Why did California Proposition 19 fail

Too many Asians? California wants to discriminate against races again

On November 3rd, Californians will vote on whether their state will ban racial and gender discrimination cancel should. In January, three members of the Democratic Republic introduced a corresponding bill to the Californian Congress, in June it was passed by the Democratic majority in both chambers and submitted to the citizens for a vote.

The Proposition 16(Prop 16) - as the initiative is called - is intended to abolish an amendment to the constitution, which was also passed in a referendum in 1996Proposition 209) was introduced. It is Section 31 of Part I of the California Constitution:

"The state should not discriminate against or give preferential treatment to individuals or groups in public employment, public education or public contracts on the basis of race, gender, skin color, ethnicity or national origin."

All of this should be eliminated. There is a broad alliance behind the pro-discrimination movement: the entire establishment of the Democratic Party; Trade unions and radical left groups; Daily newspapers and multinational corporations like Facebook, Uber and Twitter; the San Francisco 49ers football club and, unsurprisingly, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an Islamist lobby group with ties to the Turkish Erdogan regime (which is currently warning American Muslims against traveling to France because they face discrimination there).

In place of equality before the law, there should be targeted preference and discrimination based on race and gender: Affirmative action is what it is called in the USA. Why the citizens for Proposition 16 should vote, explained the editors of the New York Times - she also belongs to the above-mentioned alliance - in an election recommendation published on Tuesday: Due to the elimination of the Affirmative action In 1996, "very likely" "over a thousand blacks and Latinos per year" were "deterred" from signing up for a university course at the University of California to apply, she claims. In addition, "only six percent of practicing doctors" in California are Latinos, although this demographic group makes up 40 percent of the population. This allegedly means that “Latinos who contract Covid-19” have “difficulties” in “finding a doctor who can communicate with them”. Finally, women and minorities used to benefit greatly from the fact that there was a policy to give preference to companies run by women or minorities when awarding public contracts. Eliminating this program will cost these companies "$ 825 million a year". "California is the fifth largest economy in the world, and it is no small matter which business people get the government's 600,000-plus private contracts," the newspaper said. Since women and minorities are doing badly in the current recession, it is "important" that government contracts are awarded to them, so the argument goes. By the way, she writes New York Times further, the referendum will also be supported by Kamala Harris.

"Discrimination is un-American"

So much for the arguments for “yes”. To hear the arguments of the “no” campaign, I'll turn to them directly No on Prop 16 Campaign. When the press spokeswoman found out that I was a journalist from Germany, she suggested I get in touch with someone who speaks German: Karina Rollins, 53 years old, born in Frankfurt am Main as the daughter of a US soldier stationed there. She has lived in the USA since 1989, currently in Washington D.C. Since she does not live in California, she says, she will not vote, but will do her "best" to inform her friends and acquaintances in California. Rollins says:

"Proposition 16 is by no means about healthy 'diversity' (diversity) and 'fair conditions' (level playing field), but about dividing people into races and ethnic groups. To see and treat them not as individuals, but as representatives of groups. "

The Prop 16 campaign uses “harmless and positive words” such as “diversity” and “fairness”, according to Rollins, “because what kind of well-meaning person could be against it?” The campaign is based on the fact that “well-meaning people are also in good faith” , she says. That is why it is so important to explain the "real agenda" behind Prop 16:

“My motivation to educate people about Prop 16 is that the US has made so much progress in terms of racial equality since the 1960s - people are now viewed as individuals, not skin color - that I fear for the country, if more and more citizens and politicians believe that they have to split people up according to skin color or ethnic origin. Prop 16 would undo much of the progress in California. "

As someone who loves equality, she feels discrimination, as under the keyword Affirmative action, is practiced, "as absolutely un-American":

"Equality does not mean mathematically divided proportions, but equality of opportunity, and also the freedom to live as an independent person - and not as a representative of a group."

The fact that "far too many black Americans" do not have this equal opportunity is "true and tragic":

“Countless numbers grow up in ghettos without stability, surrounded by drugs, violence and crime. They have to go to dangerous schools where they are hardly taught anything. "

Something must be done about this, said Rollins - but Affirmative action do not help at all.

"Equality Already Exists"

I object that the New York Times and other proponents of the “yes” campaign claim Affirmative action is necessary to "establish racial and gender equality". - "This equality already exists," replies Rollins:

“All people are equal before the law and you can see that in practice: At California's public universities - which Prop 16 is all about - women are in the majority. That goes for all of America. And the proportion of blacks and Latinos at the University of California (UC) is almost exactly the same as their proportions in the California population. "

Indeed: statistics published in July by the University of California (UC) states that five percent of students are black, which is broadly in line with their California population (six percent). The same goes for Latinos, who make up 39 percent of California's population and 36 percent of UC students. Rollins points out notable facts:

"Latinos have been the largest population group in California at 39 percent since 2014 - yet they are counted among the 'minorities' who allegedly have to rely on government aid so that they are not discriminated against."

On the flip side, whites make up 37 percent of California's population, Rollins says, but their share of UC undergraduate students is only 21 percent. “And yet nobody is of the opinion that more white students should be admitted because of this”.

The core of the debate is ideological and has been the same for decades. With the Americans of Asian descent (Asian Americans) There is a non-white ethnic group in the USA who does not at all correspond to the prevailing expectations of how non-white minorities should be: socially disadvantaged, needy, “victims” of supposedly systemic racism. Instead, they are Asian Americans obviously extremely successful in large numbers. "That Asian Americans 15 percent of the California population but 35 percent of the college students University of California, is from the proponents' point of view Yes on Prop 16-Campaign an 'overrepresentation' (overrepresentation) by Asians at the best universities, ”explains Rollins. If the "Yes" campaign has its way, she says,

“So fewer Asians should be admitted, even if they have the best high school grades and the best qualifications. Instead of Asians, more blacks and more Latinos should then be admitted to the universities, even if they are academically unprepared. "

Here Rollins sees not only the constitution, but fundamental principles of humanity violated:

“It is dehumanizing that Americans of Asian descent are told there are too many of them in college, even if they are the most highly qualified. These students are therefore not seen as individual people, but as Asians, of whom there are too many. "

That is exactly what racism is, according to Rollins. "In America in particular, that should be unthinkable in 2020."

Who supports the no campaign?

At the No on Prop 16Campaign involved blacks, whites and Asians, Rollins says. Nevertheless, the campaign is "constantly accused by opponents of being racist":

"If you say, for example, that there are and always will be individual racists, but that the country itself, the system, is no longer racist, you will be decried as a racist."

The chairman of the No on Prop 16-Campaign is the 81-year-old Louisiana-born black Ward Connerly, who back in 1996 led the successful campaign that led to the prohibition of racial and gender discrimination, which is now to be lifted if advocates of Proposition 16 goes. "He says that the special treatment required for blacks is insulting and patronizing, and that it is long time for blacks to shed that yoke," says Rollins. "In my eyes, this man is an American hero."

In an appeal, Ward Connerly writes, "If Prop 16 gets through, this virus of racial divisions will spread to the rest of the country." The Americans should not allow this to happen. "We must not be silent while our country is literally on fire."

Too many Asians?

The argument of "overrepresentation" has been used in the US against Americans of Asian descent at universities since the early 1980s. That was when the number of Asian Americans in high schools and universities to increase significantly. At the University of California in Berkeley, it said in an article of the New York Times of May 9, 1982, “20 percent of the students are Asians, although they make up only 5.3 percent of the population.” At Harvard and Stanford, Asians are also “disproportionately” represented, the paper continues.

The alleged "overrepresentation" causes resentment among those who believe that those who are successful in schools and universities are the cause of the failure of the less successful, which is why the successful must be fought. Asians, it is said, are taking places away from others - especially blacks and Hispanics. What is usually not so loudly trumpeted is that it is a zero-sum game: The ones that blacks and Hispanics through Affirmative action Who want to “promote” really want Asian Americans discriminate against through racist rules.

This has been happening for decades. In 2018 the think tank compared Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) three universities in a study: das California Institute of Technology (Caltech) that Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Harvard University. The CEO wanted to know if there was any statistical evidence that universities were recording the number of them admitted Asian Americans limit. The result: At Caltech, where ethnicity does not play a role in admission, the proportion of Asian-American freshmen is always over 40 percent. At MIT, where it is a criterion in the selection of students, the proportion of Asian-American students peaked at 29 percent in the 1990s and has now been constant at 26 percent for a long time. At Harvard, where there is also a racial selection under the banner of “diversity” and Affirmative action takes place, the high point was 21 percent and has now solidified at 17 percent.

The study only referred to universities, but what it reveals is even clearer when you compare New York's most famous elite high school, the Stuyvesant High School, attracts. Stuyvesant prides itself on selecting applicants based only on performance and being blind to skin color. The proportion of Asian-American students there is 74 percent. Mind you, this is not the result of ethnic selection, but of fairness and true equality of opportunity. If, on the other hand, an institution tries to model the composition of the student body according to the criterion of “diversity”, then in practice one has to say to an applicant: “In terms of your excellent examination results, we would like to take you, but unfortunately you have the wrong race: If your parents weren't both born in Vietnam, but at least one of them was born in a Latin American or African country, we'd take you. But as it is, you are just one of those of whom there are far too many. "

Harvard and the Asian penalty

A study published by Princeton University sociologists Thomas J. Espenshade and Alexandria Walton Radford in 2009 found that Asian AmericansIn order to be admitted to elite universities that discriminate according to race, you have to achieve significantly higher scores in the standardized admission test (SAT) than whites and certainly higher than blacks and Hispanics. This phenomenon is undisputed and, according to an article by the New York Times also than that Asian tax referred to - one has to translate that with "Asiatenmalus". If the elite universities on the east coast were to only go to the entrance exams according to their performance in the entrance exams, the researchers calculated that Asians would not have the lowest admission rate (18 percent), as they currently do, but the highest (30 percent), and their share of the student body would increase from an average of 24 to 38 percent.

In a post entitled The War on Asian Americans compared Abe Greenwald, a columnist for the Jewish-American monthly magazine Commentary, The discrimination against Asian students today with the “Jewish quota” in America in the early 20th century: “Especially at Harvard, the attack on the Asian-American applicants is so obvious, so deliberate and so systematic that it disturbingly turns it into the most fanatical chapter in the history of this institution is similar - the campaign to keep Jews out of the student body, as it existed in the first decades of the 20th century. "

At that time, Harvard had a president named Abbott Lawrence Lowell, who ordered the students in the card index to be sorted into four groups: J1: Definitely a Jew; J2: Most likely a Jew; J3: Might be a jew; J4: Other. He found that the proportion of Jews among Harvard students had risen from seven to 21.5 percent between 1900 and 1922 and decided to cap it to 15 percent. Greenwald admits in his column that there are clear differences between the two situations:

“Limiting the number of Jews was obviously part of a broad cultural wave of fanaticism and anti-Semitism, while the campaign against Asian Americans is clothed in the language and ideology of diversity. But in any case ... colleges are again stigmatizing a group of people to exclude them and are committing a great sin against thousands of individuals who are about to reach for the American Dream. "

It is noteworthy that the Affirmative action This is also justified by the fact that historical injustice against black slaves must be atoned for by promoting their descendants. This thesis is countered by the observation that the elite universities like to adorn themselves with black students to show how “diverse” they are; but instead of taking in children from Detroit, they fill the study places with the children of educated immigrants from Africa. Whether Harvard, Yale or Cornell - every elite American university now has an association of Nigerian students."Although African immigrants - many of them from Nigeria and Ghana - make up less than 1 percent of America's population, black immigrants make up 41 percent of all black students at Ivy League universities," according to a 2007 study.

Asians have often been victims of racism or even pogroms in US history. Now they should be discriminated against again, in the name of “diversity” and “equal opportunities” - and of course in the name of People of Color. Many Asians have a darker skin than the "black" Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren, who falsely identified themselves as one during their student days Native American issued by the Cherokee tribe.

Prop 16 is just the beginning

So that it is not so noticeable that Asian Americans the real victims are take away from the proponents Affirmative action prefer the whites and their "privileges" (white privilege) targeted. One of the supporters of the “yes” campaign is Eva Paterson of the Equal Justice Society in Oakland. She supports Prop 16 and cites the Covid-19 pandemic as an example of the supposed privilege of whites: Blacks and Latinos suffered much more from it, she claims.

"White America can no longer say, 'Oh, I don't see any colors, we are over racism." People of color are treated differently. One way people can turn their desire to eradicate racism into action is to vote for Proposition 16. That will give people of color and women more power and more money. If you have more money, you have more options and more say in the political system. "

Money? Makes? Shouldn't it be about “diversity”? Indeed it is Proposition 16 just a Weapon in the ideological offensive that is currently being waged in California. On September 30th, California Governor Gavin Newsom (Democrats) signed a bill setting race quotas for company boards. In addition, every high school student must study a subject called "Ethnic Studies" for at least one semester. Another new law is intended to pave the way for descendants of slaves to pay “reparations”.

"These measures demonstrate that racial preference supporters ... seek quotas, government-mandated racial indoctrination and punitive, race-based payments collected from taxpayers," writes Frank Xu, a supporter of the "No" campaign, in a guest commentary for the daily newspaper San Diego Union Tribune. Fifteen years ago he immigrated to the United States from China, said Xu. In China, state control over the lives of citizens is "an essential part of authoritarian rule".

"Here in California, I was grateful that principles that are central to human dignity, such as equality, are enshrined in both the US and California constitutions."

Proposition 16 try to put an end to the equality of citizens, says Xu. The Californians shouldn't support that. Because he is an Asian himself, the proponents of Proposition 16 Accused of "selfishness", he continues: It is only a matter of sending his children to Berkeley, he is accused of. Racism is widespread among supporters of the referendum. In 2014, when they first attempted to ban Affirmative action had failed in the California Senate, a Democrat MP Cristina Garcia said she would like to slap the next Asian in the face: This makes me feel like I want to punch the next Asian person I see in the face. So it reported the website Politico. Garcia later apologized, but the incident shows the racist hatred that some of the "anti-racists" suffer from.

Affirmative action also occupies the courts. The Supreme Court declared them admissible in principle in two landmark judgments (1978 and 2003). But that does not mean that he would have to make the same decision in another case. Currently, both Harvard and Yale must defend their discriminatory licensing practices in courts. Yale was sued by the US Department of Justice this month. At the ballot box, the success of the anti-discrimination advocates is uncertain. According to a survey by the Public Policy Institute of California 46 percent of Democratic voters and 9 percent of Republican voters on November 3rd want for Proposition 16 voices. To become law, the proposal requires at least 50 percent of the valid votes.

Do you like reading Achgut.com?
Show your appreciation!