![\"\"](\"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/03\/California-Communist-Bear-Flag.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
In 1996, California voters passed Prop. 209<\/a> to outlaw affirmative action. It has survived for over a quarter of a century and remains the law of the land\u2014at least on paper\u2014for now. The main operative part of it reads plainly:<\/p>\n \u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n In 2020, the California grand soviet<\/span> legislature<\/em> put Prop. 16<\/a> on the ballot which would have outright repealed Prop. 209.<\/p>\n It failed by double digits margins, even with non-Hispanic Whites not even being a plurality of the state\u2019s population.<\/p>\n Now, the California grand soviet<\/span> legislature<\/em> is at it again, except this time they are being more subtle<\/a>. Instead of outright repealing it, it allows the Governor to grant the state to discriminate on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, or on behalf of \u201cmarginalized genders, sexes, or sexual orientations\u201d based on \u201cresearch\u201d. \u00a0 The main new operative section would read<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u201cNotwithstanding paragraph (1) but subject to approval by the Governor pursuant to the procedures in subparagraph (B), the State may use state moneys to fund research-based, or research-informed, and culturally specific interventions or programs in any industry, including, but not limited to, public employment, public education, and public contracting, if those interventions or programs are established or otherwise implemented by the State for purposes of increasing the life expectancy of, improving educational outcomes for, or lifting out of poverty specific groups based on race, color, ethnicity, national origin, or marginalized genders, sexes, or sexual orientations.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n This is incredibly broad and would allow discrimination for practically any reason whatsoever with just a fig leaf of excuses. It also isn\u2019t even about promoting equality of outcomes, but rather equity<\/em>. \u00a0 Even is one group has higher average life expectancy, higher educational outcomes, or higher wealth, they can benefit while other groups (e<\/em>.g<\/em>. \u201ccis\u201d heterosexual White males) may be ground into the dust.<\/p>\n But this get worse. \u00a0 \u201cCulturally specific program\u201d allows different groups to be taught different things based in their own cultural \u201cways of knowing\u201d (lighting bolt throwing wizards will rejoice at this). \u00a0 Further the, \u201cresearch-based program\u201d or \u201cresearch-informed program\u201d could be based on a single \u201cstudy\u201d that could be nothing more than a retrospective review of gender studies papers, for example, in some social studies database. In other words, biased academia\u2019s pre-determined opinions is all that they will need to cite in order to discriminate against people. Oh, it also allows things to be broken up on anintersectional<\/i> basis, so even if you are benefiting in one category, you could be discriminated against in another! Clearly the biggest winners are BIPOC queer trans-men from Eswatini.<\/p>\n Of course, this would only make de jure<\/em> what the state is already doing de facto<\/em>.<\/p>\n That the recent Supreme Court decision striking down Affirmative Action in colleges would suggest this would not survive a Federal court challenge. The damage it would do would be incalculable.<\/p>\n This is vile and the political leadership of California is beyond despicable.<\/p>\n A little mood music.<\/p>\n\n
\n