Proposition 209
Proposition 209, also known as the California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI), was a measure that appeared on the November 1996 ballot, seeking to amend the California state constitution. Its primary aim was to prohibit discrimination and preferential treatment in public employment, education, and contracting based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. The proposition sparked significant debate, with proponents, including campaign leader Ward Connerly, asserting that it aligned with the civil rights movement's ideals of equal treatment under the law. Conversely, opponents, including organizations like the NAACP and ACLU, contended that the measure was misleading and would ultimately undermine affirmative action efforts, potentially leading to increased discrimination against marginalized groups.
Despite the controversy, Proposition 209 passed with 54% of the vote but faced immediate legal challenges regarding its constitutionality. Following a series of court rulings, including a 1997 affirmation of its constitutionality, the proposition was implemented, leading to notable shifts in university admissions dynamics. For instance, at the University of California, Berkeley, the acceptance rates for African American and Latino students significantly dropped after its enactment. The full ramifications of Proposition 209 on California's educational and employment landscape continue to be evaluated and debated.
Proposition 209
Proposition 209, the California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI), was a measure to amend the California state constitution that appeared before California voters on the November 1996 election ballot. Proposition 209 proposed that the state should “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.” This proposal did not affect preferential treatment practices of private firms or private educational institutions in the state.
In the weeks leading up to the election, a heated public debate developed over the CCRI. Ward Connerly, a black businessman from Sacramento who led the campaign for the CCRI, and other supporters claimed that the measure’s intent in prohibiting discrimination and preferential treatment was in accord with the desires of those involved in the civil rights movement of the 1960s to create a society in which everyone, regardless of gender or skin color, would be guaranteed equal treatment under the law. The opposition to Proposition 209 included a wide variety of organizations, such as the state chapters of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Opponents argued that the CCRI was a deceptive measure whose true intent was not revealed by its language. As they saw it, although Proposition 209 did not explicitly mention the words “affirmative action,” the purpose of the proposition was not to end discrimination or preferential treatment but rather to end state-supported affirmative action programs in California. This, they argued, would actually lead to increased, rather than decreased, discrimination against women and African American, Latino, and other California minorities, and cause setbacks in the educational and employment gains achieved by these groups as a result of affirmative action programs.
On election day, Proposition 209 passed by a vote of 54 percent to 46 percent. It was immediately challenged in the California courts, and an injunction was issued against its enforcement. Those who challenged the CCRI argued that it violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by denying some groups, namely women and racial minorities, preferential treatment but not denying it to other groups, such as military veterans. In April, 1997, the US Court of Appeals affirmed the constitutionality of the CCRI, and the injunction against the CCRI was lifted in August, 1997. In a “Save the Dream” march led by the Reverend Jesse Jackson, thousands rallied in the streets of San Francisco to protest the lifting of the injunction. Although the ACLU attempted to take the appellate court decision to the Supreme Court, toward the end of 1997, the Court declined to review the measure. Pete Wilson, the governor of California and a supporter of Proposition 209, took a major step toward implementing it in March 1998 by officially ending the enforcement of preferential treatment for firms owned by women or minorities engaged in state contracting.
By mid-1998, the full impact of Proposition 209 had yet to be determined. At the University of California, Berkeley, for example, the number of African American and Latino students accepted for admission in the entering class of spring 1998 declined by more than 50 percent, while the proportion of white and Asian American students accepted for admission rose. These changes followed decreases in the preceding year in African American and Latino admissions to the University of California law and business schools. To what extent these declines in minority enrollments were the direct result of the passage of Proposition 209 and to what extent they were brought about by the implementation of a 1995 decision by the University of California Board of Regents to discontinue gender and racial preferences in admissions is difficult to determine.
Bibliography
Antonovics, Kate L., and Richard H. Sander. “Affirmative Action Bans and the ‘Chilling Effect.’” American Law and Economics Review 15.1 (2013): 252–299. EconLit with Full Text. Web. 14 May 2015.
Grodsky, Eric, Michal Kurlaender, and Harvard University Graduate School of Education. Equal Opportunity in Higher Education: The Past and Future of California's Proposition 209. Cambridge: Harvard Education P, 2010. ERIC. Web. 14 May 2015.
HoSang, Daniel Martinez. Racial Propositions: Ballot Initiatives and the Making of Postwar California. Berkeley: U of California P, 2010. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 14 May. 2015.
Kidder, William C. The Salience of Racial Isolation: African Americans’ and Latinos’ Perceptions of Climate and Enrollment Choices with and without Proposition 209. Los Angeles: Civil Rights Project / Proyecto Derechos Civiles, UCLA (2012): ERIC. Web. 14 May 2015.
Valenty, Linda O, and Ronald D Sylvia. “Thresholds for Tolerance: The Impact of Racial and Ethnic Population Composition on the Vote for California Propositions 187 and 209.” Social Science Journal 41(2004): 433–446. Print.