The enemies of the people are at it again.

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.