Proposition 16 is a legislative constitutional amendment that was proposed to allow diversity to be a factor in public employment, education, and contracting decisions. The passing of the constitutional amendment meant that the state and the local entities had to consider factors such as national origin, race, color, and ethnicity that were taken in public services such as employment, contracting, and education and had to be allowed under both the state and federal law. If the law did not pass, it meant that the already existing ban on consideration of the factors would remain and would not affect public services such as employment and education. The reason why the topic interested me is because of the impact I thought it would have on the people of California, especially when it comes to accessing public services. The passing of the law meant that it would cause a rise in cases of discrimination as people would be considered depending on their race and ethnicity.
History
The amendments in Proposition 16 were to repeal the context of Proposition 209, which was an affirmative action that was passed in 1996 by the Constitution of California. Proposition 209 stated that preferential treatment and discrimination had been prohibited in providing opportunities in contracting, education, and employment based on ethnicity, color, sex, or national origin. The proposition also banned the use of any affirmative action whose preference would be defined by either sex or race. If there was no Proposition 209, it means that the local and state governments and other public institutions would be allowed to create and develop an affirmative action program as per the limits of federal law. In this case, the federal law would provide provisions in which affirmative actions would be developed and used when it comes to aspects of race, national origin, sex, or color (Abraham). The outcome would be that there are those who would not be allowed in given programs, which would translate to discrimination.
The federal and state constitution provides for equal protection, which provides every person with equal protection, which further means that people in similar situations are supposed to be treated the same way under the law. The development of Proposition 209 had some exceptions to it, which allowed local and state entities to consider sex if necessary in their normal operations. For instance, the state could consider the sex of an employee when looking for staff in a specific position, such as in prisons, where the staff and the inmates have to be of the same sex. The local and state entities could also consider given characteristics as they could be required for federal funding. For instance, the state would have to consider sex in the case where the government is funding women-owned businesses and issues relating to people of color (Cowan). Before Proposition 209, local and state entities had developed programs and policies that intended to increase opportunities as well as representation for people who were facing inequalities due to sex, race, national origin, or ethnicity (Abraham). The programs were referred to as affirmative action programs. Some of the public universities were allowed to make considerations of ethnicity and race when making decisions on offering programs that could support academic achievement for the affected students. The state also had other programs that focused on increasing the participation of women in business contracts. After Proposition 209 had been approved by the voters, the programs and policies had to be discontinued unless they qualified for the given exceptions.
Before Proposition 209 was approved, the programs and policies by both the local and state entities had to ensure that they complied with federal laws. The federal law has a provision for the right to equal protection, which also limits the use of some of the considerations as some of them stand out as discriminations. The federal law allowed public universities to consider some of the characteristics while making some decisions in regard to the well-being of the students. The policies and programs have to meet given conditions which limit the consideration of these characteristics. Proposition 16 would have repealed Proposition 209 to allow them to have a wider range of policies and programs so long as they are consistent with the state and federal law in regard to equal protection. The dissatisfaction of some institutions in regard to the ban is the main reason why the ban qualified for the ballot, as they argued that the lifting of the ban would allow them to expand their programs and not get limited within the provisions of Proposition 209.
Description
- Proposition 16 would eliminate the existing ban on consideration of given characteristics in public contracting, employment, and education. The proposition would repeal Proposition 209 under section 31 of Article 1 of the Constitution in California.
- Some of the characteristics that would be considered in public opportunities would include color, ethnicity, race, sex, or national origin.
- The proposition would allow state and local entities to have a wider range of programs and policies that are not limited to the provisions of the ban. All the programs and policies had to comply with the federal laws (Cowan).
Analysis
According to the proponents, there are only seven states with the affirmative action ban. Proposition 16 was to ensure that everyone is provided with equal rights under federal law and not to be defined by the policies and programs that were in proposition 209, which restricted the use of certain characteristics in offering public education, employment, and contracting. The opponents argued that the proposition would enable individuals in California to rule out discrimination and create a state that is governed by values of fairness and diversity, as well as a nation that is governed by equal opportunity (Cowan). The proponents argued that the leaders were being limited by the already existing ban on creating programs and policies that would have been beneficial to the people of California. Lifting the ban through Proposition 16 would allow the leaders to have programs and policies that are tailor-made to fit the people of the country through affirmative actions to provide better wages, good jobs, and the ability to access great schools for individuals in California. The proposition would also assist in remedying gender bias as well as racism, an issue that had been building up in the country at the time (Friedersdorf). Lifting the ban would allow different entities to create their own values of equality, which they would be assimilated into.
The opponents of Proposition 16 argued that the people of California had already approved Proposition 209 years ago, which was to prohibit discrimination against any form of secluded treatment based on sex, ethnicity, color, and national origin. The approval of Proposition 16 would have overturned what the citizens had already approved, which would further allow individuals to be discriminated against by the state and others granted preferential treatment. Allowing people to be given preferential treatment would beat the right to equal opportunity, which further devalues merit, causes groups to spite each other, and legalizes discrimination. Approval of Proposition 16 meant that an institution would utilize the law as an excuse to alienate a particular category that they might not want in different entities. Since the end of affirmative action in California, there has been a great improvement in diversity as more underrepresented minority groups have been enrolled in Universities in California. Graduation levels have also gone up, as well as the number of minorities in civil service. The current law doesn’t ban all affirmative action, more so those that are based on economic factors as well as those that have bona fide qualifications that are based on sex for the necessary action to receive federal funds. The opponents believe that the ban should not be lifted as there are allowances to the ban, which allows the leaders to make any policies and programs so long as they align with the needs of the people of California (Policy et al.). There was no neutral group on the proposition, as most of them either supported the ballot or opposed it completely.
Conclusion
I am in opposition to proposition 16 on allowing diversity as a factor in public education, employment, and contracting decisions. The reason for opposing is because the proposition is seeking to revoke and repeal Proposition 209, which had been made in 1996, which banned any form of discrimination based on affirmative action. Since the ban, there has been an increase in the number of students admitted to California universities and more minority groups employed in the civil service. The lifting of the ban might be used as an excuse to spread discrimination, as every entity or institution will be creating programs and policies to favor their needs and not those of the people. The previous programs that were based on affirmative action pushed students through education and caused most of the students to lose their abilities as they were placed in the wrong positions. After the propositions, it meant that any student could pick any course that they would wish to take so long as they are in the ability to do so. Since Proposition 209, there has been a huge growth in diversity; thus, proposition 16 will not make such a huge difference as there is sufficient inclusivity. In case of any amendments, I believe they are best if they are confined under the provisions of Proposition 209, which will ensure that any policy that is affirmative-based will be legal and genuine. Proposition 16 did not pass as more voters were against the proposal.
References
Abraham, Jessica Wolf and Melissa. “Prop. 16 Failed in California. Why? And What’s Next?” UCLA, UCLA, 18 Nov. 2020, newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/prop-16-failed-in-california.
Allows Diversity as a Factor in Public Employment, Education, And …, lao.ca.gov/ballot/2020/Prop16-110320.pdf.Accessed 10 Oct. 2023.
Cowan, Jill. “Proposition 16 and Debates about Racial Equity.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 21 Oct. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/10/21/us/proposition-16-california.html.
Friedersdorf, Conor. “Why California Rejected Racial Preferences, Again.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 10 Nov. 2020, www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/why-california-rejected-affirmative-action-again/617049/.
Policy, Adrian Moore Vice President of, et al. “California Ballot Initiative Analysis: Proposition 16 (2020).” Reason Foundation, 29 Sept. 2020, reason.org/voters-guide/california-ballot-initiative-analysis-proposition-16-2020/.
write