“A Detailed Look at the Downside of California’s Ban on Affirmative Action” (NYT, August 21):
Twenty-four years ago, California was consumed by debate over affirmative action. A charismatic Black businessman named Ward Connerly led support for Proposition 209, a ballot initiative to ban racial preferences in admission to the state’s world-renowned public universities. The measure passed with 55 percent of the vote and inspired similar changes in nearly a dozen other states.
This November, with an initiative to repeal Proposition 209 on the ballot, California voters will have the opportunity to change their minds.
How are the polls on this one? The New York Times says we need to go back to state-run racism and it will actually be the best thing for the Asian kids who don’t get into the colleges of their choice:
Ending racial preferences in a state university system harmed Black and Hispanic students while doing little to lift whites and Asian-Americans, a study asserts.
Buried in the middle:
Of course, selective university admissions is a zero-sum game. For every Black and Hispanic student excluded by Proposition 209, another student, probably white or Asian-American, took their place. But in focusing on those who got into the most selective U.C. campus at Berkeley, the study found that white and Asian-American students received little concrete benefit from the policy. Mr. Bleemer’s study suggests they would have otherwise enrolled in an equally selective college elsewhere, and had the same chances to graduate and begin successful careers.
The Asian kids weren’t harmed because they earn a lot of money anyway even if they don’t get to attend UC Berkeley at a low cost. But maybe this is just a restatement of what economists have found, i.e., that being smart enough to get into an elite college is a great predictor of income, but attending an elite college isn’t that relevant (summary: what is taught in college is of minimal economic value).
Readers: What’s your prediction about how the California righteous will vote on this one? Will there be a rush to hire Victimhood Studies graduates to restart the sort-by-skin-color system for college applications?
My prediction: Census data show that California is 39.4 percent Hispanic. There’s another roughly 6.5 percent who are Black (and whose lives therefore matter!). Ignoring that these categories may overlap to some extent, my prediction is that 45 percent of Californians vote for to bring back race-based admissions out of self interest (since it is designed to help Black and Hispanic applicants; this number might be off if a lot of the folks in the designated victimhood categories are ineligible to vote due to not being citizens). Then add 15 percent of the remainder. These could be white people who aren’t going to have children, for example. Voting to restore race-based admissions can make them feel good without any personal sacrifice or sacrifice for anyone they care about. That’s 8 percent. So the ballot Proposition passes by 53-47.
Related:
- “Kamala’s America?”: California today boasts a fabulously rich technology elite; it’s also home to the highest poverty rate among the states, adjusted for costs, according to the U.S. Census. Under its largely one-party regime, notes liberal economist James Galbraith, California has seen inequality grow at among the fastest rates in the country. The state endures the widest gap between middle and upper incomes in the country—72 percent, compared with a national average of 57 percent.
- “Prop 16 confusion: Affirmative action ballot measure struggling in polls” (NBC): … despite the recent political wave in favor of social justice, the ballot measure isn’t polling particularly well. Why? It may have something to do with the measure’s confusing wording. … “Watching a focus group with Black voters from Los Angeles, they all said no we won’t vote for this as it was read to them,” said Eva Patterson, who co-chairs the Yes on 16 campaign. “Then we explained that it was in favor of affirmative action and equal opportunity, and they all said, ‘Of course we’ll vote for this.'” … The latest polling on Proposition 16 shows 31% of Californians in favor, 47% opposed and 22% unsure. In the Bay Area, the numbers are a bit more in favor of the measure: 40% for, 41% against and 19% not sure. [It is “equal opportunity” because opportunity is based on skin color and anyone who wants to can follow Justin Trudeau’s lead in adjusting skin color?]
> Then add 15 percent of the remainder.
I actually think some Hispanics and Blacks will vote against it and the number of others “others” who vote in favor will be greater than 15%, probably closer to 30% based on the racial and socioeconomic composition of Black Lives Matter peaceful protest crowds. I haven’t seen any good data on those, but the anecdotal evidence is strong (and certainly is in your neighborhood) that most of the support for BLM in terms of boots on the ground is white people.
I think it will pass by a supermajority of not quite two-thirds.
Although they know it is a zero-sum game, I think California’s non-Black and non-Hispanic population has reached the government-enforced-racism tipping point and the prospect of losing their places at elite (or any other) institutions is swamped by their overwhelming sense of white guilt, so it could be closer to 60% who will vote in favor. In many ways it’s the most tangible and direct way for them to express their overwhelming guilt, easier than marching in a protest or sending money.
>Voting to restore race-based admissions can make them feel good without any personal sacrifice or sacrifice for anyone they care about.
That’s not the point. This is the hard work of social justice, and if their kids have to sacrifice, so be it.
Alex is right:
“As she drove three friends home to the township of Gugulethu, outside Cape Town, on August 25, 1993, a mob pulled her from the car and stabbed and stoned her to death.
In 1998, all[killers] were pardoned by South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, when they stated that their actions had been politically motivated.
Biehl’s family supported the release of the men.[1]:71 Her father shook their hands and stated, The most important vehicle of reconciliation is open and honest dialogue… we are here to reconcile a human life [that] was taken without an opportunity for dialogue. When we are finished with this process we must move forward with linked arms.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Biehl
True devout progressives just do not care about their children.
@Ivan:
I don’t know if I’m right – it’s more of a hunch than an analysis – because it’ll take a lot to overcome the poll deficit. But polls are often wrong and especially on questions like this “in these times”, I don’t place any great faith in their predictive power. We’ll see.
It is very behind in the polls and has almost 0 chance of passing. Toucan’s prediction is around 60% of people vote against this!
I am (South) Asian and was fortunate enough to go to university in a country where admission to elite schools is based purely on objective entrance exams (mainly mathematics), not capricious systems originally designed to keep Jews out and now repurposed to keeping Asians out. So obviously I voted against Prop. 16.
One thing that’s striking about US universities is how much they talk about racial diversity, but how getting information on socio-economic diversity is like pulling teeth. California doesn’t ban using socio-economic background as an admissions factor, and it would be much fairer than throwing some poor rural white kids under the bus to get some more seats for the kids of upper-middle-class black parents in order to assuage the guilt of white liberals.
I wasn’t optimistic, but so far, the polls are against passage of the measure, even though no one dares oppose it in public, not even Asian groups.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article245777890.html
Why do you think, Fazal, that Asians, if one can generalize about so many very different cultures, are not more aggressive in trying to fight discrimination against them? I mean, African American underachievement in higher ed is obviously not their fault.
I wonder if Rick Moranis will ask friends in California to vote for it after being randomly attacked, punched in the head and sent to the hospital by a Black man wearing an “I [heart] NY” hoodie on Central Park West near 70th Street.
“That why we moved here – to be safe,” said resident Jonathan Kurtin. “Everything’s been good, but I guess trying times. People do strange things, and they’re not always nice… You’ll be looking over your shoulder a lot more often.”
https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2020/10/02/rick-moranis-random-attack-on-upper-west-side/
I read somewhere that the Reagents of the U Cal system have done their best to subvert the will of the people by guaranteeing admission to anyone who places in the top 10% of his class, or something like that, regardless of the school & regardless of how the student compared to other students in the State. So you had that hideous video from a few years ago of an African American student who graduated from some inner city school and was attending Berkley and just could not do the work notwithstanding that his field was African American studies — his high school education did not give him the ability to write a coherent paragraph.
Anecdotally, of course, you could talk to a lot of Legal Writing professors at law schools across the fruited plain and in private they would tell you that the students who need the most help graduated from College with decent grades but can’t write worth a damn, so they have serious problems as 1L’s. Then they go on to become lawyers.
I know this firsthand.
BTW: I think your malapropism “Reagents of the U Cal system” is the funniest thing I’ve read this year. It’s the chemicals!
And please don’t take my correction as an insult, it isn’t meant as one. My father is an EE and was educated at a very good university. He understands the theory of operation of every von-Neumann computer ever built much better than I ever will, and he misspells things all the time, sometimes hilariously. And I’m not much better these days without effort, so I sympathize. 🙂
Toucan Sam is right, the proposal is losing badly.
“They’re both in trouble,” said Larry Gerston, a political science professor emeritus at San Jose State University. “There’s sort of an unwritten rule about ballot measures, and the thinking is that most of the time at least, you’ve got to be up about 10 points” early on, since support tends to wane as Election Day approaches.
Instead, Proposition 16 is down by double digits, surprising many observers amid growing calls for racial justice. The measure would do away with 1996’s Proposition 209, which banned affirmative action, meaning universities and public agencies would once again be able to consider race in government contracts and when deciding whom to admit or hire.
Yet despite high-profile support from Gov. Gavin Newsom, the Golden State Warriors, the San Francisco Giants, just 31% of likely voters say they approve of Proposition 16, while 47% oppose it and 22% say they are undecided. Just 9% of Republicans support the proposal, a figure that rises only to 46% among Democrats. There is no region in the state where a majority of likely voters support the idea, and the Bay Area and Los Angeles are the only two regions in the state with more than one-third support.”
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/09/16/california-voters-show-little-appetite-for-race-based-affirmative-action-lukewarm-over-split-roll-property-tax/
Toucan Sam is always right. Remember what I said about Trump/Pence vs Biden/Harris over 18 months ago!!!!! If all goes right Toucan Sam will be drinking well next summer in Oshkosh all paid for by our fine host!