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:
sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-voters-will-be-asked-whether-to-repeal-15364002.php
voters will have to affirm or deny this come november
Someone lives in a flyover state
Least flyover states still have anti discrimination laws
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
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 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
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
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?
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
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
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
California is proof that liberals don’t know how to run s***
Also the future for the rest of the country
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