Affirmative Action

California Voters Reject Race, Sex, Ethnic Preferences in Government Employment, Education, and Contracting

California is vastly further Left today than it was in 1996 when it generally banned such preferences—yet even California voters rejected a repeal of the ban, by a 56-44% margin.

|

In 1996, California voters passed Prop. 209, which generally banned race, sex, and ethnic preferences in government employment, education, and contracting, by a 54½-45½% vote. That year, the California Assembly was nearly divided (switching from 41-39 Republican to 43-37 Democrat); the Senate went 23-16 Democrat; Republican Pete Wilson had been reelected governor the year before.

In 2020, the California Assembly is more than ¾ Democrat; the Senate is almost ¾ Democrat; the Governor has been a Democrat for nearly 10 years; it has close to the highest percentage of Biden votes among all the states. The Legislature had put an attempt to repeal the preferences ban on the ballot (as Prop. 16), and the attempt got a massive array of endorsements from political and business leaders. The Yes on Prop. 16 forces outfundraised the No by more than 15 to 1 ($27 million to $1.6 million). But Prop. 16 has just failed, apparently by 56-44%.

Even Deep Blue California doesn't think that race, sex, or ethnicity should generally be factors in allotting places at public universities, jobs in state and local government, or government contracts—whether under the rubric of "diversity" or "affirmative action" or whatever else. And this is so in a year when much elite opinion was endorsing notions of "anti-racism" that expressly call for a massive return to racial preferences.

California, besides being Deep Blue, is also less white (and especially less non-Hispanic white) than ever before. Yet according to the latest pre-election poll (the Berkeley IGS Poll), many nonwhites as well as whites oppose these preferences.

The no-preferences side had an 18% lead among non-Hispanic whites, an 11% lead among Asians, and a 2% lead among Hispanics (basically a tie); and while the no-preferences side was losing by 25% among blacks, that still means 33% of blacks were on the no-preferences side. Indeed, nationwide, according to FiveThirtyEight.com, 51% of blacks oppose the view that "preferential hiring and promotion of Black people should be allowed." (We don't have the estimated demographic breakdown of the vote from the actual election, but the Berkeley IGS Poll margin in favor of the No side was 11 points, at 49-38%, close to the 12 points by which the No side actually seems to be winning.)

Now I was a legal advisor to the 1996 Prop. 209, and helped draft it, and I also helped slightly with the opposition to Prop. 16; I'm not an impartial observer here. And of course this is one election in one state.

Still, I think the message is pretty solid, and likely to carry the day in more moderate and conservative states as well: The public wants solutions to America's racial problems that don't further classify people by race, and divide people by race.

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: November 4, 1992

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. There is no quarell with the outcome but one thinks it may be that there is a relatively lack of discrimination against minorities in California rather than the conclusion that the author draws. This is in fairly sharp contrast with other states where animus towards African Americans and Hispanics is fairly strong.

    1. Possibly. It’s also possible that voters don’t have to be lawyers to be able to smell a rat.

    2. That hypothesis would require complete ignorance of California and a willful attempt to hide from the news. Okay, I can sympathize with a desire to avoid the news but other data sources such as EEOC filings, lawsuits alleging discrimination, even protests show no such pattern. Californians are no less (or more) discriminatory than any other large group of people.

      1. Come on, man! California is woke as shit!

        1. It’s not a shambling, can’t-keep-up, stale backwater, if that’s what you mean.

          1. It’s a racist, sexist, and authoritarian shithole overseen by self-righteous hypocritical dimwits -right up your alley, Kirkland.

      2. “Californians are no less (or more) discriminatory than any other large group of people.”

        Rossami, your statement logically implies that all large groups of people are equally discriminatory – a patently false statement.

        1. It implies no such thing. The data, however, say quite clearly that there are not large deviations in objective measures of discrimination – at least when measured at the level of states.

      3. Indeed, if you look at EEOC filings, you would find it surprising (and perhaps more than a little amusing) at the number of filings that EEOC employees make against their own employer

    3. where animus towards African Americans and Hispanics is fairly strong

      Mostly against each other.

      Your fantasy about CA being some super-socially evolved paradise compared to the rest of the U.S. is….cute.

      1. I live in the south. I suggest you folks come on down and experience our way of life before you conclude that everywhere in the U. S. is the same with respect to ugly, virulent racial, ethnic and LGBT bigotry. Oh, if you are one of those groups, don’t risk it.

        1. I live in the south as well, and have lived in multiple parts thereof during the course of my life. I’ve also lived in the north, the Pacific Northwest and California. You’re full of shit.

          1. He’s full of shit.

            You’re an obsolete, disaffected bigot.

            He wins.

            Too bad, clinger.

        2. BTW, I attended high school in a relatively rural area of TN in the late 1970s. There were multiple students who were quite openly gay (a couple of them flamingly so), with a couple of them also being black. Nobody gave a damn. In fact one of the black gay students had a wickedly sharp sense of humor, and was enormously popular.

          1. My experience in the rural South, and elsewhere, is that nobody really cares if you’re gay, they just don’t want to hear you talk about it all the time.

        3. I lived and was stationed in many parts of the US over my career. While there was some bigotry in every community, in general my experience was that the communities in the South were considerably less bigoted. The most bigoted place I lived was Cleveland – and by rather a long shot.

        4. If it’s so terrible, why do you live there? You could move to Long Island or any other place filled with idiot liberal “Jews,” pay your $2,500 a year for a membership at a reform synagogue, and go there twice a year while patting yourself on the back about how “woke” you are.

        5. I live in SC and do not hear slurs used ever nor racial, ethnic, or sexuality bigotry.

          Maybe lefties have racial issues still. Who knows?

          1. Your comment might not be obscene in a world without Dylan Roof, confederate flags, and segregated proms, you bigoted hayseed.

            1. “Your comment might not be obscene in a world without Dylan Roof…”

              The guy on death row?

              1. The lethally bigoted riight-wing southerner.

    4. “animus towards African Americans and Hispanics is fairly strong”

      This ain’t 1963. There is no place in the US where such animus is “fairly strong”.

      Its weak and scattered and getting weaker and more scattered every year.

    5. “there is a relatively [sic] lack of discrimination against minorities in California”
      Is there any evidence of that? For example, is the disparity between black and white incomes, or educational levels, or incarceration rates, lower in California than in the rest of country? I have never seen such statistics. (I do remember #Oscars So White, however.)

  2. How could mandated racial preferences pass muster against the 14th Amendment? IANAL and all I can think of is that if affirmative action from the 1960s Civil Rights Acts can pass muster, anything can, but I don’t understand the logic behind either.

    1. The logic is, rules count, except when we don’t want them to. All the rest is gift wrapping.

  3. Moral pointers on equity from the side that engages in race-targeting voter suppression are always a treat.

    1. What happened to all the gloating about a Democratic sweep?

      Good luck with court “reform” with a Republican Senate.

      1. Like many leftists, his bubble was burst by empirical reality.

        1. I love his previous claims of an “improving” electorate…

          https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/forecast-president.html

          Majority black areas are swinging toward Trump compared to even 2016.

          Urban areas are swinging heavily Trump.

          Majority Hispanic and Cuban neighborhoods are swinging toward Trump by double-digits.

          He’s right–the electorate is improving. Minorities are seeing what the Democratic party is, and what the Republican party is. One is the party of Lincoln, and one is not. Like Trump said, he’s done more for blacks (and minorities) than any President than possibly Lincoln.

          1. I think you are ovestating, its a trend but not “heavy” except for Cubans in Miami.

          2. For a racist, odd that the only group Trump did worse with was white men. Worst. Bigot. Ever.

          3. There were fewer, by four or five million, uneducated white males in 2020 than there were in 2020. There were more, by a larger margin, more minority and college-educated voters. Less quantifiable is that there were fewer bigots, too, because obsolete old right-wingers have been taking that stale, ugly thinking to the grave and being replaced by better Americans.

            Biden is going to gain more than a half-million votes in Pennsylvania alone.

            America continues to improve. That is bad news for Republicans.

      2. You figure Jesus is going to come through and deliver victory for the clingers?

        You guys are just delaying the inevitable. Mostly, though, you are just losing and losers.

        1. It’s not about “victory.” It’s about the virtue of divided government.

          Good thing that the Democrats won’t be taking control of the Senate. As a result, there will be no half-baked liberal ideas getting passed.

          Sorry, no court packing or making PR and DC states.

          1. Speaking of PR… 52% for statehood. Not terribly overwhelming, when the referendum was engineered to provide independence as the only alternative to statehood; Independence is VERY unpopular in Puerto Rico.

            So they deliberately kept the status quo off the ballot, it would probably otherwise have won.

            1. Sounds like enough to arrange statehood, when the time comes. Good to know!

              1. Sounds great! It’s great to become a state and enjoy the fruits of full citizenship, with representation!

                Oh, wait. You just want two more democratic senators. God damn, what a user.

                1. PR may well not elect to Democrats. It’s a conservative society and the politics are not at all the same as Puerto Ricans in New York.

                2. I do not want two new Democratic senators.

                  I want six new Democratic senators.

                  Puerto Rico. Douglass Commonwealth. Pacific Islands.

                  If the clingers are lucky their betters will stop there.

                  1. If “their betters” are lucky, when the Republicans are next in power they will create only 400 new states. Each would only be tens of acres. RNC trusts would buy all the land in each state from the Federal government.

                    These trusts would build a some homes and a tiny state capitol.

                    The homes would be rented on an “at will month-to-month” basis to whoever the RNC wished with very landlord friendly state laws (allowing, for examples, evictions for no reason). The tenants of three of the homes would be carefully selected candidates for US Senators from the state and the single Representative. A few other homes would be rented, as needed, to “up and coming” Senators and Representatives (in case an existing Senator or Representative dies, resigns, or votes the “wrong way” resulting in their eviction and eligibility to run for reelection as there are no available residences in the state they can rent). The “up and coming” folks would make up the state government (perhaps one judge, one governor, and one state Congress member).

                    The RNC owned capitol (about the size of a small Starbucks) would of course be leased to the state government.

                    All services would be provided by outside contractors from out of state (so no workers would be needed to mess up the voting bloc).

                    The land for these states could either be purchased from another country or a state could consent to carving off the necessary acreage from their state. Of course, this may require a small payment – I’ll bet once the request went out, there would be plenty of takers offering suitable land for under $1T.

                    This would give the new states alone an 800 to 200 majority (80%) in the Senate and just shy of a majority (by 35 seats) in the House. This would be a veto proof majority in the Senate. The new states would have 600 of the 1835 EC seats.

                    Of course, should the House minority or lack of complete control of the EC outcome becomes a problem, the new states alone (being 89% of all states) can easily initiate a constitutional convention, make whatever modifications they choose, and ratify the result — all without the assistance of any other entity — within hours or days. If the EC is not following along with “the program”, a convention could be called, changes made to give each state one vote in the EC, and that change could be ratified. Similarly, if the House isn’t following along with “the program”, a convention could quickly eliminate the House or restrict them to an “advisory” role.

                    If “their betters” are unlucky, the Republicans would just create 1000 new states and get rid of the need to amend the Constitution to rule the country without even the risk of interference by trolls like the good Reverend. (But then I couldn’t do the math as easily in my head so I rejected this possiblity).

        2. And the best part will be in 2024, when the young liberals with 0 understanding of elections, politics, and history thoroughly reject the Democratic party for failing to pass any of their pet issues (college/student loan reform, universal basic income, minimum wage increases) and stay at home without realizing that the main issue that hindered the Democrats in passing those reforms was their lack of control of the Senate.

          This will allow the Republicans to cruise to victory. Another Republican victory founded upon young liberal ignorance!

          1. How many obsolete, uneducated, superstitious bigots die every day in America and are replaced in our electorate by younger, better Americans?

            Enough to enable better Americans to continue to win the culture war.

            You may bet to ask President Biden soon.

            1. Didn’t you mean President Harris after she provokes a heart attack.

              1. I happen to think that she will do the Edith Wilson act, and run the country from behind the scenes, leaving Biden as the Potemkin President.

                1. She’ll have to push Jill out of the way.

                  Biden hardly appeared without her whispering in his ear.

            2. Enough to enable better Americans to continue to win the culture war.

              I suppose that the liberal reluctance to participate in 2016, in which the liberals could have secured a 5-4 liberal majority on the Supreme Court, or any of the recent midterm elections (save 2018) is supposed to be indicative of winning the culture war?

              What an odd path to victory!

              1. The progressives are playing twelve dimensional chess that we can’t understand. Sort of like a small business selling everything under cost and making up for it with high volumes.

            3. Don’t you mean Acting President Harris? By January 20, I doubt President Biden could formulate a coherent answer to what he wants for dinner.

    2. Empty ad hominem arguments from RALK are always a treat.

      1. Mentioning conservatives’ bigoted voter suppression record is never an ad hominem argument.

          1. You are welcome to accept moral pointers onrace from Prof. “Do I Get To Use A Vile Racial Slur Today?” Volokh. Most Americans are disinclined to follow that path in his case — or in the case of any Republican, conservative, or clinger.

            1. That roaring sound you here is me flying over your head in a jet plane. You really are a johnny-one-note.

            2. You really don’t get that “quote somebody else using” isn’t the same thing as “use,” do you?

              1. You don’t get that he has used it beyond the context of quoting others . . . and encouraged and accepted it in the comments of this blog.

                Just because his employer hasn’t apologized for his conduct in a formal and public manner in the past month or so doesn’t put him in the clear.

                1. No, I don’t get it, because I haven’t seen it. Citation needed.

    3. Your lies about voter suppression are pathetic, Kirkland. At least get a ‘disenfranchised’ in there.

  4. There are still votes to count (and yes no one is trying to stop actual votes from being counted…I realize the media needs something here to whip up the controversy but seriously it is unnecessary) but this was hardly the shellacking the pundits predicted. And that was with the Left pulling out all the stops and having the media behind it full tilt. We will see what happens in the next few days.

    1. One thing that this election definitely shows is that we are a deeply and closely divided country.

      Whatever else you might say about Donald Trump, bland, boring and run-of-the-mill he is not. This was not a sleeper election. And the percentage who voted was probably significantly higher than in recent elections.

      Yet the result is a nail biter that still could go either way.

      1. One thing that this election definitely shows is that we are a deeply and closely divided country.

        But, but, but I thought the electorate was “improving” and that one side has already won the culture wars and taken the other side prisoners and that one side has been steadily winning since the beginning of American history??!!!?!!?!!

        1. Joe Biden will receive the most votes in American history.

          Clingerverse hardest hit.

          1. Trump: 67,199,450 and counting
            Biden: 69,824,249 and counting.

            2016
            Trump: 62984,828
            Clinton: 65,853,514

            Trump has gained at least 4.2 million votes since 2016.
            The Democrats gained only 4 million.

            Trump and the GOP actually gained more votes than the Democrats, over the last 4 years. Biden’s votes were just a bit better distributed than Hillary’s, possibly due to understanding that you can actually lose swing states.

            Now, it may be that after all the counting is done, Democrats will have gained about as many votes as Republicans, or even a hair more. But it doesn’t appear that the Democratic party’s position has materially improved, and your advantage with minorities seems to be eroding. Indeed, Biden’s popular vote margin looks to be a little smaller than Hillary’s.

            And the amount of spending, and media bias it took? Amazing, I’m reminded of that line of Thanos’ from the Avengers movie: “All that for one drop of blood?”

            The media had to utterly destroy their credibility, expend it to the very last drop, just to pull off a draw. And they won’t have that credibility to spend 4 years from now.

            1. The Democrats will gain at least a half-million votes in Pennsylvania, perhaps closer to a million. 1.4 million votes untouched, most in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

              Biden will win the popular vote with the most votes in American history.

              There were four or five million fewer uneducated white males in the United States yesterday than there were four years ago. There was a larger increase in the minority population. That almost certainly will be true in the next four-year interval. When Texas becomes blue, likely next time around, Republicans will be ranting about abolishing the Electoral College.

              Change or die, Republicans.

              I vote “die.”

              1. You mean changing will make me immortal? Well, why didn’t you say so? That changes everything.

                As pointed out elsewhere, the population of the country is increasing, so winning with “the most votes in American history” doesn’t mean anything. He’ll win (If he does.) by a couple percent, maybe 3. That’s a narrow win, not an impressive one. And that’s so even if prior Presidents have racked up far more impressive wins with fewer votes in a less populous country.

                You better get used to living in a country where roughly half the population disagrees with you, because that’s not changing any time soon, short of genocide.

                1. You’d better get used to a country in which Republicans are uncompetitive in national elections. The clingers might have won in Texas for the final time in a long time yesterday. Without California, Texas, New York, or Illinois . . . ouch for clingers . . . very ouch.

                  1. You leap from might to ‘without’ pretty quickly, And then list three states that shit on the working class. I guess things aren’t hunky dory in trolling central.

                  2. Not winning doesn’t mean uncompetitive. Trump showed himself to be pretty damn competitive, especially compared to what all the pundits and pollsters were saying.

            2. Not to mention that Trump won’t be in office to be blamed for the awful economy that is likely to result. The fact is, the economy has been in shambles since the COVID shutdowns, and if you watch the repo windows, even before then. Congress, through its borrowing, and the Fed, through its QE/printing, has managed to paper over the problems, but that is only temporary. The hospitality, travel, food and drink, retail, and entertainment industries are in complete shambles. When they go away, their employees and owners no longer have that money to spend. You can’t have an entire economy of people watching puppy videos on Instagram and buying Chinese made crap on Amazon. The chickens will come home to roost.

              Of course, the media will cover for Biden, saying he “inherited” the bad economy, but at some point, probably in the middle of 2022 or so, he’ll be expected to have turned things around. And truthfully, I don’t think anyone would have been able to, Trump and Biden included.

          2. Innumerate as well as illogical. Gee, if you were any more advanced, you would be on the level of a two year old.

            (Hint: the larger the pool of voters, the larger the absolute votes on both sides. The US has the largest population in its history, and hence the total votes is higher than ever in history.)

          3. Votes have to certified, Arthur. There will be litigation. Not every vote cast will be certified.

            It looks like Kamala Quid Pro Joe won this.

            1. I am preparing for that litigation as I write this. It is not over, but both the candidates and the lawyers would prefer to play the Democratic hand.

      2. And the percentage who voted was probably significantly higher than in recent elections.

        Highest turnout since 1900, I just saw. Whatever else, that must count as a good thing.

        1. No, not really. Turnout is up because both sides are terrified by the consequences of the other side winning. People are voting in large numbers because they’re scared out of their minds.

          We’d be in a much better place if turnouts were low because people didn’t consider it a big deal if the other side was in power for a couple of years.

        2. Whatever else, that must count as a good thing

          I disagree. In a happy, healthy society, politics does not effect the life of the average citizen that much. Folks go about their lives and the effect of the men with guns is small. It is when you have a deeply divided polis and the vote determines who gets the spoils that politics becomes vital. This is not a good sign at all. The country is deeply divided with blocks that despise each other.

          1. Yes. It’s time for a divorce.

            1. Sore losers don’t get to make decisions.

              1. Self awareness just zips on by you every day, doesn’t it?

        3. I disagree that’s it’s good.

          But perhaps the reality of 65+ million Trump votes will quiet some of the totalitarian-minded Dems. Whichever side ends up losing, the 46-49% of Americans on that side have as much right to a fair government that’s not their enemy as the 47-51% on the winning side.

          Even if the tantrums continue, it looks like we are safe from dramatic overreach for at least 2 more years. That’s why stocks are way up today.

        4. Highest turnout since 1900, I just saw. Whatever else, that must count as a good thing.

          Only if you value quantity over quality.

      3. It also shows that the polling industry has a serious problem, which shouldn’t be ignored any longer. Most of the polling industry were putting out polls that were about 5% more favorable to Biden than the actual outcome.

        It’s one thing for an individual poll to be out. But when they’re almost all out in the same direction, that’s not “error”, it’s “bias”.

        1. To be fair, it was the Cubans that were underestimated in Florida. Other state polls were more or less in the right direction. Arizona, which also has a large Hispanic population, but not many Cubans, did not experience the same polling error as FL.

          1. How do you figure? Biden was supposed to be up by 7-11% in Wisconsin. It ended up being less than 1%. He was supposed to be up anywhere from 5-10% in the “popular vote.” It’s looking closer to 2%

            1. How do you figure? Biden was supposed to be up by 7-11% in Wisconsin.

              That’s correct, and that’s why I tempered my initial statement with that the polls were generally in the correct direction, not necessarily magnitude. FL, on the other hand–the polls got the fundamental direction wrong.

        2. The media and polling has become the definition of “echo chamber.”

        3. Yes it’s bias on the technical statistical sense, but that doesn’t mean that it was deliberate. My guess is that most major news outlets are trying for accuracy but haven’t figured out how to adjust for such things as differing levels of reluctance to state one’s true voting intention on the part of the electorate.

          1. Third election in a row where the polls badly underestimated GOP senate chances. Pollsters hate the GOP so underestimate.

            “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action” James Bond

          2. Whether or not it was deliberate, the polling was certainly skewed, and hence its value is in question. When “scientific” efforts that cost millions of dollars, and the results are not much better than a coin toss, then one must question whether the whole thing has any value.

          3. The problem is that they’re not independently trying for accuracy, if that is indeed what they’re doing. They’re all of them, except for a few exceptions like Trafalgar and Rasmussen, trying the same things.

            Thus, bias, not error. And I do mean bias in the technical sense, though some of the other sort might be present, too; Notice the polls “tightening” right at the end? That keeps happening.

            Is the race actually tightening, or are the thumbs coming off the scale as it’s about to be re-certified by an election?

            1. Right. They’re trying to get people who are on the fence to think that the Democrats are clearly the “winning side,” as there are enough weak voters who just vote for whomever they think is going to win.

              Kind of like supporting the favorite for the Superbowl.

  5. [California]’s not a shambling, can’t-keep-up, stale backwater

    Yet California voters rejected “equity” in favor of equality.

    Moral pointers on equity from the side that engages in race-targeting voter suppression are always a treat.

    Race-based differential treatment is wrong, whether it’s voter suppression or affirmative action. Most people agree on this, including the voters of California. You’re contradicting your own “side,” but thats no big surprise, because obstinacy is the hallmark of a bigot.

    1. It’s only wrong if it lasts more than 25 years.

    2. Republicans, conservatives, and faux libertarians have a seemingly insatiable appetite for voter suppression in general and bigoted voter suppression in particular.

      That’s why they deserve to be culture war losers on the wrong side of history

      1. Since you view religion as a fairy tale, what is going to connect what is “deserved” with what happens in reality? How does what a person or group deserves lead to getting what he or they deserve?

        1. The natural, reasoning world. Is there an alternative you wish to propose?

      2. Republicans, conservatives, and faux libertarians have a seemingly insatiable appetite for voter suppression in general

        The only actual voter suppression in this country occurs when the liberals don’t feel as if they are 100% fully in love with their candidate, and refuse to vote on Election Day.

        Liberals in this country have a seemingly insatiable appetite for candidates that they are emotionally, physically, mentally, and sexually compatible with.

        If the candidate doesn’t tick a single box on the typical liberal’s laundry list of qualifications, then that candidate is not worth voting for over Bernie Sanders.

        A Bernie Sanders-Andrew Yang ticket would have swept the Electoral College with 538 votes is the common knowledge, according to liberals.

  6. Time to end all privileges for crybaby minorities. They are neither useful, nor do they help those minorities.

    1. The answer that I had seen floated before is targeted affirmative action based on economic advanatge, not race. Minorities are disproportionately poor, and the govt. has an interest in helping the poor help themselves out of poverty.

      But Barack Obama’s daughters have no claim on anyone. Their parents went to four Ivy League schools between them, both were highly succesful, one a high-paid lawyer, the other a law professor, then Senator, then president. The daughters both went to a very expensive, elite private school. They are privileged as one can possibly be in America. The fact that they have black skin should not be a basis to advantage them in anything.

      1. ‘Only superstitious yahoos deserve special privilege in America . . . And that special privilege for gullible and often bigoted hayseeds should be limitless.’

        Good luck with that platform as America continues to improve and become less White.

      2. Fix the schools and you might not need ridiculous, complicated programs. Schools in poor neighborhoods do a bad job. Especially in California. You don’t have to remedy destruction if you stop it before it happens.

        1. That would be a big step. But not completely solve the problem. Poor family life and neighborhoods also make it harder for children to succeed.

          The goal of whatever program you do is to make the beneficiaries self-sufficient. As the old Chinese proverb goes, teach them to fish, not give them a fish.

          1. If you teach a man to fish you have a job for the day. If you give a man a fish you have a job for life…

          2. Why should anyone support any other measure to improve equality when schools in poor neighborhoods don’t do their job?

            Fixing the schools won’t fix everything. But everything else anyone wants to do is pretty useless until schools actually teach poor kids.

            1. The fact is, the schools can’t do it if the parents aren’t on board, and if the parents are on board, the schools practically don’t have to do it.

              The relevant variable isn’t quality of schools, it’s parental engagement. The “tiger mom” vs “At least he’s out of my hair for a few hours.”

              So, how are you going to fix the parents?

              1. The answer is not to declare failure at the very beginning and just forget about it

      3. Yeah, but if you do it based on economic advantage alone, you end up with a class full of poor whites and poor Asians.

      4. Bored. African immigrants outperformed whites in the 2010 Census, despite very dark skin. They all come from intact patriarchal families, speak the King’s English, love America. A new racism has formed. See a very dark person, chase after him waving money and scholarships to get a top performer. Africans are the new Koreans.

        All racial disparities come from the bastardy rate. Prior to civil rights laws and affirmative action, black statistics were 5-10% worse than white ones, in the face of statutory discrimination, genocidal jihads against them, and total stress of their group. Name a statistic, unemployment, crime, murder victimization, poverty, it was only slightly worse than in whites. Since the War on Poverty, the racial disparities jumped to 400%, in the murder victimization rate, for example.

        1. But that’s not race specific. It’s due to the fact that, for historical reasons, a large percentage of blacks were in a position to be damaged by the “war on poverty”.

          The whites and Asians who were similarly situated were damaged in the same way. The blacks who weren’t similarly situated escaped the damage.

      5. Won’t work. Poor whites and Asians would get almost 100% of those AA points, as they regularly beat equally poor blacks by 200+ points on the SAT

  7. One of the most patronizing things I heard on the mainstream news was when they were breaking down North Carolina by county they kept on referring to “rural black voters must have stayed home” because Biden was “underperforming” in those largely black counties. They just straight up assumed no black people would vote for Trump and kept talking so matter of factly about it. Not surprising, but interesting and telling…

    1. Nothing to do with running a boring very, very white bread 78 year old either.

      1. On MSNBC if the analyst actually said “lazy blacks stayed home instead of doing what they were told to do” it would not have surprised me. That was pretty much evident in their tone of disgust when those counties started reporting favorable Trump numbers.

        1. The catch is that if they didn’t vote for Biden, they’re not black.

    2. “They just straight up assumed no black people would vote for Trump and kept talking so matter of factly about it. Not surprising, but interesting and telling… ”

      If only there were a way to determine who voted and who did not . . . you figure the campaigns were analyzing this in real time and likely feeding the networks?

      1. No. The voter turnout in those counties was about the same as 2016. So I don’t think you can bill the stereotype assumption on just analysts talking about data.

  8. I think that the voters of California realize something the politicians refuse to. Equality cannot be legislated it must be created by doing hard work to eliminate inequality.

    Unlike the Wizard of OZ you cannot create a hero by simply awarding a medal. You cannot create a genius by simply awarding a degree. You cannot gain empathy by simply giving a heart. Of course all of the characters already had the qualities before but simply didn’t realize or acknowledge it.

    1. “You cannot create a genius by simply awarding a degree.”

      You must be a jealous, backward, can’t-keep-up clinger.

    2. If there is a solution to “racism” (which is an open question) it probably is not institute official racism via government policy.

    3. You do recall that the Lion didn’t get the metal for bravery until the end, *after* he’d already proven a hero, right? And the Tin Woodsman got his stuffed heart *after* demonstrating empathy? And the Scarecrow got his diploma *after* proving his wits?

      IOW, you got the whole thing backwards.

      1. You should try reading the whole thing.

        1. I was referring to the movie, or else I’d bet talking about bran and pins. But in either the movie or the book, the point is the same: All three characters already had what they were seeking.

          1. That’s probably why the post said “Of course all of the characters already had the qualities before but simply didn’t realize or acknowledge it.”

  9. The public wants solutions to America’s racial problems that don’t further classify people by race, and divide people by race.

    Nice insight, Professor Volokh. Presumably you have plenty of such policy solutions to share? Or are you just saying, time to forget the whole issue, and let the free market solve it, like before?

    1. The best way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

    2. One solution is to look beyond mere race and address the root cause of the inequities. Unfortunately few people are willing even look much less come up with actual solutions that do that. When peoplw look a lot of people don’t like what they find.

    3. “Presumably you have plenty of such policy solutions to share? Or are you just saying, time to forget the whole issue, and let the free market solve it, like before?”

      Are you mocking Prof. Volokh? Or would you genuinely expect him to provide a genuine answer or proposal?

  10. I understand that the idea of this prop was pro black and anti asian. I see that the text uses the phrase “people of color.” Can it be argued that it means asians also? Can it be argued that yellow, red and white are also colors?

    I’m not arguing policy. I’m trying to find out if “people of color” is adequately defined in the law.

    1. I’m not sure where you see that phrase in CA Prop 16. What I see is the larger phrase “on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin” and that only in the context of repealing that exact wording Art I, Sec 31 of the CA constitution (where it had been added by Prop 209 in 1996).

      Legal precedents have mostly confirmed that race, ethnicity and color are (mostly) synonyms. And when you look at them as a group, yes they are adequately defined within the legal system. “People of color” is probably not as well defined – but it doesn’t need to be because the proposition doesn’t actually use that phrase.

      1. I found it used 5 times in Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 5
        https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200ACA5
        which was linked in the Wikipedia article on prop 16.

        1. Those are all in the “whereas” sections of the bill, not the actual text of the amendment. In other words, those clauses are not legally binding on anyone. They are bloviations by the folks who were trying to get the bill passed.

          Note: Courts might sometimes look to those “whereas” sections to try to divine the legislature’s intent when the text of a statute is unclear. In this case, however, there is no possible ambiguity to “Section 31 of Article I thereof is repealed”.

  11. I wonder how President-eject Trump is feeling tonight.

    I should have added another prediction — will Trump cry on television? — to that contest.

    1. I wonder how President-eject Trump is feeling tonight.

      I wonder how much Mitch McConnell will aid the Democrats in their legislative goals.

      Perhaps you remember the Obama years, and how much Obama was able to ram through the Congress from 2010-2018.

Please to post comments