The measure most likely deterred more than 1,000 Black and Latino students from even applying to the University of California system each year, according to research by Zachary Bleemer, an economist at Berkeley.
Why it is a good thing for students to apply when they know that they cannot satisfy the standards is beyond me.
The research describes a cascade effect in which the Black and Latino students who were rejected from elite schools then enrolled in less selective universities, crowding out others and precluding some students from attending college at all.
So... people who were not qualified to attend college were 'precluded' from going to university, instead of being admitted on the basis of their race and taking up a spot that rightfully belongs to someone more deserving? Isn't that what admissions are for?
The impact of the ban on affirmative action has been particularly visible in the medical field. Latinos comprise 40 percent of California’s population but roughly only 6 percent of its practicing physicians.
Imagine looking at doctors and thinking that the standards are too high, and that they should be lowered based on people's skin color. I wish on every single member of the billionaire-owned New York Times an affirmative action brain surgeon for the plenty that is wrong with their defective minds.
Before the measure passed, the state awarded nearly a quarter of its public contracts under its program for “minority- and women-owned business enterprises.” That program has since been disbanded, costing those businesses some $825 million a year, according to a study from the Equal Justice Society, an Oakland-based nonprofit.
I love how these wannabe Walter Duranty's talk about how this is anything but a zero sum game. The fact that this 'cost' these businesses $825 million means that this money was spent elsewhere, with businesses where the determination was made on the basis of quality and not skin color. And by that very same token, reinstating their racial preferences will cost these more deserving businesses $825 million.
Before Proposition 209, the University of California system put 10 percent of its spending toward Black, Latino and Asian-owned companies. As of 2019, that number had fallen below 3 percent.
The University of California screams about Asian-owned businesses as it tries to increase discrimination against Asians students. Pure, unadulterated evil that they are.
Proposition 16 has its supporters: the governor, Senator Kamala Harris, top public university officials. It has raised more than $16 million, compared with $1 million countering the measure. Yet it continues to lag in the polls, with just 31 percent of California voters saying they support the measure and 22 percent undecided.
So the oligarchs and the plutocrats are all on your side, and still you are losing? And you claim to be for justice when you are advocating for the agenda of the plutocrats and the oligarchs, against the people?
Prop 16’s passage would not instate racial or gender quotas, which have been illegal since 1978. It also would not add new language to the state’s legal code. Instead, it would erase the language added 24 years ago: “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.”
Oh, how reasonable!
And of course, at the bottom, the Walter Duranty New York Times helpfully directs us towards an article attacking the ban on racial preference: A Detailed Look at the Downside of California’s Ban on Affirmative Action. Funny how in the 26 years that this measure has been the law, the oligarch-owned NYT decided to run this piece... in the year that the oligarchs attempted its repeal.
They are not journalists. They're the worst people to walk around on this earth.
Instead, it would erase the language added 24 years ago: "The state SHALL NOT discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to,...
Making it into:
The state SHALL 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.
Prop 16’s passage would not instate racial or gender quotas, which have been illegal since 1978. It also would not add new language to the state’s legal code. Instead, it would erase the language added 24 years ago:
Yup, they're quite happy for the institutions themselves to implement the racial quotas (the gender quota might be a bit difficult, but I'm sure if they do that at the same time as the racial one it'll just slip through)
Well, there's that bothersome fact that university admissions are split something like 60:40 in favour of women at the present time. At the moment, it's being dealt with by claiming that they can't be discriminating, that would be illegal. So I suppose under this new regime it simply gets buried.
No, this isn't an impediment to their scheme. They'll just release (even more) "research" that claims women are not making as much as they should, or aren't being promoted as much as they should. Since any research to the contrary gets cancelled, and since statistics are laughably easy to misinterpret or falsify, that becomes established fact. Of course, the only way to remedy this grave injustice is to accept less men.
At this point, can we even claim that Journalism is anything but a sham? On the topic of taking the language back from the left, I think we just need a new term for a Journalist who actually does what they're supposed to do. A term which is completely divorced from the forever-tarred name of "Journalism"
Well, at least their final paragraph is unintentionally honest:
This summer, millions of Americans took to the streets to protest racial injustice. Now, millions more in California can cast their ballots for a simple measure advancing that cause
Indeed, NYT, giving university admissions and public contracts based on race is racial injustice. Now why are you supporting it?
No, we're not living in clown world. The Progressives are just regressing to an earlier state. I wouldn't be surprised if they genuinely hang somebody.
The enemies of the people are at it again.
Why it is a good thing for students to apply when they know that they cannot satisfy the standards is beyond me.
So... people who were not qualified to attend college were 'precluded' from going to university, instead of being admitted on the basis of their race and taking up a spot that rightfully belongs to someone more deserving? Isn't that what admissions are for?
Imagine looking at doctors and thinking that the standards are too high, and that they should be lowered based on people's skin color. I wish on every single member of the billionaire-owned New York Times an affirmative action brain surgeon for the plenty that is wrong with their defective minds.
I love how these wannabe Walter Duranty's talk about how this is anything but a zero sum game. The fact that this 'cost' these businesses $825 million means that this money was spent elsewhere, with businesses where the determination was made on the basis of quality and not skin color. And by that very same token, reinstating their racial preferences will cost these more deserving businesses $825 million.
The University of California screams about Asian-owned businesses as it tries to increase discrimination against Asians students. Pure, unadulterated evil that they are.
So the oligarchs and the plutocrats are all on your side, and still you are losing? And you claim to be for justice when you are advocating for the agenda of the plutocrats and the oligarchs, against the people?
Oh, how reasonable!
And of course, at the bottom, the Walter Duranty New York Times helpfully directs us towards an article attacking the ban on racial preference: A Detailed Look at the Downside of California’s Ban on Affirmative Action. Funny how in the 26 years that this measure has been the law, the oligarch-owned NYT decided to run this piece... in the year that the oligarchs attempted its repeal.
They are not journalists. They're the worst people to walk around on this earth.
Making it into:
Does the NYT know how to read.
Yup, they're quite happy for the institutions themselves to implement the racial quotas (the gender quota might be a bit difficult, but I'm sure if they do that at the same time as the racial one it'll just slip through)
I like how they try to frame it so you'll think race/gender quotas will remain illegal, when this change would explicitly make them legal.
Well, there's that bothersome fact that university admissions are split something like 60:40 in favour of women at the present time. At the moment, it's being dealt with by claiming that they can't be discriminating, that would be illegal. So I suppose under this new regime it simply gets buried.
No, this isn't an impediment to their scheme. They'll just release (even more) "research" that claims women are not making as much as they should, or aren't being promoted as much as they should. Since any research to the contrary gets cancelled, and since statistics are laughably easy to misinterpret or falsify, that becomes established fact. Of course, the only way to remedy this grave injustice is to accept less men.
The New York Times is to journalism what burning your mouth on hot cheese is to eating pizza.
The burn heals in a day. The NYT sticks around like cancer.
;^)
The worst part of it but it happens every time anyway?
Abrasive, greasy, and fills you with an overwhelming, if fleeting, combination of anger and determination.
At this point, can we even claim that Journalism is anything but a sham? On the topic of taking the language back from the left, I think we just need a new term for a Journalist who actually does what they're supposed to do. A term which is completely divorced from the forever-tarred name of "Journalism"
Is it possible for me to despise this Pravda paper any more?
NYT and WaPo are especially enemies of the people.
I'm going to laugh so hard when this passes. And those fucking morons call us racist.
Incredible.
Well, at least their final paragraph is unintentionally honest:
Indeed, NYT, giving university admissions and public contracts based on race is racial injustice. Now why are you supporting it?
This is the definition of the soft bigotry of low expectations. Something the NYT excels at.
tl;dr, they're defending it cause they want to force affirmative action so they can discriminate against Whites and Asians.
How is this legal again?
I can't imagine it will stand up to long court challenges, definitely not if it makes it to SCOTUS (in an unpacked world).
This shit is completely asinine. We truly are living in clown world
No, we're not living in clown world. The Progressives are just regressing to an earlier state. I wouldn't be surprised if they genuinely hang somebody.
Liberal arts, and let's be honest the schools in general, are already over 50% women. This is just a way for them to force more males out of STEM.