California Proposition 209 (1996)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Proposition 209 was a 1996 California ballot proposition which amended the state Constitution to prohibit public institutions from discriminating on the basis of race, sex, or ethnicity. It had been supported by the California Civil Rights Initiative Campaign, led by University of California Regent Ward Connerly, and opposed by pro-affirmative action advocacy groups. Proposition 209 was voted into law on 5 November 1996, with 54% of the vote. In the November 2006 election in Michigan, a similar amendment was passed, entitled the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.
On 27 November 1996, U.S. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson blocked enforcement of the measure. A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently overturned that ruling. Proposition 209 has been the subject of many lawsuits in state courts since its passage.
The enforcement of Proposition 209 led to increased graduation rates at University of California schools, presumably because the entering students are better academically qualified than they were during Affirmative Action. The African-American graduation rate at the University of California, Berkeley increased by 6.5 percent, and rose even more dramatically, from 26 percent to 52 percent, at the University of California, San Diego.
While African-American graduation rates at UC Berkeley increased by 6.5%, the enrollment rates dropped significantly. In fact, opponents of Proposition 209 claim there are greater disparities in elite education in the post-Prop 209 era due to decreased African-American and Hispanic enrollment. Proponents, on the other hand, note that Asian-American enrollment rates dramatically increased at a majority of UC campuses. In fact, Asian Americans now constitute a majority or a plurality on the most prominent UC campuses at the undergraduate level.
Contents |
[edit] Text
The passage of proposition 209 amended the California Constitution to include a new section (Section 31 of Article I), which reads:
(a) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
(b) This section shall apply only to action taken after the section's effective date.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the effective date of this section.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the state.
(f) For the purposes of this section, "state" shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the state itself, any city, county, city and county, public university system, including the University of California, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the state.
(g) The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the injured party's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of then-existing California antidiscrimination law.
(h) This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with federal law or the United States Constitution, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that federal law and the United States Constitution permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.
[edit] Support
Supporters of Proposition 209 contended that existing affirmative action programs led public employers and universities to reject applicants based on their race, and that Proposition 209 would "restore and recreate the historic Civil Rights Act."
[edit] Opposition
Opponents of Proposition 209 argued that it would end affirmative action practices of tutoring, mentoring, outreach and recruitment of women and minorities in California universities and businesses.
[edit] Private sector response
One response to Proposition 209 was the establishment of the IDEAL Scholars Fund to provide community and financial support for "underrepresented" students at the University of California at Berkeley.
Private universities and colleges, as well as employers, have generally ignored Proposition 209 and continue to administer traditional affirmative action programs.
[edit] See also
[edit] Organizations Supporting Proposition 209
[edit] Organizations Opposing Proposition 209
[edit] References
- Text of the amendment
- ^ Grad Rates increased at UC schools
- ^ Text of Proposition 209
- ^ Argument in Favor of Proposition 209
- ^ Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 209
|
|
|
|---|---|
| Supreme Court decisions | Brown v. Board of Education (1954) • Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) • Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) • Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) |
| Federal legislation and edicts | Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) • Executive Order 10925 (1961) • Civil Rights Act of 1964 • Executive Order 11246 (1965) |
| State initiatives | Proposition 209 (CA, 1996) • Initiative 200 (WA, 1998) • Proposal 2 (MI, 2006) |
| People | Ward Connerly • Arthur Fletcher |
