The insidious obsession with cultural preferences that California Democrats have is the definition of insanity: they continue to try and fail to allow cultural preferences and still look forward to a different outcome each time.
When did they study from their mistakes?
Hardly any time soon.
Their pointless cycle has resumed with a second effort to allow racial preferences. A proposed constitutional amendment, ACA 7, was passed by the California state legislature, successfully quashing a provision of the state’s law that makes it unlawful to discriminate against or grant preferential cure to any individual or group based on race, sex, colour, ethnicity, or national origin.
That anti- bias delivery, known as Proposition 209, affirms the legal right to equal protection under the law for all people, regardless of race.
Left-wing activists and activists have consistently and unwaveringly criticised it since its implementation in 1996. They want to restore cultural tastes within California’s organizations, but they have failed every time.
Prior to ACA 7, California politicians had made an attempt to reverse Proposition 16, a determine that was vehemently rejected by Californians in the November 2020 general election. Despite the” Yes” proponents outspending the opposition by more than 19 to 1, a comfortable majority of voters cast a” No” ballot.
Although California’s voters vehemently opposed racial preferences for employment and education, supporters of racial preferences continue to refuse to accept a” No” as an answer.
This day, they’re hoping to trap the individuals into changing their minds. Whereas Prop 16 was open and honest about abolishing cultural independence, ACA 7 is much more false. More than reform race independence, ACA 7 creates “exceptions” that look humble, but which may essentially nullify the principle.
Assemblyman Corey Jackson introduced the bill to establish a process for companies to file an “exceptions” to Prop 209 with the government. The amendment may give the governor power to approve exceptions if a state- funded, “research- informed” program that uses cultural preferences “increases the life expectancy of, improves academic outcomes for, or lifts out of poverty certain groups based on race, color, ethnicity, national origin, sex, or physical orientation”.
In other words, this act is merely an attempt to end racial discrimination disguised as research.
Find some intellectually driven, lower- quality research that appears to support a program that supposedly “increases the life expectancy” or “educational outcomes” of any minority group, and voila, cultural discrimination is valid afterwards.
Jackson insists that Prop 209 is an “unjust laws” and a “barrier”. Yes, it’s wrong, he says, no to discriminate on the basis of competition. He’s bad about that, but he’s correct about Prop 209 being a challenge. Prop 209 bars the state government from culturally discriminating against the government’s people.
It guarantees one of the basic principles of fairness, namely, that all are identical before the law.
Jackson is willing to make sacrifices to equal justice in order to” correct California’s persistent discrepancies” for very long. However, even assuming that racial discrimination would eliminate disparities and accomplish this without escalating existing issues ( both faulty assumptions ) does n’t change the fact that it is wrong and immoral.
Most Californians understand this. But, luckily, there’s nonetheless hope in the fight against cultural preferences.
Despite their extremely deep-blue social leanings, California voters are not in favor of taking race into account when making hiring or training decisions. The resounding beat of Prop 16 in 2020 demonstrated this.
According to Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies ‘ post- 2020 election survey of Californians, although 56 % of African American voters supported Proposition 16, only 30 % of Latinos and just 35 % of Asians did.
If ACA 7 passes the California state Senate, it may appear on the November ballot. If past is prologue, California voters will demonstrate—as if twice was n’t enough—that racial discrimination is not tolerated in California, no “exceptions”.
