Siberia, and Greenland may identify as a
specific nation (e.g., Inuit, Iñupiat). Avoid the term
“Eskimo” because it may be considered pejorative.
In Latin America and the Caribbean, refer to the
Indigenous Peoples collectively as “Indigenous
Peoples” and by name if possible (e.g., Quechua,
Aymara, Taíno, Nahuatl).
In Australia, the Indigenous Peoples may identify as
“Aboriginal People” or “Aboriginal Australians” and
“Torres Strait Islander People” or “Torres Strait Island
Australians.” Refer to specific groups when people use
these terms to refer to themselves (e.g., Anangu
Pitjantjatjara, Arrernte).
In New Zealand, the Indigenous People may identify as
“Māori” or the “Māori people” (the proper spelling
includes the diacritical macron over the “a”).
For information on citing the Traditional Knowledge or Oral
Traditions of Indigenous Peoples as well as the
capitalization of terms related to Indigenous Peoples, see
Section 8.9 of the Publication Manual.
People of Middle Eastern Origin
When writing about people of Middle Eastern and North
African (MENA) descent, state the nation of origin (e.g.,
Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Israel) when possible. In some
10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 7/15
cases, people of MENA descent who claim Arab ancestry
and reside in the United States may be referred to as
“Arab Americans.” In all cases, it is best to allow individuals
to self-identify.
People of Hispanic or Latinx Ethnicity
When writing about people who identify as Hispanic,
Latino (or Latinx, etc.), Chicano, or another related
designation, authors should consult with their participants
to determine the appropriate choice. Note that “Hispanic”
is not necessarily an all-encompassing term, and the labels
“Hispanic” and “Latino” have different connotations. The
term “Latino” (and its related forms) might be preferred by
those originating from Latin America, including Brazil.
Some use the word “Hispanic” to refer to those who speak
Spanish; however, not every group in Latin America
speaks Spanish (e.g., in Brazil, the official language is
Portuguese). The word “Latino” is gendered (i.e., “Latino”
is masculine and “Latina” is feminine); the use of the word
“Latin@” to mean both Latino and Latina is now widely
accepted. “Latinx” can also be used as a gender-neutral or
nonbinary term inclusive of all genders. There are
compelling reasons to use any of the terms “Latino,”
“Latina,” “Latino/a,” “Latin@,” and/or “Latinx” (see de Onís,
2017), and various groups advocate for the use of different
forms. Use the term(s) your participants or population uses;
if you are not working directly with this population but it is
a focus of your research, it may be helpful to explain why
you chose the term you used or to choose a more
inclusive term like “Latinx.” In general, naming a nation or
region of origin is preferred (e.g., Bolivian, Salvadoran, or
10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 8/15
Costa Rican is more specific than Latino, Latinx, Latin
American, or Hispanic).
Parallel Comparisons Among Groups
Nonparallel designations (e.g., “African Americans and
Whites,” “Asian Americans and Black Americans”) should
be avoided because one group is described by color,
whereas the other group is not. Instead, use “Blacks and
Whites” or “African Americans and European Americans”
for the former example and “Asian Americans and African
Americans” for the latter example. Do not use the phrase
“White Americans and racial minorities”; the rich diversity
within racial minorities is minimized when it is compared
with the term “White Americans.”
Avoiding Essentialism
Language that essentializes or reifies race is strongly
discouraged and is generally considered inappropriate.
For example, phrases such as “the Black race” and “the
White race” are essentialist in nature, portray human
groups monolithically, and often perpetuate stereotypes.
Writing About “Minorities”
To refer to non-White racial and ethnic groups collectively,
use terms such as “people of color” or “underrepresented
groups” rather than “minorities.” The use of “minority” may
be viewed pejoratively because it is usually equated with
being less than, oppressed, or deficient in comparison with
the majority (i.e., White people). Rather, a minority group is
a population subgroup with ethnic, racial, social, religious,
or other characteristics different from those of the majority
10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 9/15
of the population, though the relevance of this term is
changing as the demographics of the population change
(APA, 2015). If a distinction is needed between the
dominant racial group and nondominant racial groups, use
a modifier (e.g., “ethnic,” “racial”) when using the word
“minority” (e.g., ethnic minority, racial minority, racial-ethnic
minority). When possible, use the specific name of the
group or groups to which you are referring.
Do not assume that members of minority groups are
underprivileged; underprivileged means having less
money, education, resources, and so forth than the other
people in a society and may refer to individuals or
subgroups in any racial or ethnic group. Terms such as
“economically marginalized” and “economically exploited”
may also be used rather than “underprivileged.” Whenever
possible, use more specific terms (e.g., schools with
majority Black populations that are underfunded) or refer
to discrimination or systematic oppression as a whole.
Examples of Bias-Free Language
The following are examples of bias-free language for racial
and ethnic identity. Both problematic and preferred
examples are presented with explanatory comments.
1. Description of African American or Black people
Problematic:
We interviewed 25 Afro-American people living in rural
Louisiana.
10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 10/15
Preferred:
We interviewed 25 Black people living in rural Louisiana.
We interviewed 25 African Americans living in rural
Louisiana.
Comment: “Afro-American” and “Negro” have become
dated; therefore, usage of these terms generally is
inappropriate. Specify region or nation of origin when
possible to avoid the impression that all people of African
descent have the same cultural background, family history,
or family experiences. Note that “Black” is appropriate
rather than “African American” to describe people of
African descent from various national origins (e.g., Haitian,
Nigerian).
2. Description of Asian or Asian American people
Problematic:
Participants were 300 Orientals.
Preferred:
There were 300 Asian participants; among these, 100
were from South Asia (India, Nepal, Bangladesh), 100 were
from Southeast Asia (Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam), and
100 were from East Asia (China, South Korea, Japan).
Comment: “Orientals” is considered pejorative; use
“Asian” for people from Asia, “Asian American” for people
of Asian descent in North America, or be more specific by
providing nation and region of origin (Japanese, Chinese,
Vietnamese, etc.).
10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 11/15
3. Description of European American or White people
Problematic:
All participants were Caucasian.
Preferred:
All participants were European American.
All participants were White.
Comment: The term “Caucasian” is considered offensive
to some cultures; use “White” or “European American”
instead for people of European descent living in North
America, or be more specific by providing the nation of
origin.
4. Description of Indigenous People
Problematic:
The 50 Indians represented…
Preferred:
The 50 Native Americans (25 Choctaw, 15 Hopi, and 10
Seminole) represented…
The 50 Indigenous People (23 First Nations, 17 Inuit, 10
Métis) represented…
Comment: When appropriate, authors should identify
groups indigenous to North America by specific group or
nation; when the broader designation is appropriate, note
that “Native American” may be preferred to “American
Indian.” “Indian” refers to people from India. In general,
refer to a group as a “people” or “nation” rather than as a
“tribe.”
10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 12/15
Problematic:
We studied Eskimos.
Preferred:
We studied Inuit from Canada and Aleuts.
The 50 Indigenous People (23 First Nations and 27 Inuit)
represented…
Comment: Native peoples of northern Canada, Alaska,
eastern Siberia, and Greenland may prefer “Inuk” (“Inuit”
for plural) to “Eskimo.” Alaska Natives include many
groups in addition to Eskimos. “Indigenous Peoples” may
be used when the broader designation is appropriate.
5. Description of Latinx or Hispanic people
Problematic:
Participants were 200 Hispanics/Latinos.
Preferred:
Participants were from Central America (150 from
Guatemala, 50 from Honduras, and 50 from Belize).
Comment: “Hispanic” and “Latinx” (or Latino, etc.) have
different meanings; ask participants to self-identify with a
term and use a precise nationality if possible.
6. Racial-ethnic comparisons
Problematic:
Participants’ race was categorized as either White or nonWhite.
10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 13/15
Preferred:
Participants’ race was categorized as European American,
African American, Asian American, or Latin American.
Comment: Use parallel terms, especially in table labels.
“Non-White” implies a standard of comparison and is
imprecise.
7.
Discussion of racial and ethnic minorities
Problematic:
minorities
minority students
Preferred:
racial minorities, ethnic minorities, racial-ethnic minorities
racial minority students, ethnic minority students, racialethnic minority students
people of color
underrepresented people, underrepresented groups
Comment: “Minority” is usually equated with being less
than, oppressed, and deficient in comparison with the
majority. When it is necessary to compare a dominant
racial group with a nondominant racial group, use a
modifier like “racial,” “ethnic,” or “racial-ethnic.” Otherwise,
other terms may be preferred, such as “people of color” to
refer to non-White racial and ethnic groups or
“underrepresented people.”
8. Use of qualifying adjectives with racial and ethnic identity
10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 14/15
Problematic:
the articulate Mexican American professor
Preferred:
the Mexican American professor
Comment: Qualifying adjectives may imply that the
“articulate” Mexican American professor is an exception to
the norm (for Mexican American professors). Depending
on the context of the sentence, ethnic identity may not be
relevant and therefore should not be mentioned.
References
American Psychological Association. (2015). Guidelines for
psychological practice with transgender and gender
nonconforming people. American Psychologist,
70(9), 832–864. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039906
(https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039906)
de Onís, C. M. (2017). What’s in an “x”? An exchange about
the politics of “Latinx.” Chiricú Journal: Latina/o
Literatures, Arts, and Cultures, 1(2), 78–91.
https://doi.org/10.2979/chiricu.1.2.07
(https://doi.org/10.2979/chiricu.1.2.07)
10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 15/15
Home About APA Style Contact Privacy Statement Terms of Use Accessibility Help Site Map
© 2020 American Psychological Association
750 First St. NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242
Telephone: (800) 374-2721; (202) 336-5500
TDD/TTY: (202) 336-6123
CONNECT WITH APA STYLE:

 

11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 1/27
California Proposition
16
Election date November 3, 2020
Topic AfUrmative action
Status Defeated Type Constitutional amendment Origin State legislature
List of California measures
Submit
California Proposition 16, Repeal
Proposition 209 Affirmative Action
Amendment (2020) California Proposition 16, the Repeal Proposition 209 AfUrmative Action Amendment, was on the ballot in California as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 3, 2020. Proposition 16 was defeated. A “yes” vote supported this constitutional amendment to repeal Proposition 209 (1996), which stated that the government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting. A “no” vote opposed this constitutional amendment, thereby keeping Proposition 209 (1996), which stated that the government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.
Election results
California Proposition 16
Result Votes Percentage
Yes 7,042,077 42.85%
No
9,390,914 57.15%
SUBSCRIBE   DONATE
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 2/27 Precincts reporting: 100%
Election results are unofUcial until certiUed. These results were last updated on November 17, 2020 at 11:05:36 AM
Eastern Time.
Source
Reactions The following is a list of reactions to the defeat of Proposition 16: Vincent Pan, executive director of Chinese for AfUrmative Action, said, “Both in California and across the country, we’re not witnessing a repudiation of Trumpism that we’d like to see. There’s a lot of work to do to help enlist more folks who are championing the promotion of policies that really Ux structural racism.” University of California Regents Chair John Perez said, “The failure of Proposition 16 means barriers will remain in place to the detriment of many students, families and California at large. We will not accept inequality on our campuses and will continue addressing the inescapable effects of racial and gender inequity.” Roger Clegg, board member of the Center for Equal Opportunity, stated, “So we have our most populous, and very blue, state rejecting by a decisive vote — apparently a greater margin than the 1996 vote — a measure that would reinstate politically correct discrimination, a.k.a. ‘afUrmative action.’ Not only that, but the extremely diverse people of California did so in the year of the ‘woke’ and they did so despite the fact that the proposition’s supporters vastly outspent its opponents and had overwhelming support from all the usual establishment suspects.” Yukong Zhao, president of the Asian American Coalition for Education, said, “Going forward, I’d like to warn liberal politicians in California and nationwide: focus your efforts on devising effective measures to improve K-12 education for Black and Hispanic children, instead of introducing racially divisive and discriminatory laws time and again. You have failed in California in 2014, as well as Washington State and New York City in 2019.” The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board wrote, “This rejection of identity politics in one of America’s bluest and most diverse states should echo around America, not least at the U.S. Supreme Court. … And as welcome as it will be for Californians to keep their state ofUcially colorblind, it may also help with two big cases about the use of race in college admissions that could end up at the Supreme Court.”
Overview
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 3/27
What was Proposition 16? See also: Changes to the California Constitution Proposition 16 was a constitutional amendment that would have repealed Proposition 209, passed in 1996, from the California Constitution. Proposition 209 stated that discrimination and preferential treatment were prohibited in public employment, public education, and public contracting on account of a person’s or group’s race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. Therefore, Proposition 209 banned the use of afUrmative action involving race-based or sexbased preferences in California. Without Proposition 209, the state government, local governments, public universities, and other political subdivisions and public entities would—within the limits of federal law—be allowed to develop and use afUrmative action programs that grant preferences based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.
What do discrimination and preferential treatment mean
within the context of Proposition 209? In Hi-Voltage Wire Works v. San Jose (2000), the California Supreme Court held that, within the context of Proposition 209: discrimination means “to make distinctions in treatment; show partiality (in favor of) or prejudice (against)” and preferential means “a giving of priority or advantage to one person … over others.” There was disagreement about the signiUcance of Proposition 209 including language to prohibit discrimination. Assembly Judiciary Committee counsel Thomas Clark said, “The measure’s language prohibiting ‘discrimination’ was largely superVuous, given that state and federal law, as well as the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, already prohibit such discrimination. What was new about Proposition 209, therefore, was the prohibition on ‘preferential treatment.'” Wenyuan Wu, executive director of the campaign opposed to Proposition 16, responded, “If the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution could sufUciently render anti-discrimination laws at the state level superVuous, then there would have been no need to establish or keep laws such as Article I Section 7 of the State Constitution which explicitly reafUrms the U.S. Constitution’s principle of equal protection of the laws and equal opportunity, the California State Education Code (EDC), Article 3 Section 220, or Donahoe Higher Education Act, Article 2 Section 66010.2 (C). Or one could argue these aforementioned laws could render one another ‘superVuous’?”
From Proposition 209 to Proposition 16 See also: Background of Proposition 16 Proposition 209 received 54.55 percent of the vote at the election on November 5, 1996, making California the Urst state to adopt a constitutional ban on race-based and sex-based afUrmative action.
[6]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 4/27 Ward Connerly, a member of the University of California Board of Regents, led the campaign behind Proposition 209. “AfUrmative action was meant to be temporary,” wrote Connerly, “It was meant to be a stronger dose of equal opportunity for individuals, and the prescription was intended to expire when the body politic had developed sufUcient immunity to the virus of prejudice and discrimination.” He added, “Three decades later, afUrmative action is permanent and Urmly entrenched as a matter of public policy. … not because of any moral imperative but because it has become the battleground for a political and economic war that has racial selfinterest as its centerpiece.” In 1997, Connerly founded the American Civil Rights Institute, which supported ballot initiatives modeled on Proposition 209 in Washington, Michigan, Colorado, Nebraska, Arizona, and Oklahoma. In 2020, Asm. Shirley Weber (D-79) introduced the legislation that would become Proposition 16, stating that “the ongoing [coronavirus] pandemic, as well as recent tragedies of police violence, is forcing Californians to acknowledge the deep-seated inequality and far-reaching institutional failures that show that your race and gender still matter.” She also said, “This is probably an opportune time given people’s interest in politics and given the kind of turnout that is anticipated — and given the fact that this is a different generation, that it may be possible for us to begin to work to reverse Prop. 209.” Connerly, responding to the proposal to repeal Proposition 209, said, “I believe we would win by a landslide once we let people know what afUrmative action is really about.”
What types of afUrmative action would have been allowed? See also: U.S. Supreme Court on afUrmative action laws, policies, and programs Proposition 16 would have removed the ban on afUrmative action involving race-based or sexbased preferences from the California Constitution. Therefore, federal case law would have deUned the parameters of afUrmative action. The U.S. Supreme Court held that race-based afUrmative action in higher education and government contracting must be reviewed under strict scrutiny. In the U.S., strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that requires a law, policy, or program to serve a compelling state interest and be narrowly tailored to address that interest. Courts had ruled that strict racial quotas and racial point systems in higher education admissions are unconstitutional but that individualized, holistic reviews that consider race, when tailored to serve a compelling interest (such as educational diversity), are constitutional.
Text of measure
Ballot title The ballot title was as follows:
“ Allow Diversity as a Factor in Public Employment, Education, and Contracting Decisions. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. ”
Ballot summary
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 5/27 The ballot summary was as follows:
“ P et e h rn m ic it is tyg , o ov r e nr a n tm ion ea nlto dre ig ciin sit o o na -m dd ar k e in ss gd pio vl e ic rs ie it s ytb oycr o e n p s e id ae lin r g raa cre t,ic sle ex I,, c so elc o tr i,on 31, of the California Constitution, which was added by Proposition 209 in 1996. Proposition 209 generally prohibits state and local governments from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, individuals or groups on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, education, or contracting. Does not alter other state and federal laws guaranteeing equal protection and prohibiting unlawful discrimination. ”
Fiscal impact statement The Uscal impact statement was as follows:
“ N no otd re irq eu ct irU es a c n a y l e ch ffa en cg te on tosc ta ut re re a n n td plo olc ic ailee sn o tr itp ie rs og br e a c m au ss . e the measure does Possible Uscal effects would depend on future choices by state and local entities to implement policies or programs that consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public education, public employment, and public contracting. These Uscal effects are high uncertain. ”
Constitutional changes See also: Article I, California Constitution The measure would have repealed Section 31 of Article I of the California Constitution. The following struck-through text would have been repealed:
Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the below text to see the full text.
[15]
[16]
[15]
[16]
[6]
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 6/27
Readability score See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020 Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difUculty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difUculty of the ideas in the text. The attorney general wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 18, and the FRE is -21. The word count for the ballot title is 15, and the estimated reading time is 4 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 22, and the FRE is -9. The word count for the ballot summary is 85, and the estimated reading time is 22 seconds.
Support The Opportunity for All Coalition, also known as Yes on Prop 16, led the campaign in support of Proposition 16. In the California State Legislature, Asm. Shirley Weber (D-79) was the lead sponsor of the constitutional amendment. Chairpersons of Yes on 16 include Eva Paterson, president of the Equal Justice Society; Vincent Pan, co-executive director of Chinese for AfUrmative Action; and Thomas Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
Supporters (a) 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. (b) This section shall apply only to action taken after the section’s effective date. (c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona Ude qualiUcations based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. (d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent decree
[17]
[18][19][20][21][22]
[23]
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 7/27 The campaign provided a list of endorsements, which is available here .
OfUcials U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D) U.S. Senator Kamala D. Harris (D) Vermont U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Independent) U.S. Representative Nanette Barragán (D) U.S. Representative Karen Bass (D) U.S. Representative Ami Bera (D) U.S. Representative Julia Brownley (D) U.S. Representative TJ Cox (D) U.S. Representative Mark DeSaulnier (D) U.S. Representative Anna Eshoo (D) U.S. Representative Jimmy Gomez (D) U.S. Representative Jared Huffman (D) U.S. Representative Ro Khanna (D) U.S. Representative Barbara Lee (D) U.S. Representative Ted Lieu (D) U.S. Representative Alan Lowenthal (D) U.S. Representative Doris Matsui (D) U.S. Representative Jerry McNerney (D) U.S. Representative Grace Napolitano (D) Speaker of the U.S. House Nancy Pelosi (D) U.S. Representative Katie Porter (D) U.S. Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard (D) U.S. Representative Raul Ruiz (D) U.S. Representative Brad Sherman (D) U.S. Representative Jackie Speier (D) U.S. Representative Eric Swalwell (D) U.S. Representative Linda Sánchez (D) U.S. Representative Mark Takano (D) U.S. Representative Juan Vargas (D) U.S. Representative Maxine Waters (D) Governor Gavin Newsom (D) State Senator Steven Bradford (D) State Senator Richard Pan (D) State Senator Scott Wiener (D) Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher (D) Assemblymember Miguel Santiago (D) Assemblymember Shirley Weber (D) Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D) San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer (Nonpartisan) Long Beach Mayor Robert Garcia (Nonpartisan)




 



 






 






 
 







 


11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 8/27
Former OfUcials Former U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D) Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg Former U.S. Representative Mike Honda (D) Former State Senate President Kevin de León (D)
Political Parties California Democratic Party
Government Entities University of California Board of Regents Los Angeles County Board of Education San Jose City Council Monterey County Board of Supervisors
Individuals Dolores Huerta – Co-Founder of the United Farm Workers Bernice King – President of the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change Tom Steyer (D) – Founder of NextGen America
Unions AFSCME California California Federation of Teachers California Labor Federation California Nurses Association California Teachers Association National Nurses United SEIU California State Council
Corporations San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo (Nonpartisan) San Francisco Mayor London Breed (Nonpartisan) Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti (D) Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs (Nonpartisan) Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis (D) Secretary of State Alex Padilla (D) State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond (Nonpartisan) State Controller Betty Yee (D) AirBnB Blue Shield of California Facebook Golden State Warriors Instacart Kaiser Permanente


































11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 9/27
Organizations
Arguments State Sen. Steven Bradford (D-35): “I know about discrimination. I live it every day. We live it in this building. Quit lying to yourselves and saying race is not a factor… the bedrock of who we are in this country is based on race.” U.S. Rep. Karen Bass (D-37): “Proposition 209, deceptively titled the California Civil Rights Initiative, passed by referendum in 1996 amidst an orchestrated campaign of dog-whistle politics attacking all attempts to level the playing Ueld for women and people of color. Before Prop 209, those efforts at advancing equity had made real progress. But the Wall Street-backed authors of the initiative saw a threat to their economic stranglehold from an increasingly diverse and highly educated population in California; a population better situated to compete in jobs, education, government contracts and other areas of the state’s economy. In passing Prop 209, those groups limited competition in their industries and beneUted their own businesses by erecting new institutional barriers burdening the ability of California’s women and people of color achieve positions of economic and business leadership.” University of California President Janet Napolitano: “It makes little sense to exclude any consideration of race in admissions when the aim of the University’s holistic process is to fully understand and evaluate each applicant through multiple Lyft Oakland Athletics PG&E Corporation Reddit San Francisco 49ers San Francisco Giants Twitter Uber United Airlines Wells Fargo ACLU of California ACLU of Northern California ACLU of Southern California Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment American Beverage Association Anti-Defamation League Asian PaciUc Islander Legislative Caucus California Asian Chamber of Commerce California Black Chamber of Commerce California Charter Schools Association California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce California NAACP State Conference California State Association of Counties California State Student Association Center for American Progress Center for American Progress Chinese for AfUrmative Action Democracy for America Environmental Defense Fund Equality California Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce National Organization for Women Natural Resources Defense Council NextGen California San Francisco Chamber of Commerce

 








 




 





  



 






11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 10/27 dimensions. Proposition 209 has forced California public institutions to try to address racial inequality without factoring in race, even where allowed by federal law. The diversity of our university and higher education institutions across California, should — and must — represent the rich diversity of our state.” Varsha Sarveshwar, president of the University of California Student Association: “Today, colleges can consider whether you’re from the suburbs, a city or a rural area. They can consider what high school you went to. They can consider your family’s economic background. They can look at virtually everything about you – but not race. It makes no sense – and is unfair – that schools can’t consider something that is so core to our lived experience. Repealing Prop. 209 will not create quotas or caps. These are illegal under a Supreme Court decision and would remain so.” Otto Lee, former mayor of Sunnyvale, California, and founder of the Intellectual Property Law Group LLP: “With President Trump’s latest proclamations of Chinese virus, or “Kung Flu,” many Asian Americans recently have experienced racial discrimination and have been told to “Go back to China.” As a Chinese American, I recognize the urgent need for us to build bridges with all people of color, as discrimination against one is discrimination against all. We must stand tall together to call out these unacceptable behaviors and not allow ACA 5 to become a wedge that divides us.” Asm. Shirley Weber (D-79): Asm. Shirley Weber (D-79), the principal sponsor of the constitutional amendment and chairwoman of the Legislative Black Caucus, stated the following: “Californians have built the Ufth largest and strongest economy in the world, but too many hardworking Californians are not sharing in our state’s prosperity—particularly women, families of color, and low-wage workers. Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5 will help improve all of our daily lives by repealing Proposition 209 and eliminating discrimination in state contracts, hiring and education. [ACA 5] is about equal opportunity for all and investment in our communities.” “We have all survived and endured Proposition 209, and it has not been a luxury. It has been a hard journey. And it has caused a lot of losses.” “Since Proposition 209’s passage, California has become one of only eight states that do not allow race or gender to be among the many factors considered in hiring, allotting state contracts or accepting students into the state’s public colleges and universities.” “As we look around the world, we see there is an urgent cry — an urgent cry for change. After 25 years of quantitative and qualitative data, we see that raceneutral solutions cannot Ux problems steeped in race.” “The ongoing pandemic, as well as recent tragedies of police violence, is forcing Californians to acknowledge the deep-seated inequality and far-



11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 11/27 reaching institutional failures that show that your race and gender still matter.” Eva Paterson, president of the Equal Justice Society: “People of color are treated differently. One way that people can act on their desire to eliminate systemic racism is to vote for Proposition 16. It gives people of color, and women, more power, more money. If you have more money you have more access, more clout in the political system.”
OfUcial arguments The following is the argument in support of Proposition 16 found in the OfUcial Voter Information Guide:
Opposition Californians for Equal Rights, also known as No on 16, led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 16. Ward Connerly, who was chairperson of the campaign behind California Proposition 209 (1996), was chairperson of Californians for Equal Rights.
Opponents The campaign provided a full list of coalition members and endorsements on its website, which is available here .
OfUcials State Senator Ling Ling Chang (R) State Senator Melissa Melendez (R)
Former OfUcials Former U.S. Representative Tom Campbell (R) Former Senate Minority Leader Bob Huff (R) OfUcial Voter Information Guide: YES on Prop. 16 means EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS. All of us deserve equal opportunities to thrive with fair wages, good jobs, and quality schools. Despite living in the most diverse state in the nation, white men are still overrepresented in positions of wealth and power in California. Although women, and especially women of color, are on the front lines of the COVID-19 response, they are not rewarded for their sacriUces. Women should have the same chance of success as men. Today, nearly all public contracts, and the jobs that go with them, go to large companies run by older white men. White women make 80¢ on the dollar. The wage disparity is even worse for women of color and single moms As a result an elite few are able to
 [2
4]
[25]
[26]





11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 12/27 Former U.S. Representative Darrell Issa (R)
Political Parties Republican Party of California
Individuals Ward Connerly – Chairperson of the campaign behind California Proposition 209 (1996)
Organizations American Civil Rights Institute American Freedom Alliance Association for Education Fairness Chinese American Civic Action Alliance Students for Fair Admissions, Inc.
Arguments Richard D. Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation in Washington, D.C.: “Because it is much cheaper to provide racial preferences to upper middle class Latino and African American students than it is to do the hard work of recruiting economically disadvantaged and working-class Latino and African American students, I fear that many of these progressive reforms could be diluted if 209 is repealed.” Former U.S. Rep. Tom Campbell (R): “Nevertheless, if more spaces are to be made for the under-represented, they must come from the over-represented. Asian Americans are 15.3 percent of Californians, yet 39.72 percent of UC enrollees. Those numbers are why bringing this issue forward now would inevitably divide Californians racially: Latino Americans and African Americans on one side, Asian Americans on the other. The politics are inescapably racial.” Wenyuan Wu, director of administration for the Asian American Coalition for Education: “Built on partial evidence and shallow prescriptions for an unrealistic utopia, ACA-5 is in essence divisive and discriminatory. Its overarching goal to undo Proposition 209, a bill that won the popular vote in 1996 and has withstood legal scrutiny over time, is misguided in that ACA-5 proposes instant but wrong solutions to persistent social ills.” Wen Fa, an attorney with the PaciUc Legal Foundation: “We’re deUnitely going to take a hard look at that and see whether it complies with the 14th Amendment, or whether it violates the constitutional principle of equality before the law. Racial preferences are wrong, no matter who they beneUt.” Asm. Steven S. Choi (R-68): “Is it right to give someone a job just because they are white, or black or green or yellow? Or just because they are male? Repealing Proposition 209, enacted by voters 24 years ago, is to repeal the prohibition of












11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 13/27 judgment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity and national origin. We are talking about legalizing racism and sexism.” Sen. Ling Ling Chang (R-29): “I have experienced racial discrimination so I know what that’s like. But the answer to racial discrimination is not more discrimination which is what this bill proposes. The answer is to strengthen our institutions by improving our education system so all students have access to a quality education, and give opportunities to those who are economically disadvantaged. ACA 5 legalizes racial discrimination and that’s wrong.” John Fund, national-affairs reporter for the National Review: “Liberals in California’s one-party state are on an ideological crusade to continue a racial spoils system forever. They should realize how much of the country disagrees with them and how the politics of the issue could once again surprise them and blow up in their face.” Michelle Steel, chairwoman of the Orange County Board of Supervisors: “The Californians who voted to pass Prop. 209 knew that discrimination, though long entrenched in our society, is against the fundamental values of American culture. Prop. 209 applied to California the essence of Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream of a nation where individuals would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Former Senate Minority Leader Bob Huff (R): “California is the most diverse state in the nation and must step up to the challenges that brings. The real solution for racial equality is comprehensive public-school reform in our K-12 system, not government sanctioned discrimination to create more losers than winners as Proposition 16 will do.” Ward Connerly, chairperson of the campaign behind Proposition 209: “The fundamental nature of our nation is that we are a collection of free people who have rights given to us by our Creator. Liberty and equality are precious rights deemed essential to our pursuit of that which fulUlls our objective of happiness. More than just for the pursuit of happiness, however, equality is essential to the maintenance of a civil society. This is especially so in a state now identiUed as a “majority minority” state. … I ask you all to vote No on Proposition 16, which would delete that commitment to equality from the California Constitution.” Haibo Huang, co-founder of San Diego Asian Americans for Equality: “Race is a forbidden classiUcation for good reason, because it demeans the dignity and worth of a person to be judged by ancestry instead of his or her own merit and essential qualities. Racial preference is not transformed from patently unconstitutional into a compelling state interest simply by relabeling it racial diversity. … Judging people by their skin color is morally repugnant. Equal opportunity is referenced to individual merits, it never guarantees equal results. To the contrary, enforcing equal outcome regardless of qualiUcation and effort bears the hallmark of communism.” Former U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa (R), who served as the co-chairperson of the campaign behind Proposition 209: “You can support afUrmative action by looking for legitimate







11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 14/27 outreach on other issues, people who have just come to the United States and would have been at a disadvantage in their education, people who are economically at a different level. There’s nothing in our constitution that prohibits outreach, but the fact is Proposition 209 has worked, the minority graduation rate has risen under this and I support the continuation of our constitution.” Betty Chu, a co-chair of Californians for Equal Rights: “In my lifetime, I have seen Asian Americans prevail against racism to be treated as fully American, as equal citizens, employees and leaders. This has occurred in large part because racism itself has become unacceptable in America. What a triumph! … This response minimizes the concerns of Asian Americans about a measure that will allow the state to put them at a disadvantage solely on the basis of their race. Those of us who believe that people should be treated as individuals, not merely as members of groups or tokens, know Prop. 16 only sows division and is plain wrong. Yet, such racial animus is today implicitly endorsed by the supporters of Prop. 16: a whole slew of corporate interests, politically connected high-bid contractors who wish to win government contracts based on race and a biased media that refuses to cover a potential amendment to the California Constitution fairly.”
OfUcial arguments The following is the argument in opposition to Proposition 16 found in the OfUcial Voter Information Guide:
Campaign Unance The campaign Unance information on this page reVects the most recently scheduled reports processed by Ballotpedia, which covered through October 17, 2020. The deadline for the next scheduled reports is February 1, 2021. OfUcial Voter Information Guide: The California Legislature wants you to strike these precious words from our state 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.” Don’t do it! Vote NO. Those words—adopted by California voters in 1996 as Proposition 209—should remain Urmly in place. Only by treating everyone equally can a state as brilliantly diverse as California be fair to everyone. REPEAL WOULD BE A STEP BACKWARD Discrimination of this kind is poisonous. It will divide us at a time we desperately need to unite Politicians want to give preferential treatment to their

[27]
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 15/27 See also: Campaign Unance requirements for California ballot measures The Opportunity for All Coalition was organized as a political action committee (PAC) to support Proposition 16. The campaign had raised $20.39 million. M. Quinn Delaney was the largest donor, contributing $5.5 million. Californians for Equal Rights and Parents and Students for Racial Equality were organized to oppose Proposition 16. Together, the committees had raised $1.49 million, including $50,000 from Students for Fair Admissions, Inc.
Cash
Contributions
In-Kind
Contributions
Total
Contributions
Cash
Expenditures
Total
Expenditures
Support $19,182,536.84 $1,204,417.91 $20,386,954.75 $17,841,327.69 $19,045,745.60
Oppose $1,494,542.17 $0.00 $1,494,542.17 $1,250,148.79 $1,250,148.79
Support The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the initiative.
Committees in support of Proposition 16
Committee Cash
Contributions
In-Kind
Contributions
Total
Contributions
Cash
Expenditures
Total
Expenditures
Yes on 16,
Opportunity
for All
Coalition
$15,186,003.09 $1,150,382.54 $16,336,385.63 $15,326,118.11 $16,476,500.65
Educators for
Equity, Yes on
15 and 16,
Sponsored by
California
Teachers
Association
$3,500,000.00 $0.00 $3,500,000.00 $2,309,490.50 $2,309,490.50
Alex Padilla
Ballot
Measure
Committee for
Democracy
and Justice –
Yes on
Propositions
16, 17, and 18
$369,533.75 $0.00 $369,533.75 $130,576.68 $130,576.68
[28]
[28]
[28]
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 16/27
Yes on Prop.
16, California
Businesses
and Working
Families for
Fair
Opportunities
$127,000.00 $54,035.37 $181,035.37 $75,142.40 $129,177.77
Total $19,182,536.84 $1,204,417.91 $20,386,954.75 $17,841,327.69 $19,045,745.60
Donors The following were the top Uve donors who contributed to the support committee.
Donor Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions
M. Quinn Delaney $5,500,000.00 $0.00 $5,500,000.00
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan,
Inc. $1,500,000.00 $0.00 $1,500,000.00
Patty Quillin $1,000,000.00 $0.00 $1,000,000.00
California Teachers
Association / Issues PAC $550,000.00 $3,409.00 $553,409.00
American Civil Liberties Union $500,000.00 $0.00 $500,000.00
Blue Shield of California $500,000.00 $0.00 $500,000.00
Connie Ballmer $500,000.00 $0.00 $500,000.00
Steve Ballmer $500,000.00 $0.00 $500,000.00
Opposition The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the initiative.
Committees in opposition to Proposition 16
Committee Cash
Contributions
In-Kind
Contributions
Total
Contributions
Cash
Expenditures
Total
Expenditures
Californians
for Equal
Rights
$1,470,559.33 $0.00 $1,470,559.33 $1,230,858.54 $1,230,858.54
Parents and
Students for
Racial Equality,
No on Prop 16
$23,982.84 $0.00 $23,982.84 $19,290.25 $19,290.25
Total $1,494,542.17 $0.00 $1,494,542.17 $1,250,148.79 $1,250,148.79
Donors The following was the top donor who contributed to the opposition committee.
Donor Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions
[28]
[28]
[28]
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 17/27
Students for Fair Admissions,
Inc. $50,000.00 $0.00 $50,000.00
Gail Heriot $49,999.00 $0.00 $49,999.00
Frank Xu $15,040.00 $0.00 $15,040.00
John Grassi $15,000.00 $0.00 $15,000.00
Manuel Klausner $10,030.00 $0.00 $10,030.00
Media editorials
Support The following media editorial boards published an editorial supporting the ballot measure: San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: “Nearly a quarter of a century ago, California voters passed the deceptively named California Civil Rights Initiative. But Proposition 209 was not about advancing civil rights. It was about prohibiting the consideration of race and gender in public education, employment and contracting. … It was just about shutting the door on efforts to overcome those institutional barriers to the full participation of women and minorities. It was wrong in 1996, when it was passed by 55% of California voters, and it is wrong now. It should be repealed.” Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Board: “The events of this year have highlighted the level of racial injustice that exists across the nation, including California. The disparity between Black and Latino residents and their White counterparts is readily apparent when it comes to income, health, education and the criminal justice system. Reducing those disparities will require a major effort on multiple fronts. Proposition 16 would give the state’s universities and government a valuable tool they need to Ught existing structural inequalities.” Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: “The death of George Floyd, yet another unarmed Black man killed by police, and the COVID-19 pandemic‘s disproportionate toll on Black and Latino Americans have been a wake-up call for this country. We must act to dismantle the racism baked into our institutions, and voting yes on Proposition 16 on Nov. 3 will help. … If we want to live in a country that better reVects our national narrative of equal opportunity, we have to build it. That means using the right tools, such as afUrmative action. Vote yes on Proposition 16.” The Desert Sun Editorial Board: “Though Proposition 16 only addresses elimination of Proposition 209’s constitutional language, which speciUcally addresses state and local public agency conduct, greater efforts to bring underrepresented people into all ranks and levels in the already highly diverse civil workplace and government contracting universe can only help to greater diversify and strengthen the ranks of the private sector. Giving those previously disadvantaged — due in large part to life circumstances



11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 18/27 often strongly determined by their race or gender — “a leg onto the ladder” in the public education and civil sector world will help them transition to other “ladders,” if they choose, in the private sector.” San Mateo Daily Journal Editorial Board: “We can safely remove barriers to inequality and increase diversity and opportunity.” San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board: “It is hard to think of an initiative that Uts the moment better than Proposition 16. […] So if California joined the 42 other states allowing communities of color to have preferences in college admissions, government hiring and the awarding of contracts — where women- and minority-owned businesses are generally on shakier ground Unancially and struggle to compete — that would be constructive and positive. Proposition 16 is needed. Now. But if it passes, The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board hopes that all the lawmakers — and all the voters — who supported it monitor its impact on Asian American students — and heed the same arguments for its adoption when considering education reform. We recommend a yes vote on Proposition 16.” The Press Democrat Editorial Board: “The Press Democrat opposed Proposition 209, the 1996 initiative that banned afUrmative action in California, arguing that ‘discrimination is a continuing reality in our society.’ We hope that one day that’s no longer true. For now, it still is. The Press Democrat recommends a yes vote on Proposition 16.” The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board: “This country has been forced to reckon with the devastating effects of systemic racism in the wake of the senseless killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police. The killing of Breonna Taylor by Louisville police created yet another national moment that forced us to reckon with how this country mistreats and disregards people of color. AfUrmative action, along with other policies speciUcally designed to address the legacy of systemic racism, can help to reconcile our long history of injustice. California, as the nation’s most diverse state, should be leading the nation in these efforts. Our state policies should reVect a deep commitment to addressing systemic racism and ensuring that our institutions reVect our communities.”
Opposition The following media editorial boards published an editorial opposing the ballot measure: The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board: “Now it’s up to the voters. Last November voters in Washington state narrowly defeated a similar amendment, though opponents were vastly outspent by those favoring racial preferences. California is a more liberal state and its political class and nearly all media will support repeal. But judging individuals by the color of their skin is antithetical to equal justice under the law. Let’s





11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 19/27 hope Californians hold on to this American principle of equality that goes back to the Declaration of Independence, the 14th Amendment, and the civil-rights movement.” The Orange County Register Editorial Board: “With or without Prop. 209, we can count on public institutions continuing to reVect the diversity of the state and continuing to provide opportunities to Californians of all backgrounds. California can continue to build on its reputation as a wonderfully diverse state without government judging people based on their race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. Ultimately, we don’t think the case has been made for scrapping Prop. 209 and the fundamental principle of treating all people on equal terms.” The BakersUeld Californian Editorial Board: “There are better ways to achieve desired educational and economic diversity than afUrmative action. … Innovative minority recruitment strategies are a more effective way to increase diversity on university campuses, in public workforces and in public contracting. Vote NO on Prop. 16.”
ACA 5 The following media editorial boards took positions on whether ACA 5 should be placed on the ballot in 2020: Los Angeles Times: “We wish race didn’t matter in hiring and college admissions. We wish that everyone had an equal opportunity to access quality education and achieve economic prosperity. But they didn’t in 1996 and still don’t in 2020. Race and gender are still automatic disadvantages that are difUcult to overcome. Helping to shrink the opportunity gap with a tiny leg up doesn’t give them an unfair advantage over those born already ahead, just a slightly better chance than they have now. That’s not discrimination. That’s justice. And it’s time Californians had another debate about how to achieve it.” The Sacramento Bee: “In 1996, Prop. 209 passed with nearly 55 percent support from California voters. That year, Republicans seized on afUrmative action as a wedge issue to inVame racial division and drive voter turnout in an effort to unseat incumbent President Bill Clinton. Masquerading behind civil rights language, it abolished a key tool for addressing systemic discrimination people of color and women. Then-Gov. Pete Wilson endorsed it, as did Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole. The California State Legislature should strongly support ACA 5 and let the people decide in November.”
Polls See also: 2020 ballot measure polls



[29]
[30]
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 20/27 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 AfUrmative Action Amendment [hide] (2020) Poll Support Oppose Undecided Margin of error Sample size Berkeley IGS Poll (likely voters) 10/16/2020 – 10/21/2020 38.0% 49.0% 13.0% +/-2.0 5,352 David Binder Research (likely voters) 10/17/2020 – 10/19/2020 45.0% 45.0% 10.0% +/-4.0 600 PPIC Statewide Survey (likely voters) 10/9/2020 – 10/18/2020 37.0% 50.% 12.0% +/-4.3 1,185 SurveyUSA (likely voters) 9/26/2020 – 9/28/2020 40.0% 26.0% 34.0% +/-5.4 588 Berkeley IGS Poll (likely voters) 9/9/2020 – 9/15/2020 33.0% 41.0% 26.0% +/-2.0 5,942 PPIC (likely voters) 9/4/2020 – 9/13/2020 31.0% 47.0% 22.0% +/-4.3 1,168 AVERAGES 37.33% 43% 19.5% +/-3.67 2,472.5
Note: The polls above may not reVect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a
random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the
table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.
Background
Measures
California Proposition 209 (1996) See also: California Proposition 209, AfUrmative Action Initiative (1996) California Proposition 209 was approved at the presidential election on November 5, 1996, receiving 54.55 percent of the vote. Proposition 209 added Section 31 to the California Constitution’s Declaration of Rights, which read, “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.”[31]
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 21/27 Californians Against Discrimination and Preferences, also known as Yes on Proposition 209, led the campaign in support of Proposition 209. Ward Connerly, a member of the University of California Board of Regents, was chairperson of the campaign. Yes on Proposition 209 had the support of the California Republican Party, Gov. Pete Wilson (R), and U.S. Sen. Bob Dole (RKansas), who was the Republican presidential nominee in the 1996 election. The Campaign to Defeat 209 had the backing of incumbent President Bill Clinton (D), the California Democratic Party, and the California Teachers Association. In 1996, California was a divided government. Pete Wilson, a Republican, was the state’s governor. Republicans controlled the California State Assembly. Democrats controlled the California State Senate.
California Proposition 54 (2003) See also: California Proposition 54, Prohibit State ClassiUcation Based on Race in Education, Employment, and Contracting Initiative (October 2003) In 2003, voters rejected Proposition 54, which would have prohibited the state from classifying prospective students, contractors, or employees based on race, ethnicity, color, or national origin in public education, contracting, or employment. Ward Connerly, who chaired the campaign behind Proposition 209, was the chief proponent of Proposition 54. He said, “My motivation is to present the nation, by way of California, with a different option for the kind of nation that it’s going to become.” Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California, responded to Proposition 54, saying, “We’d all like to live in a society where race doesn’t matter. But this initiative… will not end racial discrimination in this state. It will only hide it.”
States See also: AfUrmative action on the ballot Between 1996 and 2020, voters had decided ballot measures to prohibit the use of afUrmative action involving race-based and sex-based preferences in seven states. Six of the ballot measures were approved. In Florida, Idaho, and New Hampshire, legislation or executive orders banned or limited race-based afUrmative action as of 2020. With Proposition 209, California became the Urst state to enact a formal ban on racial preferences, according to the Pew Research Center. In 1997, Ward Connerly, who chaired the campaign behind Proposition 209, founded the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI). ACRI supported successful ballot measures in Washington (1998) and Michigan (2006). In 2008, ACRI launched a campaign called the Super Tuesday for Equal Rights, which supported ballot initiatives in Colorado and Nebraska. In Colorado, the ballot measure was rejected. In Arizona (2010) and Oklahoma (2012), their respective state legislatures placed constitutional amendments related to afUrmative action on the ballot. Both of the constitutional amendments were approved.
State Measure Year Percent
“Yes”
Percent
“No” Status
[32]
[33]
[32][33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41][42] [43]
[44][45]
[46][47]
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 22/27
State Measure Year Percent
“Yes”
Percent
“No” Status
California Proposition
209 1996 54.55% 45.45% Approved
Washington Initiative 200 1998 58.22% 41.78% Approved
Michigan Proposal 2 2006 57.92% 42.08% Approved
Colorado Initiative 46 2008 49.19% 50.81% Defeated
Nebraska Measure 424 2008 57.56% 42.44% Approved
Arizona Proposition
107 2010 59.51% 40.49% Approved
Oklahoma Question 759 2012 59.19% 40.81% Approved
Washington Referendum 88 (2019) See also: Washington Referendum 88, Vote on I-1000 AfUrmative Action Measure (2019) Voters in Washington rejected a ballot measure, titled Referendum 88, on November 5, 2019. “Yes” received 49.44 percent of the vote. “No” received 50.56 percent of the vote. Referendum 88 would have amended Initiative 200, approved in 1998, to allow afUrmative action policies that do not utilize quotas or constitute preferential treatment. Initiative 200 prohibited the state from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, or contracting. Initiative 200 did not deUne preferential treatment. Referendum 88 would have deUned preferential treatment as actions that use race, sex, or other speciUed identities as the “sole qualifying factor to select a lesser qualiUed candidate over a more qualiUed candidate for a public education, public employment, or public contracting opportunity.” Campaigns surrounding Referendum 88 raised a combined $3.41 million. Committees that supported a “Yes” vote on Referendum 88 raised $361,815 more than opponents.
U.S. Supreme Court See also: AfUrmative action and anti-discrimination lawsuits
Cases related to afUrmative action in higher education Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978): The U.S. Supreme Court held that race was a legitimate factor in college admissions, but that the racial quota system of the UC Davis School of Medicine, which reserved 16 of 100 places for qualiUed minorities, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Gratz v. Bollinger (2003): The University of Michigan’s OfUce of Undergraduate Admissions (OUA) used a 150-point scale to rank undergraduate applicants, with 100 points needed to guarantee admission. Factors that were assigned points included high school grades, test scores, curriculum strength, alumni relationships, and others. Applicants received 20 points for being from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group (deUned as African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans). The U.S.
[48]
[48]
[49]
[50][51]
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 23/27 Supreme Court held that the OUA’s assignment of points for underrepresented group status did not meet the individual consideration requirement established in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. Grutter v. Bollinger (2003): The University of Michigan Law School, like the OUA, considered the race of applicants in making admissions decisions. However, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law school’s use of race in admissions. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing the majority’s opinion, stated that the law school employed a “highly individualized, holistic review of each applicant’s Ule.” Justice O’Connor also stated that the law school had a compelling state interest in considering race: “In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualiUed individuals of every race and ethnicity.” Fisher v. University of Texas (2016): The University of Texas (UT) admitted each instate student who graduated in the top 10 percent of their graduating senior class. Students who did not graduate in the top 10 percent of their class were evaluated for admissions based on a holistic, full-Ule review, according to UT. One factor that was considered is an applicant’s race. In 2013, the case Urst went before the U.S. Supreme Court, which remanded the case for further consideration back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In 2015, the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld UT’s use of race in considering applicants for admissions. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the majority’s opinion, stated that the use of race served a compelling interest (“educational beneUts that Vow from student body diversity”) and was narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
Cases related to afUrmative action in employment and contracting United Steelworkers v. Weber (1979): Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp, as part of a collective agreement with the United Steelworkers of America, implemented an afUrmative action program within their training program; half the positions in the program were reserved for black workers until the percentage of black workers in the plant corresponded with the percentage of black workers in the local labor force. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the program as within the scope of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice William Brennan, writing the court’s opinion, stated, “We need not today deUne in detail the line of demarcation between permissible and impermissible afUrmative action plans. It sufUces to hold that the challenged KaiserUSWA afUrmative action plan falls on the permissible side of the line. The purposes of the plan mirror those of the statute. Both were designed to break down old patterns of racial segregation and hierarchy. Both were structured to “open employment opportunities for Negroes in occupations which have been traditionally closed to them.” Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education (1986): In the 1980s, the contract between the school board of Jackson, Michigan, and the teachers’ union aimed to (a) protect teachers with the most seniority from layoffs and (b) require that the percentage of laid-off teachers who were minorities be no greater than the percentage of teachers
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55]
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 24/27 who were minorities under the contract. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the board could not terminate non-minorities’ employment for the purpose of protecting minorities’ employment. According to Justice Lewis Powell, there was a difference between preferential treatment in hiring and preferential treatment in layoffs: “While hiring goals impose a diffuse burden, often foreclosing only one of several opportunities, layoffs impose the entire burden of achieving racial equality on particular individuals, often resulting in serious disruption of their lives. That burden is too intrusive.” United States v. Paradise (1987): The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of one-blackfor-one-white promotional quotas for the Alabama Department of Public Safety (DPS). In the 1970s, the Alabama DPS was required to use promotional quotas until at least 25 percent of the department’s upper ranks were Black persons. According to the U.S. District Court, which mandated the promotional quotas, their purpose was to address the “Department’s pervasive, systematic, and obstinate discriminatory exclusion of blacks.” Justice William Brennan, writing the supreme court’s opinion, stated, “The onefor-one requirement did not impose an unacceptable burden on innocent third parties. … Nor has the court imposed an “absolute bar” to white advancement. … Accordingly, the one-for-one promotion requirement imposed in this case does not disproportionately harm the interests, or unnecessarily trammel the rights, of innocent individuals.” City of Richmond v. Croson (1989): In Richmond, Virginia, construction contractors were required to subcontract 30 percent of their business to Minority Business Enterprises. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the subcontractor requirement violated the Equal Protection Clause and that race-based action by state and local governments required strict scrutiny. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing the majority’s opinion, stated that Richmond’s justiUcation (“past societal discrimination”) for the subcontractor requirement could not “serve as the basis for rigid racial preferences.” Richmond, according to Justice O’Connor, had not linked the subcontractor requirement to an identiUed speciUc discrimination nor tailored the requirement to the relevant labor pool (qualiUed MBE subcontractors). Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña (1995): Adarand Constructors, Inc. submitted the lowest bid as a subcontractor for a highway project funded by the United States Department of Transportation. Gonzales Construction Company, a different subcontractor, submitted a higher bid but received the contract. Gonzales Construction was certiUed as a disadvantaged business by the Small Business Administration, which meant that the prime contracting company would receive additional compensation for hiring Gonzales Construction. The U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals. Justice O’Connor, writing the majority’s opinion, concluded that strict scrutiny applied to federal racial classiUcations: “All racial classiUcations, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local governmental actor, must be analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny.”
[56][51]
[57][51]
[58][59]
[60][61]
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 25/27 Ricci v. DeStefano (2009): The New Haven Fire Department required civil service examinations to Ull managerial positions. In 2003, 118 UreUghters took the examinations; based on the results, 19 candidates, who were white or Hispanic, could be considered for the managerial positions. The New Haven Civil Service Board, considering the disparate impact the results would have on employment, discarded the exams. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against New Haven. According to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the court’s opinion, an employer cannot engage in intentional discrimination (disparate treatment) to avoid a disparate impact unless there is a strong basis in evidence that the employer would be subject to disparate impact liability. New Haven failed to demonstrate a strong basis in evidence, according to Justice Kennedy, since the exams were job-related and consistent with business necessity and there was no evidence that an “equally valid, less-discriminatory alternative” was available.
Path to the ballot See also: Amending the California Constitution In California, a two-thirds vote is needed in each chamber of the California State Legislature to refer a constitutional amendment to the ballot for voter consideration. The constitutional amendment was introduced into the California State Legislature as Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5 (ACA 5) on January 18, 2019. On June 10, 2020, the California State Assembly voted 60 to 14 to pass ACA 5. As one seat was vacant in the Assembly, 53 votes were needed to pass ACA 5. On June 24, 2020, the California State Senate voted 30 to 10 to pass ACA 5. At least 27 votes were needed in the Senate. With approval in the Assembly and Senate, ACA 5 was placed on the ballot for the general election on November 3, 2020.
[62][63]
[6]
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 26/27
[show] 2020 ballot measures AfUrmative action on the ballot 2020 legislative sessions California ballot measures California ballot measure laws AfUrmative action Ballot measure lawsuits Ballot measure readability Ballot measure polls Vote in the California State Assembly June 10, 2020
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all
members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 53 Yes No Not voting Total 60 14 5 Total percent 75.95% 17.72% 6.33% Democrat 58 0 3 Republican 1 14 2 Independent 1 0 0 Vote in the California State Senate June 24, 2020
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all
members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 27 Yes No Not voting Total 30 10 0 Total percent 75.00% 25.00% 0.00% Democrat 29 0 0 Republican 1 10 0
How to cast a vote See also: Voting in California Click “Show” to learn more about voter registration, identiUcation requirements, and poll times in California.
How to cast a vote in California
See also 2020 measures California News and analysis
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 27/27 Ballotpedia features 318,845 encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of editors, writers, and researchers. Click here to contact our editorial staff, and click here to report an error. Click here to contact us for media inquiries, and please donate here to support our continued expansion.
External links
Information California Assembly Concurrent Resolution 5 (2020) OfUcial Voter Information Guide
Support Opportunity for All Coalition – Yes on Prop 16 Opportunity for All Coalition – Yes on Prop 16 Facebook Opportunity for All Coalition – Yes on Prop 16 Twitter
Opposition California for Equal Rights – No on 16 California for Equal Rights – No on 16 Facebook California for Equal Rights – No on 16 Twitter
Footnotes Only the Urst few references on this page are shown above. Click to show more. 1. San Francisco Chronicle, “Prop. 16: Why California voters refused to lift afUrmative action ban,” November 4, 2020 2. Ed Source, “Unclear ballot language, lack of time to connect with voters explain afUrmative action loss, backers say,” November 5, 2020 3. National Review, “Good News from California Indeed,” November 4, 2020 4. Insider Higher Ed, “Why Did Prop 16 Fail?” November 9, 2020 5. Wall Street Journal, “Racial Thunder Out of California,” November 4, 2020

 

Writing Assignment 3: DUE NOVEMBER 20 by 2 PM PST on Canvas.
Purpose: In this assignment, you will critically analyze California’s Proposition 16, a ballot initiative to permit affirmative action (the consideration of race and gender) in public employment and education. You should answer these questions using the economic concepts learned in class.
Steps: 1. Read over the ballot initiative provided on Ballotpedia. Provide two arguments supporting the proposition and two arguments against the proposition. (We will not give points if you copy/paste from the article or include direct quotes; read over the arguments provided and rephrase them in your own words.) 2. Assume that without Proposition 16 there is no way for college admissions officers to determine the race of applicants (assume they cannot figure out race by name, country of origin etc.). Suppose that college admissions officers have taste-based discrimination against Asian students. How would you have expected Proposition 16 to affect the admission of Asian students at UCSD, if it had passed? Answer the same question under the assumption that instead college admissions officers statistically discriminate in favor of Asian students (that is, they assume that the expected GPA for Asian students is higher than for students of other races). Explain your answers. 3. Suppose that UCSD mechanizes the admissions process by designing an algorithm that predicts which students will have high GPAs using four observable characteristics: SAT score, high school GPA, parents’ highest educational attainment, and native English speaker status. Suppose that each of these factors has a positive impact on expected GPA (i.e. native English speakers have higher average GPAs than non-native speakers, students with parents who have PhDs have higher average GPAs than students with parents who didn’t graduate high school, etc.) Under this system colleges will only admit students who are predicted to have a GPA above a certain threshold. Would you expect the racial composition of UCSD to be like that of California?1 Why or why not? Do algorithms always remove racial bias in decision-making processes? Refer to another article you read for class in making your argument.2 4. Revise your draft.
• Check: does each paragraph express one clear idea? Do you tell the reader what that idea is in a topic sentence?
1 “No race or ethnic group constitutes a majority of California’s population: 39% of state residents are Latino, 37%
are white, 15% are Asian American, 6% are African American, 3% are multiracial, and fewer than 1% are American
Indian or Pacific Islander, according to the 2018 American Community Survey.” Quoted from
https://www.ppic.org/publication/californiaspopulation/#:~:text=No%20race%20or%20ethnic%20group,the%202018%20American%20Community%20Survey.
2 This can include breakout room readings, papers discussed in lecture, or papers on the syllabus. You must cite this
paper in a Works Cited using the format of your choice.
• Print your draft and read it out loud to help you identify spots where the language or ideas could be clearer.
• Ask a friend or relative who is NOT in this class to proofread your essay. If you have someone read over your essay, please mention who did so at the end of your essay, e.g. “My friend Carla read my essay.”
• If you read outside of the referenced article to assist you with this assignment, please cite it using the format of your choice.
Format: You need to write using the APA general guidelines for racial and ethnic identity (posted as APA_Racial and Ethnic Identity.pdf in the assignment instructions on Canvas). We encourage you to read the guidelines, but most pertinently to this assignment, do not use “whites” and “blacks”, but rather White people (or workers, Americans, etc.) or Black people. You have 600 words to say everything you want to say. Write freely and then revise to express your ideas clearly and concisely. Note that Turnitin can give us a slightly different page count than Word or .pdf files, so you should aim for a 650 word count maximum to be safe (we will take off points if Turnitin has you listed as more than 700 words regardless of what your Word doc count says! Sorry, there is no way for you to check this or for us to do it beforehand.). There is no need to include your name, PID, headers, titles – stick to the economics. You must submit a .pdf or .doc file. We are unable to read any other file extension and you will receive no points for the assignment. You do not need to write an introduction or conclusion. Be sure that each paragraph states its focus in a topic sentence. You can write in the 1st person, using “I” statements (e.g. “I was surprised by what the test asked”). To make it easier for us to read, use Times New Roman 12 point font with double-spaced lines.
Grading: The graders will follow the below rubric. There is no partial credit within any of the subsections. Step 1: pro/con arguments 2 pts: first argument in favor of prop 16 2 pts: second argument in favor of prop 16 2 pts: first argument against prop 16 2 pts: second argument against prop 16 Step 2: prop 16 and Asian student admission 2 pts: if taste-based, what happens 2 pts: taste-based explanation 2 pts: if statistical, what happens 2 pts: statistical explanation Step 3: algorithms 2 pts: will UCSD race = CA race? 2 pts: why or why not? 2 pts: do algorithms always solve our problems? 2 pts: cite algorithm paper Step 4: legibility 2 pts: formatted correctly 2 pts: within 500-700 words (including headers, footnotes, works cited) 4 pts: turned in before 2PM deadline (if turned in past 5PM, additional points can be taken off)
Regrading Policy: The graders will leave detailed comments on your essay explaining where and why you lost points. You can visit any of the teaching assistants’ office hours to go over those comments in more detail if you would like further clarification. Teaching assistants are not available to provide feedback via email. If you believe you lost points in error, you can submit a regrade request to Alyssa’s email (aab005@ucsd.edu) until one week after grades are released. In this request you need to state which step you think you deserve more points on and why. By submitting a request, you agree to wager half of the lost points, such that if she denies your request she will take those points off your essay. For example, suppose you receive 4/8 points on Step 1 because you only made one argument for and one argument against Prop 16. If you submit a regrade request for those 4 lost points, and she rereads your essay and cannot find two more arguments, she will deduct 2 points so you receive 2/8 points on Step 2.
Given this penalty, you should only submit requests for grades that you are confident were
made in error. We will not tell you via email whether you should submit a request.

Get professional assignment help cheaply

Are you busy and do not have time to handle your assignment? Are you scared that your paper will not make the grade? Do you have responsibilities that may hinder you from turning in your assignment on time? Are you tired and can barely handle your assignment? Are your grades inconsistent?

Whichever your reason may is, it is valid! You can get professional academic help from our service at affordable rates. We have a team of professional academic writers who can handle all your assignments.

Our essay writers are graduates with diplomas, bachelor, masters, Ph.D., and doctorate degrees in various subjects. The minimum requirement to be an essay writer with our essay writing service is to have a college diploma. When assigning your order, we match the paper subject with the area of specialization of the writer.

Why choose our academic writing service?

  • Plagiarism free papers
  • Timely delivery
  • Any deadline
  • Skilled, Experienced Native English Writers
  • Subject-relevant academic writer
  • Adherence to paper instructions
  • Ability to tackle bulk assignments
  • Reasonable prices
  • 24/7 Customer Support
  • Get superb grades consistently

 

 

 

 

 

 

Order a unique copy of this paper
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

We value our customers and so we ensure that what we do is 100% original..
With us you are guaranteed of quality work done by our qualified experts.Your information and everything that you do with us is kept completely confidential.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

The Product ordered is guaranteed to be original. Orders are checked by the most advanced anti-plagiarism software in the market to assure that the Product is 100% original. The Company has a zero tolerance policy for plagiarism.

Read more

Free-revision policy

The Free Revision policy is a courtesy service that the Company provides to help ensure Customer’s total satisfaction with the completed Order. To receive free revision the Company requires that the Customer provide the request within fourteen (14) days from the first completion date and within a period of thirty (30) days for dissertations.

Read more

Privacy policy

The Company is committed to protect the privacy of the Customer and it will never resell or share any of Customer’s personal information, including credit card data, with any third party. All the online transactions are processed through the secure and reliable online payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By placing an order with us, you agree to the service we provide. We will endear to do all that it takes to deliver a comprehensive paper as per your requirements. We also count on your cooperation to ensure that we deliver on this mandate.

Read more

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency
Open chat
1
You can contact our live agent via WhatsApp! Via +1 817 953 0426

Feel free to ask questions, clarifications, or discounts available when placing an order.

Order your essay today and save 20% with the discount code VICTORY