Before Proposition 209, state and local entities had policies and programs—collectively called "affirmative action"—intended to increase opportunities and representation for people who faced inequalities as a result of their race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.
For example, many California public universities provide outreach and support programs for students who are first in their family to attend college.
To ensure compliance with federal law, these policies and programs must meet certain conditions[example needed] that limit the consideration of these characteristics.
Before Proposition 209, state and local policies and programs that considered race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin still had to comply with federal law.
[7] Affirmative action has its origins in Executive Order 10925, which was issued by President John F. Kennedy and required government contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.
Executive Order 11246 also requires federal contractors to take affirmative action to promote the full realization of equal opportunity for women and minorities.
[9] Since that time, various affirmative action programs have been created in California as well as the broader United States, to both redress disadvantages associated with past and present discrimination as well as ensure public institutions, such as universities, hospitals, and police forces, are more representative (e.g. by race or gender) of the populations they serve.
In 2011, SB 185 would have permitted affirmative action in public higher education, but was ultimately vetoed by Governor Brown citing possible conflicts with Proposition 209.
Prior to Proposition 209, some of California's public universities considered race and ethnicity as factors when making admissions decisions and offered programs to support the academic achievement of those students.
Some public universities in California created or modified policies and programs to instead consider characteristics not banned by Proposition 209, such as socioeconomic status and geography.
For example, UC Berkeley considers "contextual factors that bear directly upon the applicant’s achievement, including linguistic background, parental education level, and other indicators of support available in the home.
[20] According to the California legislative analyst, many of the state’s universities provide outreach and support programs for students who are first in their family to attend college.
Many university campuses also consider where students attended high school and where they live when making admissions decisions.
[6] A longitudinal study by UC Berkeley Center for Studies in Higher Education researcher and then-economics PhD candidate Zachary Bleemer on the impact of Proposition 209 on student outcomes using a difference-in-difference research design and a newly-constructed database linking all 1994-2002 University of California applicants to their college enrollment, course performance, major choice, degree attainment, and wages into their mid-30s found “the first causal evidence that banning affirmative action exacerbates socioeconomic inequities.”[21] The study found “Proposition 209 instigated a dramatic change in UC admissions policy, with underrepresented group (URG) enrollment at the Berkeley and UCLA campuses immediately falling by more than 60 percent and systemwide URG enrollment falling by at least 12 percent.”[22] Also according to the window studied (after race- and gender-based affirmative action was banned but before socioeconomic preferences were introduced), the immediate ban on affirmative action reduced Black and Latino students' likelihood of graduating and attending graduate school, and resulted in a decline in wages.
At the same time, the report found that the policy did not significantly impact wages of white and Asian American students.
Sander also argued that Proposition 209 reduced negative mismatch effects, leading to an increase in the number of URM STEM graduates while the national trend was flat.
Rather, Mr. Bleemer’s findings about URM enrollment, graduation rates and earnings under Prop 209 are broadly consistent with the preponderance of peer-reviewed research studies.
[27] Current law prohibits school districts in California from considering student or teacher race in funding, outreach, and hiring.
[6]: 26 According to California's Legislative Analyst, proposition 16 permits considering race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in government decision-making policies to address diversity in the operation of public employment, education, or contracting.
The following text would be repealed:[6] All of us deserve equal opportunities to thrive with fair wages, good jobs, and quality schools.
Despite living in the most diverse state in the nation, white men are still overrepresented in positions of wealth and power in California.
Yet, Main Street businesses owned by women and people of color lose over $1,100,000,000 in government contracts every year because of the current law.
In 2020, we have seen an unprecedented number of Californians take action against systemic racism and voice their support for real change.
Current law allows for "affirmative action" of this kind so long as it doesn't discriminate or give preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.
But if these words are stricken from our state Constitution, the University of California will again be free to give a wealthy lawyer's son a preference for admission over a farmworker’s daughter simply because he’s from an “under-represented” group.
Prior to the passage of Proposition 209, California and many local governments maintained costly bureaucracies that required preferential treatment in public contracting based on a business owner’s race, sex or ethnicity.
Prohibiting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin is a fundamental part of the American creed.
WARD CONNERLY, President Californians for Equal Rights GAIL HERIOT, Professor of Law BETTY TOM CHU, Former California Constitution Revision Commissioner The Opportunity for All Coalition, also known as Yes on Prop 16, was leading the campaign in support of Proposition 16.
[34][35] Under Proposition 209, California universities and government hiring may still consider economic background in the admissions process, but may not use race.
Despite this, women and people of color are not getting their fair share of opportunities to get ahead: The debate about affirmative action has drawn strong opinions from both supporters and opponents within the Asian American community.