In accordance with a new plan, of the Constitution of California will exclude the old amendment 209, which prohibits public and private institutions to grant privileges, the people of the state on the basis of their gender and race, writes the LA Times.
Democrat Shirley Weber of San Diego has proposed to vote in the elections in November 2020 for the abolition of the amendment to the California Constitution in 1996, which abolished the policy of “affirmative action” (affirmative action). After an emotional debate, the California state Assembly approved the proposal.
California voters will be asked to vote for the abolition of the 24-year ban on a policy of “affirmative action.” Supporters of this measure, I consider it extremely important in the context of nationwide performances for racial justice. The essence of this measure is that the Constitution will be repealed California amendment 209, which prohibits public and private institutions to grant privileges to persons based on their race or sex.
This means that after the abolition of the amendments to the colleges and to work in California in the first place will have to accept African Americans, Hispanics and women.
A 1996 amendment sparked fierce controversy, notably with regard to the admission of applicants to higher educational institutions. Her current opponents believe that it has contributed to increasing social inequality in terms of education and employment and put at a disadvantage African Americans and Hispanics. MP Assembly Shirley Weber (the representative of the Democratic party of San Diego) said that “pandemic coronavirus and persistent violence by the police against blacks attest to deep-rooted social inequality and serious errors in our laws and prove that race and gender still play a huge role in the lives of Americans.”
The Assembly approved a new constitutional amendment ACA 5, which will soon be passed in the state Senate. The Senate will vote for its approval on 25 June 2020, after which it will be included in the official ballot vote on 3 November 2020. Against the proposed amendment were made by only two members-a Republican. Republican Steven Choi from Irvine, said that “the granting of privileges based on race is itself racism, and the granting of privileges based on sex is sexism.” Republican James Gallagher from the city of Yuba stated that the amendment of ACA 5 will still not be able to put an end to racial discrimination in the education system, because in poor areas the unions are not allowed to fire bad teachers and poor ones continue to teach children in secondary schools.
“You can talk endlessly about the importance of the principle of “affirmative action” for admission of racial and sexual minorities in College and their employment, but this principle does not help the black and Hispanic kids finish high school and receive a basic education, said Gallagher. The problem is much harder and is that minorities are often denied the opportunity to obtain a quality education.”
Despite the objections of Republicans, more than twenty members of the Assembly stated that the 1996 amendment is outdated as well as the promise of the electoral campaign in 1996 to create a society “without racial privilege.”
“Amendment 209 not abolished racism in society,” — said the Deputy of the Assembly Lorena Gonzalez (the representative of the Democratic party of San Diego) and stressed that it is the policy of “affirmative action” that existed prior to 1996, helped her to obtain a law degree.
“It is clear that many black and Latino children cannot get higher education because they do not have privileges at receipt in College,” she added.
The vast majority of participants supported an appeal to the voters of the state for reconsideration of a negative attitude to the policy of “affirmative action.” The current unanimity contrasts sharply with the atmosphere that prevailed at the Assembly in 2014, when the attempt to repeal the legacy amendment has generated significant controversy in the Capitol. Some lawmakers then refused it after human rights activists warned them that the return to the policy of “affirmative action” will complicate the admission of students of Asian origin. The same argument was made in the end of today’s two-hour debate. A Democrat from the city of Campbell Evan low said that most callers to his office, constituents urged him to vote against the new amendment, ACA 5. He said that Americans of Chinese descent believe that “those who’ve studied and studied well in school, deserve admission to the College.” However, according to other deputies, the opinion of the Asian-American community on this subject is not so clear.
“Some opponents of the new amendments are trying to convince us that all Asian Americans oppose the policy of “affirmative action”, but this is not so, — said the Deputy of San Francisco David Chiu. — I hear from their constituents that they want to see more like teachers, Directors of schools and rectors of universities and firefighters and more police officers who speak two languages. But the current legislation prevents this”.
The possibility of amending existing legislation has been discussed in 2017. Then Asian-American legislators in the state have applied to the candidates for Governor, and including Gavin Newsom, asking them to think about whether to consider the race of students of universities. Newsome and the other candidates from the Democratic party spoke in support of the policy of “affirmative action,” while the Republicans declined to answer.
The policy of “positive action” proposed by the University of California city Davis, is one of the most frequently discussed topics in California. In 1978, the U.S. Supreme court left it in force. In 1995, conservative activists decided that the electorate of the state will support its abolition, and developed a draft electoral measures for its prohibition in the state Constitution. In 209 project was proposed to prohibit any attempt to grant privileges to the inhabitants of the state on the basis of their gender or race. The project was approved on 5 November 1996 with the support of 55% of voters. Since then there have been many scientific studies that have analyzed the results of the adoption of this amendment. Her opponents firmly believe that it did not resolve racial, gender and economic discrimination. Deputy Weber, representing the Democratic party and participated in the creation of a number of legislations to eradicate social inequality, holds that in the beginning of 1990-x years in California were a significant help to entrepreneurs of color and women entrepreneurs. However, this positive tendency disappeared after the amendment, 209.
“Of course, the rejection of the amendment 209 will not solve all problems, she said. But this is one of the tools we must use to prove that California is a territory of great opportunities.”
[term_id] => 12
[name] => In USA
[taxonomy] => category
[slug] => novosti-ssha
IN THE UNITED STATES
[term_id] => 2393
[name] => California
[taxonomy] => post_tag
[slug] => kaliforniya