Reply
  • yo WHAT

    context: this is the sole measure of ACA5. this is for repealing (state) Prop 209 to allow grants and hiring based on race or s***for diversity (in theory); it essentially changes the state constitution to allow some further implementations of affirmative action. the context to a degree makes sense, wanting to be able to further instate affirmative action. HOWEVER, repealing these lines specifically instead of just amending it - do they not think this will backfire supremely?????

    further context:
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-voters-will-be-asked-whether-to-repeal-15364002.php

    voters will have to affirm or deny this come november

  • cali been garbage

  • This is why the state legislature is more important

  • JohnnyFive

    cali been garbage

    Someone lives in a flyover state

  • Moody mann

    Someone lives in a flyover state

    Least flyover states still have anti discrimination laws

  • Castle

    Least flyover states still have anti discrimination laws

    You sure about that? LOL

  • affirmative action based on SES > based on race ... and i say this as someone who probably benefitted from race-based AA when i applied to college

  • “We need to enable discrimination in order to get rid of discrimination”

  • I remember in my 12 th grade English class two yrs ago debating the way cali does affirmative action vs other states

    From wht I understand they take a race blind approach and focus on economic situation/class which is interesting

  • Moody mann

    Someone lives in a flyover state

    nope, east coast

  • Olivear

    I remember in my 12 th grade English class two yrs ago debating the way cali does affirmative action vs other states

    From wht I understand they take a race blind approach and focus on economic situation/class which is interesting

    I completely understand wanting diversity affirmative action. However, this is the wrong way of doing it for sure, at least imo. Like, Imagine the wrong party comes into power, and this is legal? It can be manipulated so much for the wrong reason

  • krishna bound

    I completely understand wanting diversity affirmative action. However, this is the wrong way of doing it for sure, at least imo. Like, Imagine the wrong party comes into power, and this is legal? It can be manipulated so much for the wrong reason

    Yeah but with changing demographic powers, the state government of California can expect to remain democratic indefinitely. Not that this was a good idea tho, and I agree it is dangerous, but in the other hand it would make helping minorities in the basis of their race a little more easy

  • krishna bound

    I completely understand wanting diversity affirmative action. However, this is the wrong way of doing it for sure, at least imo. Like, Imagine the wrong party comes into power, and this is legal? It can be manipulated so much for the wrong reason

    Wouldn't federal gov. just step in then?

  • yikes pay attention to your local races folks

  • Mel

    Wouldn't federal gov. just step in then?

    It would depend who was in the federal government, right? Like I’m not trying to be a hard ass, but if you believe fundamentally a large part of this country (and politicians too) are intrinsically racist, then you’d probably want to make sure there’s safeguards to prevent subtle abuses along racial lines, not try to reverse those protections in case the wrong party(ies) get into power. I just think it’s a dangerous precedent for other states which aren’t going to have as “progressive” justifications in mind to follow

  • Enpax

    Yeah but with changing demographic powers, the state government of California can expect to remain democratic indefinitely. Not that this was a good idea tho, and I agree it is dangerous, but in the other hand it would make helping minorities in the basis of their race a little more easy

    While I’d agree that there’s probably no expectation of California turning anything other than blue, there are red districts in Cali, and to see how they may attempt to challenge this may cause additional strife. I think it’s a dangerous precedent maybe less domestically and more in the case of other states to follow.
    People were talking about how this doesn’t primarily foster diversity in the way people think it does; most USC schools already aren’t actually white majority, many of them are Latino and Asian majority, with roughly equal white and black attendances. While it may help at some private schools, at some public universities it’s likely to actually hurt Latino acceptances rates

  • krishna bound

    It would depend who was in the federal government, right? Like I’m not trying to be a hard ass, but if you believe fundamentally a large part of this country (and politicians too) are intrinsically racist, then you’d probably want to make sure there’s safeguards to prevent subtle abuses along racial lines, not try to reverse those protections in case the wrong party(ies) get into power. I just think it’s a dangerous precedent for other states which aren’t going to have as “progressive” justifications in mind to follow

    I meant the supreme court but I agree with what you're saying

  • Won’t backfire, will have exactly the intended effect

  • California is proof that liberals don’t know how to run s***

  • ChiefSosa

    California is proof that liberals don’t know how to run s***

    Also the future for the rest of the country

  • gabapentin

    Also the future for the rest of the country

    A dark future indeed

  • I’m surprised at California lol think they would know better

  • And people say Florida is full of scummy people...

  • Mel

    Wouldn't federal gov. just step in then?

    That’s up to the people and power and there is no guarantee they will act. They already don’t enforce some federal laws onto states so they can ignore it whenever they want.

    The only other situation a change would happen is if it gets appealed to a higher court which takes a long time

  • Castle

    Least flyover states still have anti discrimination laws

    But no health care and a 7.25 minimum wage

Write a reply...|