Yes on 16 amid affirmative action battle
The divisions over affirmative action go back decades, and this history underlies consideration of Proposition 16 on the Nov. 3 ballot.
Affirmative action as a government mandate dates back to the time of President John Kennedy who ordered federal government contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.”
But quickly, the “without regard” aspect of affirmative action became rigid policies that gave specific preferences to racial groups that were often described as racial “quotas.”
A Black member of the University of California’s Board of Regents, Ward Connerly, led the fight to overturn affirmative action policies he said were another form of racial discrimination.
Proposition 16 thus is linked to 1996’s Proposition 209, backed by then-Gov. Pete Wilson and Connerly, which banned discrimination or preferences in public education or public employment “on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.” Prop. 209 passed in 1996 with support of 54.5% of that year’s voters, nearly three-quarters of whom were white.
Prop. 16 would essentially reverse Prop. 209. State lawmakers, mostly Democrats, voted overwhelmingly to place this on the ballot, amid the nationwide recognition of racial inequalities sparked by the deaths of Blacks in encounters with police. The timing was right, according to their reasoning, to bring back affirmative action.
Getting into a UC has gotten tougher for all applicants, but since Prop. 209 was passed, the percentage of Black and Latino students at the University of California has declined, even as the non-white population in California has increased. While Latino and Black students make up 60% of California’s high school enrollment, they comprise just. 28% of UC freshmen admitted in 2019.
UC Santa Cruz, in the most recent figures posted by the university’s Office for Diversity. Equity and Inclusion, reported that 30% of undergraduate students were white, 27% Latino and 4% African-American. About 28% were Asian/Pacific Islander.
California’s demographic breakdown according to 2018 U.S. Census Bureau estimates is 39% Hispanic/Latino, 36.6% non-Hispanic white, 14.7% Asian, and 5.8% Black or African-American.
Connerly is helping lead the charge against Prop. 16, which, if approved, would bring a return to “state-mandated practice of treating human beings as racial groups instead of individuals” and cause further racial divisiveness. Other opponents of Prop. 209 warn that reinstating affirmative action would mean a decline in Asian American enrollment.
Critics also say there are better alternatives than reinstating government mandates on racial and ethnic balance in higher education. Improving K-12 education, especially in inner-city schools and in rural communities, would be a better way to ensure students are prepared to enter a UC. Locally, Watsonville-based Digital Nest has shown success in building professional job skills among several thousand members.
And that kind of model could help bridge the divide. But if we’re really serious about lifting up populations that have seen doors closed or experienced lack of opportunity due to their race or ethnicity, then something has to be done. Though we don’t like some of the premise of affirmative action, systemic racism won’t magically disappear. We need to take difficult steps that will be painful to some.
We urge a yes vote on Proposition 16.
If approved, Prop. 16 will almost certainly provoke a strong counter reaction. Apparently, it already has — with a majority of likely voters. Even though white voters make up just 55% of the state’s voters, and the state’s politics have shifted markedly leftward, recent polling indicates Prop. 16 is not catching on. The Public Policy Institute found just 31% support among likely voters and a UC Berkeley poll pegged it at 33%.
If this trend continues, the battle over affirmative action will not end anytime soon.