g*********n
发帖数: 808 | 1 The South will rise again：SCA 5激怒南加州
SCA 5: Democrat Bill to Make 2013 California Into 1956 Alabama—Makes
Discrimination LEGAL and Mandated
Stephen Frank on 07/12/2013 · Comments (4)
The South will rise again!! And it has, in Sacramento. The Old Democrat
Party of the South has returned to be the Progressive Democrat Party of the
North and West Coast. Bigotry is the order of the day. Democrat Senator de
Leon wants to profile buyers of ammunition—bigot. Then you have Senator Ed
Hernandez, the man who wants, it seems, everybody but the cashier at the
movie house to perform abortions.
Hernandez wants to return to the South of the 1950’s where education, jobs
and contracts were determined not by the quality of the person, but the
color of their skin—old fashioned racism. Read the quote below, George
Wallace must be smiling in his grave.
“In other words, SCA 5 allows schools to use race, sex, color, ethnicity or
national origin as a consideration for accepting students or hiring
employees. Using such criteria currently is banned by Prop. 209, which
voters passed in 1996.
Janet Chin, a media spokesperson for Sen. Hernandez’s office in West Covina
, told me the resolution would take steps to “ensure that universities
reflect the diversity of the state.” She said long-term benefits would
include creating equal opportunity for all Californians by having a “well-
trained, diverse workforce” that is needed to compete in the global economy
.”
点击图片看原样大小图片 点
击
图
片
看
原
图
SCA 5 would repeal much of Prop. 209 anti-discrimination initiative
By Josephine Djuhana, Calwatchdog, 7/12/13
A resolution that seeks to amend the California Constitution and undo the
work of Proposition 209 for institutions of higher education is making its
way through Sacramento and will likely be placed on the ballot in 2014.
SCA 5, authored by Sen. Ed Hernandez, D-West Covina, proposes “an amendment
to the Constitution of the State, by amending Section 31 of Article I
thereof, relating to public education.” Recently re-referred to the Senate
Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments after passing the
Committee on Education, the resolution specifically exempts public education
institutions of higher learning from the requirements of Proposition 209.
In other words, SCA 5 allows schools to use race, sex, color, ethnicity or
national origin as a consideration for accepting students or hiring
employees. Using such criteria currently is banned by Prop. 209, which
voters passed in 1996.
Janet Chin, a media spokesperson for Sen. Hernandez’s office in West Covina
, told me the resolution would take steps to “ensure that universities
reflect the diversity of the state.” She said long-term benefits would
include creating equal opportunity for all Californians by having a “well-
trained, diverse workforce” that is needed to compete in the global economy.
“Campuses have become less diverse” since Prop. 209 passed, Chin said. “
Qualified individuals have been looked over.” Since Prop. 209, she said,
minorities have been “underrepresented” in universities, and SCA 5 seeks
to correct this error by securing the best and brightest students.
Prop. 209 and measures of merit
Ward Connerly, founder and chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute,
told me Chin’s reasoning was “nonsense.” He sponsored Prop. 209.
“If they want the best and brightest, they will use merit,” Connerly said
of university admissions processes. “They have the right to do that right
now, free of any race consideration or discrimination.”
Connerly, a former University of California regent, highlighted higher
education in the Golden State, starting with the UC system — in his words,
“a very prized system” — which regularly secures the top 12.5 percent of
students from California high schools. He also pointed to 23 campuses in the
Cal State system, many of which, he said, were “equally as good as some UC
campuses”; and to our community college system, with more than 100 college
campuses across the state. “It defies logic,” he said to me, “for anyone
to say that anyone in California doesn’t have a chance to get an education
.”
“We’re a pluralistic society in California, probably the most on the
planet,” he said. “We have to learn to treat everybody equally and not
allow anybody to have any preference from any public institutions. It’s a
mistake to now flirt with changing that and empowering public institutions
to discriminate.”
Prop. 209, said Connerly, was the product of a very contentious battle in
the state back in 1996. The ballot measure explicitly denied public
institutions, including state and local governments, as well as universities
, colleges and schools, the ability to discriminate against or give “
preferential treatment to any individual or group in public employment,
public education, or public contracting on the basis of race, sex, color,
ethnicity, or national origin.”
The results of Prop. 209 were robust. In fact, minority graduation rates
actually increased after Prop. 209 was implemented. The measure “led to a
more efficient sorting of minority students” according to research by
Duke University:
“To address the robustness of the positive effects on graduation and
the role of matching, we analyze unique data for all applicants and
enrollees within the University of California (UC) system before and after
Prop 209. The positive Prop 209 effects on minority graduation rates
persist, even after controlling for observed and unobserved qualifi
cations of UC enrollees. We present evidence that certain institutions are
better at graduating more-prepared students while other institutions are
better at graduating less prepared students and that these matching eff
;ects are particularly important for the bottom tail of the qualifi
cation distribution.”
The research also clearly demonstrated that students admitted with lower
qualifications than their peers ended up learning less and had a drop out
rate disproportionately higher than science majors.
“Sen. Hernandez is behind the times,” said Connerly. “It’s not forward-
looking for him to inflict on the people of California another meaningless
battle.”
Striving for diversity doesn’t solve the problem
Heather Mac Donald, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, told me the
UC system has “already been violating the spirit of Prop. 209 by importing
obvious surrogates for race into its so-called ‘holistic’ admissions
process.” The Hernandez bill, she said, would simply “open the floodgates
of blatant racial references once again and allow UC to discriminate without
apology.”
“There are high quality students that are not getting into these schools
because there is already an informal quota,” she said.
The Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin case brought national attention
to similar issues. The Supreme Court recently decided in a 7-1 ruling that
the federal appeals court was wrong to dismiss Abigail Noel Fisher’s case,
in which she argued that the University of Texas illegally discriminated
against her because of her race.
The ruling written by Justice Anthony Kennedy essentially stated that
diversity must not be an ultimately deciding factor in university admissions
processes. “The reviewing court must ultimately be satisfied that no
workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the educational benefits of
diversity,” Kennedy wrote.
“Attaining diversity for its own sake is a nonstarter,” wrote Justice
Clarence Thomas in his concurring opinion. “The pursuit of diversity as an
end is nothing more than impermissible ‘racial balancing.’”
The San Francisco-based Asian American Legal Foundation, in their amicus
brief filing for the Fisher case, underscored the problems with having such
racial quotas. Asians, they write, have “historically been, and continue to
be, denied access to public schools due to overt racial and ethnic
prejudice as well as ostensibly well-intentioned ‘diversity’ programs such
as the program at issue here.” The brief went on to explain:
“UT Austin is engaged in racial balancing without any remedial purpose. It
is similarly denying applicants access solely because they are of the ‘
wrong’ race or ethnicity. And it is proclaiming that its good faith should
excuse the fact that it is trammeling on applicants’ civil rights.”
The same is essentially happening in California’s higher education system
behind closed doors.
In regards to admissions, Ward Connelly echoed the majority opinion of the
Supreme Court and said officers must “use neutral measures first” and “
exhaust all avenues of race neutrality” before considering employing
policies of racial preferences.
But exempting universities, colleges and schools from the requirements of
Prop. 209 would do exactly the opposite.
Connerly and other critics insist that SCA 5 would create the framework for
an even broader scope of racial discrimination against qualified students,
regardless of their achievements or merit.
附：Comments (4)
Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity
Kathy's avatar
Kathy · 31 weeks ago
These people need some education and smarts, lets start kicking them out of
office for there stupid laws and unmoral ethics
kathyhasnogrammar's avatar
kathyhasnogrammar · 31 weeks ago
*their* stupid laws.
not "there" stupid laws... if you're going to criticize others for acting
stupidly, you ought to at least use the correct form of words..
's avatar - Go to profile
goro s ゴローズ · 26 weeks ago
を海外通販
Greg's avatar
Greg · 1 day ago
US is doomed! Today's mexico is us' future at best. | h*****n
发帖数: 2415 | 2 理由是ensure that universities reflect the diversity of the state
加州监狱也得多放点Asian进去，ensure that jails reflect the diversity of the
state
the
Ed
【在 g*********n 的大作中提到】
: The South will rise again：SCA 5激怒南加州
: SCA 5: Democrat Bill to Make 2013 California Into 1956 Alabama—Makes
: Discrimination LEGAL and Mandated
: Stephen Frank on 07/12/2013 · Comments (4)
: The South will rise again!! And it has, in Sacramento. The Old Democrat
: Party of the South has returned to be the Progressive Democrat Party of the
: North and West Coast. Bigotry is the order of the day. Democrat Senator de
: Leon wants to profile buyers of ammunition—bigot. Then you have Senator Ed
: Hernandez, the man who wants, it seems, everybody but the cashier at the
: movie house to perform abortions.
|
|
