Brown vetoes affirmative action-like SB 185

[alp227]

Source: Daily Californian

Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a controversial, affirmative action-like bill Saturday that would have allowed public colleges and universities in California to consider demographic factors in admissions processes.

SB 185 would have made it legal for UC and CSU schools to consider factors such as race, gender, geographical origin and household income in student admissions.

SB 185, authored by state Senator Ed Hernandez, D-West Covina, has faced scrutiny by those who question its legality. Proposition 209, approved by voters in 1996, made it illegal for students to receive preferential treatment on the basis of race, gender, economic status or ethnicity.

Though Brown said that he agrees with the purpose of the bill, he believes the courts should determine the limits of the proposition , according to a veto message sent Saturday to the members of the California State Senate.

Read more: http://www.dailycal.org/2011/10/08/brown-vetoes-affirmative-action-like-sb-185/

---

How about instead of affirmative action improving K-12 education especially in the poorer/heavily minority communities? I agree with Brown's decision - and given it was on the same day he signed the California DREAM Act it's really telling.

[bluestateguy]

1. Can the legislature just overturn prop 209?

I don't approve of that, even though I support affirmative action.

Kind of like many state legislatures in the past have passed laws that have basically overruled voter approved medicinal marijuana initiatives.

[Mz Pip]

2. I don't think so

This was an initiative that was approved by the voters and challenges went all the way to the Supreme Court.

[w4rma]

3. Good. (nt)

[The Northerner]

4. I've always been uncertain about policies that encourage judgement by skin color

ethnicity, gender, or any superficial aspect.

If the voters want Prop 209 overturned then how about overturning it with another proposition?

[Unvanguard]

6. The initiative process is a notoriously terrible way to protect minority rights.

Affirmative action is no exception.

[24601]

8. Affirmative action is not a right. Having a discrimination-free process

in employment, education, etc is the right. AA was the exception when required to remedy ongoing discrimination. There isn't any presumption in law or otherwise that discrimination is inherently present and that AA was the cure.

The controversy mostly come in when the focus becomes the outcome rather than the process.

Take for example women playing in the NFL - currently there are none. Supposed a world-class soccer player could routinely kick 55-yard + field goals. The opportunity to compete for a slot should be universal but the NFL, because of gender bias, might need AA outreach to college soccer players to encourage them to try out. AA that instead said "women make up over half the population, government decides that 1/2 of the NFL must be female" would be an outcome-based AA that ignored qualifications and becomes a quota.

[Unvanguard]

12. My point is not that there is a fundamental right to affirmative action.

You could probably argue that there is, as an extension (in particular social/historical circumstances) of the general right to not be disadvantaged because of one's race or sex, but that wasn't my point. My point, rather, was that acts by majorities to preserve their privilege at the expense of the legitimate interests of minorities are hardly a judgment of justice that should be deferred to.

No affirmative action program in the country uses quotas. That has been true since the 1970s. All affirmative action programs are process-based.

[alp227]

15. Some NFL kickers have played soccer, and I know

the punter on my college's football team played soccer in HS.

[alp227]

14. yeah, remember Prop 8? n/t

[Fruittree]

7. Your way of looking at this is certainly valid and

I can agree with your sentiment but affirmative action was meant to both increase diversity in institutions of higher learning to everyone's benefit and to give an opportunity to those coming from backgrounds where there is no one in the individual's family past to give them a boost. The legacy program at many schools and the ability to pay for private prep schools is something not available to many minorities. It's just meant to give people a chance - it does nothing once the person is in. This bill also apparently made economic background a criteria which is long overdue.

[MH1]

9. You are right but I want to add a factor.

People tend to hire (or accept into a learning institution) others like themselves, for a variety of underlying reasons. Sure if a hiring manager or college decision maker is faced with two applicants, one who is completely unqualified in every way, and one who is very strongly qualified, unless someone is a flaming racist they are going to select the qualified person regardless of any other factor. But the choice usually isn't like that. Out of 20 qualified people you get to pick 1. What do you base that on? Many people, unconsciously, will rationalize reasons to pick one of the people they just 'like' better - which is almost always someone more like themselves. The result is an organization that demographically does not resemble the outside world. If the disparity is large enough, that is evidence that there is at least subconscious bias at play which needs to be addressed. Affirmative action / quotas are means to address that bias. I support quotas when they are small relative to the population demographics - basically to give a toehold to that group, and also if there is a massive historical economic suppression being addressed, which is the case with African Americans in this country. Until AA's as a group are on a par demographically with the rest of society (meaning incomes, criminal justice stats, educational levels, health measures) I think affirmative action to address the historical 'ball and chain' is warranted.

[Unvanguard]

5. Prop. 209 is an unconstitutional abomination and should not be catered to.

This bill should have been signed.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. Why is it unconstutional?

Questionable public policy to be sure, but it has been upheld in the courts

[Unvanguard]

11. Yes, so have same-sex marriage bans, and DADT until very recently.

It's unconstitutional for roughly the reason the Sixth Circuit invalidated Michigan's Proposal 2: it bars minority groups from seeking policies that protect their particular needs and interests, while permitting other groups to do so.

Not saying the Supreme Court would invalidate it. It almost certainly wouldn't. But it is not constitutional.

[alp227]

13. Oh, the UC Berkeley bake sale protested this bill.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/25/us/california-racial-bake-sale/index.html

[Ter]

16. Brown is everything a Democrat should be

If only he was elected president in the 1992 election.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

17. geographical origin and household income

should always be considered

it take much more effort and drive to get a good score when you come from a shitty public school system then when you dont.