California Legislature Votes to Allow Discrimination by Race, Gender, National Origin
This week, the legislature in California voted to remove the constitutional prohibition on “discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.” That’s right, California just voted to allow racial and gender discrimination in all its public activities. The bill will move to the ballot in November for a popular vote.
The measure, ACA5, repeals section 31 of Article 1 of the California Constitution. The red underlined language below is what’s being removed—and this is a really bad look:
(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.
The proponents of the bill, the most radical progressives in California (which is really saying something), say it’s about removing the ban on affirmative action, first passed in 1996. The University of California Board of Regents, headed by Janet Napolitano, supports this bill. Many have absurdly cited the CCP coronavirus pandemic and the murder of George Floyd at the hands of the Minneapolis Police Department to say the era of affirmative action should end. Opponents call it nothing more than a racial spoils system designed to grant preferential treatment to some communities of color over others.
The San Francisco Chronicle reported:
Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, the San Diego Democrat who is carrying ACA5, said mass uprisings in recent weeks against police brutality and systemic racism have shown that new solutions are needed to address the discrimination that remains in many communities.
“As we look around the world, we see there is an urgent cry — an urgent cry for change,” Weber said on the Assembly floor. “After 25 years of quantitative and qualitative data, we see that race-neutral solutions cannot fix problems steeped in race.”
John Fund wrote about this measure at National Review, calling it a racial spoils system. “Liberals in California’s one-party state are on an ideological crusade to continue a racial spoils system forever,” he says. “They should realize how much of the country disagrees with them and how the politics of the issue could once again surprise them and blow up in their face.”
Fund notes in his piece that a majority of those polled in a national survey by Pew Research, among all races, oppose racial preferences in college admissions.
Yet, that’s where we are in 2020. We’re repealing non-discrimination portions of state constitutions in order to appease the woke mob and the BLM crowds. Little wonder, when too many don’t understand their own history enough to realize why we decided discrimination was a bad thing long ago, and decided as a people to put it into our foundational documents. In the 2020 landscape of race riots and pandemic lockdowns, history doesn’t matter, and the mob will be appeased.
Jeff Reynolds is the author of the book, “Behind the Curtain: Inside the Network of Progressive Billionaires and Their Campaign to Undermine Democracy,” available at www.WhoOwnsTheDems.com. Jeff hosts a podcast at anchor.fm/BehindTheCurtain. You can follow him on Twitter @ChargerJeff.