Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Brown vetoes affirmative action-like SB 185

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-08-11 09:35 PM
Original message
Brown vetoes affirmative action-like SB 185
Source: Daily Californian

Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a controversial, affirmative action-like bill Saturday that would have allowed public colleges and universities in California to consider demographic factors in admissions processes.

SB 185 would have made it legal for UC and CSU schools to consider factors such as race, gender, geographical origin and household income in student admissions.

SB 185, authored by state Senator Ed Hernandez, D-West Covina, has faced scrutiny by those who question its legality. Proposition 209, approved by voters in 1996, made it illegal for students to receive preferential treatment on the basis of race, gender, economic status or ethnicity.

Though Brown said that he agrees with the purpose of the bill, he believes the courts should determine the limits of the proposition , according to a veto message sent Saturday to the members of the California State Senate.

Read more: http://www.dailycal.org/2011/10/08/brown-vetoes-affirma... /



How about instead of affirmative action improving K-12 education especially in the poorer/heavily minority communities? I agree with Brown's decision - and given it was on the same day he signed the California DREAM Act it's really telling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-08-11 10:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. Can the legislature just overturn prop 209?
I don't approve of that, even though I support affirmative action.

Kind of like many state legislatures in the past have passed laws that have basically overruled voter approved medicinal marijuana initiatives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mz Pip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-08-11 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I don't think so
This was an initiative that was approved by the voters and challenges went all the way to the Supreme Court.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-11 12:49 AM
Response to Original message
3. Good. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Northerner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-11 02:48 AM
Response to Original message
4. I've always been uncertain about policies that encourage judgement by skin color
ethnicity, gender, or any superficial aspect.

If the voters want Prop 209 overturned then how about overturning it with another proposition?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-11 02:52 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. The initiative process is a notoriously terrible way to protect minority rights.
Affirmative action is no exception.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
24601 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-11 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Affirmative action is not a right. Having a discrimination-free process
in employment, education, etc is the right. AA was the exception when required to remedy ongoing discrimination. There isn't any presumption in law or otherwise that discrimination is inherently present and that AA was the cure.

The controversy mostly come in when the focus becomes the outcome rather than the process.

Take for example women playing in the NFL - currently there are none. Supposed a world-class soccer player could routinely kick 55-yard + field goals. The opportunity to compete for a slot should be universal but the NFL, because of gender bias, might need AA outreach to college soccer players to encourage them to try out. AA that instead said "women make up over half the population, government decides that 1/2 of the NFL must be female" would be an outcome-based AA that ignored qualifications and becomes a quota.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-11 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. My point is not that there is a fundamental right to affirmative action.
Edited on Sun Oct-09-11 11:02 AM by Unvanguard
You could probably argue that there is, as an extension (in particular social/historical circumstances) of the general right to not be disadvantaged because of one's race or sex, but that wasn't my point. My point, rather, was that acts by majorities to preserve their privilege at the expense of the legitimate interests of minorities are hardly a judgment of justice that should be deferred to.

No affirmative action program in the country uses quotas. That has been true since the 1970s. All affirmative action programs are process-based.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-11 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. Some NFL kickers have played soccer, and I know
the punter on my college's football team played soccer in HS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-11 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. yeah, remember Prop 8? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fruittree Donating Member (488 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-11 06:23 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Your way of looking at this is certainly valid and
I can agree with your sentiment but affirmative action was meant to both increase diversity in institutions of higher learning to everyone's benefit and to give an opportunity to those coming from backgrounds where there is no one in the individual's family past to give them a boost. The legacy program at many schools and the ability to pay for private prep schools is something not available to many minorities. It's just meant to give people a chance - it does nothing once the person is in. This bill also apparently made economic background a criteria which is long overdue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-11 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. You are right but I want to add a factor.
People tend to hire (or accept into a learning institution) others like themselves, for a variety of underlying reasons. Sure if a hiring manager or college decision maker is faced with two applicants, one who is completely unqualified in every way, and one who is very strongly qualified, unless someone is a flaming racist they are going to select the qualified person regardless of any other factor. But the choice usually isn't like that. Out of 20 qualified people you get to pick 1. What do you base that on? Many people, unconsciously, will rationalize reasons to pick one of the people they just 'like' better - which is almost always someone more like themselves. The result is an organization that demographically does not resemble the outside world. If the disparity is large enough, that is evidence that there is at least subconscious bias at play which needs to be addressed. Affirmative action / quotas are means to address that bias. I support quotas when they are small relative to the population demographics - basically to give a toehold to that group, and also if there is a massive historical economic suppression being addressed, which is the case with African Americans in this country. Until AA's as a group are on a par demographically with the rest of society (meaning incomes, criminal justice stats, educational levels, health measures) I think affirmative action to address the historical 'ball and chain' is warranted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-11 02:50 AM
Response to Original message
5. Prop. 209 is an unconstitutional abomination and should not be catered to.
This bill should have been signed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-11 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. Why is it unconstutional?
Questionable public policy to be sure, but it has been upheld in the courts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-11 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Yes, so have same-sex marriage bans, and DADT until very recently.
Edited on Sun Oct-09-11 10:59 AM by Unvanguard
It's unconstitutional for roughly the reason the Sixth Circuit invalidated Michigan's Proposal 2: it bars minority groups from seeking policies that protect their particular needs and interests, while permitting other groups to do so.

Not saying the Supreme Court would invalidate it. It almost certainly wouldn't. But it is not constitutional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-11 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
13. Oh, the UC Berkeley bake sale protested this bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-11 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
16. Brown is everything a Democrat should be
If only he was elected president in the 1992 election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-11 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
17. geographical origin and household income
should always be considered

it take much more effort and drive to get a good score when you come from a shitty public school system then when you dont.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov 23rd 2014, 01:06 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC