You can't go an hour within the current news cycle without hearing about racism, inequality and racial injustice.
The loudest voices about racism seem to come from states like California, Washington and Oregon where we have seen protests and riots for several months.
The fact is that California actually has enshrined in its state constitution this passage that was adopted in 1996 which was referred to as the "California Civil Rights Initiative" when it was approved by the voters in the state.
“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, and public contracting.”
It was modeled after the 1965 Civil Rights Act and was intended to promote a race-neutral society in California where all people were treated fairly and equally.
In my last post I wrote about the emerging trend that seeks to eliminate all standardized testing based on the argument that they are somehow discriminatory. Never mind the fact that standardized tests were originally adopted to level the playing field and eliminate subjective bias in college admissions, job placements and professional certifications.
I was interested to find out that there is actually a ballot initiative in California this November to repeal the "California Civil Rights Initiative" language in the state constitution. The initiative is Proposition 16.
In effect, those who have put this on the ballot do not want equal rights. They don't want merit-based decisions on who gets a job or who gets into college. They actually want to have a society that allows discrimination and preferential treatments based on race, color, sex or ethnicity.
If you read the mainstream media you might be led to believe that such a provision would be sponsored by a a bunch of far right-wing conservatives who support Donald Trump.
You would be wrong.
This ballot initiative to amend the California Constitution was actually sponsored by leading Democrats in the state and is endorsed by Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom.
This is clearly an attempt to legalize preferential race-based discrimination and affirmative action that is the antithesis of equal justice and rights under the law.
Martin Luther King, Jr. famously stated that he had a dream that his children would one day live in a nation where they would not be judged by the color of their skin but the content of their character.
"The Court takes the Law School at its word that it would like nothing better than to find a race-neutral admissions formula and will terminate its use of racial preferences as soon as practicable. The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."
The regents of the University of California spoke as one when they unanimously scrapped the Scholastic Aptitude Test in a virtual meeting last month. “I believe the test is a racist test,” said one regent, Jonathan Sures. “There’s no two ways about it.”But the regents’ decision flouted a unanimous faculty-senate vote a few weeks earlier to retain the SAT for now, after a yearlong study by a task force found the test neither “racist” nor discriminatory and not an obstacle to minorities in any way.The 228-page report, loaded with hundreds of displays of data from the UC’s various admissions departments, found that the SAT and a commonly used alternative test, ACT (also eliminated), helped increase black, Hispanic and Native-American enrollment at the system’s 10 campuses.“To sum up,” the task force report determined, “the SAT allows many disadvantaged students to gain guaranteed admission to UC.”So how could the liberal governing board of a major university system reject the imprimatur of its own liberal faculty researchers and kill a diversity accelerator in the name of the very diversity desired?
The answer: The urgency of political momentum against the tests proved irresistible and swept away the research and data.
Controlling for other factors, odds ratios showed Michigan awarding a great deal of preference to black over white applicants (more than 70 to 1) and to Hispanics over whites (roughly 46 to 1). Michigan also gave whites a small preference over Asians.
Minority students admitted to institutions whose academic standards they do not meet are all too often needlessly turned into failures, even when they have the prerequisites for success in some other institution whose normal standards they do meet.When black students who scored at the 90th percentile in math were admitted to M.I.T., where the other students scored at the 99th percentile, a significant number of black students failed to graduate there, even though they could have graduated with honors at most other academic institutions.We do not have so many students with that kind of ability that we can afford to sacrifice them on the altar to political correctness.Such negative consequences of mismatching minority students with institutions, for the sake of racial body count, have been documented in a number of studies, most notably "Mismatch," a book by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr., whose sub-title is: "How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It."