Henceforth the death of George Floyd, America is once again facing the question of race and discrimination. As international students residing in Taiwan are likely to apply for universities and colleges in the United States, it is not hard to see how these problems may potentially influence us.
Proposition 16 is a Californian ballot proposition in the 2020 general election. Originally introduced by Democratic Assembly Members Weber, Gipson, and Santiago as California Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 5, or ACA 5, it rapidly passed in both the Californian Assembly and Senate and thus made its way to the general election as Proposition 16.
Proposition 16 calls for an amendment to the Constitution of California, repealing the previously passed Proposition 209, which prohibits government institutions in California from taking into consideration one’s race, gender, ethnicity, among other factors, in areas of government-affiliated services and programs such as public employment, public contracting, and public education, and thus contrasting ‘affirmative action.’
In the United States, affirmative action policies included racial quotas in selection processes that aim to manipulate reservations for certain groups of people based on their racial, ethnic, and gender backgrounds. Notwithstanding the fact that the Supreme Court ruled racial quotas to be unconstitutional in the 1978 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and proponents of affirmative action have mostly forfeited the use of racial quotas, affirmative action policies today still advocate for a race influenced selection process that is not solely based on an individual’s merit.
In education, affirmative action is harmful to students aspiring to enter a public Californian college or university, particularly those of Asian descent. According to a 2005 study by Princeton sociologists Thomas J. Espenshade and Chang Y. Chung, the effects of affirmative action on different racial and special groups of applicants in several elite research universities were compared, Asians were to receive admission disadvantage equivalent to -50 points in terms of SAT points, while African Americans have a +230 points advantage, thus showing a clear racial bias against Asian applicants inflicted by affirmative action. In other particular case studies, affirmative action in California before the enactment of Proposition 209 is responsible for Japanese American applicants to UC Davis Medical School to be 1/13 as likely to be admitted as compared to other ethnic groups.
Furthermore, Proposition 16 potentially harms even the minority groups that the policy is intended to promote. In the public sector, African Americans remain approximately 20% of all public jobs; since this is 30% higher than their proportion based on population, proposition 16 may also hamper their presence in the public sector. Artificially elevating minority students is also shown to correlate with a higher dropout rate. On the contrary, under Proposition 209, the University of California experienced a three-fold increase in the number of Black and Hispanic students since 1994 and a 78% increase in underrepresented minority graduation rate in the UCs, and these improvements all occurred under a merit-based system. It is also essential to note that outreach programs to assist minority businesses and students are tolerated under Proposition 209.
Although intended to assist minority groups historically associated with discrimination, Proposition 16 and affirmative action coincides with the textbook definition of discrimination. It hurts those striving to achieve success regarding their backgrounds and may harm even the minority groups it was designed to support. The ‘justice’ affirmative action resolves to establish is ultimately rejected by the programs’ very own nature. While appropriate outreach to minority groups is beneficial to enhancing diversity in the public sector, justice is and should be colorblind and based on individual efforts, not by structured false equality.
“Justice is and should be colorblind and based on individual efforts, not by structured false equality.”
Fortunately, Proposition 16 was rejected by 57% of the popular votes. It was rejected under the circumstances under which it was advocated and sponsored by most local Democratic politicians, the Board of the University of California, and many private institutions.
This proves how a majority of Americans, regardless of political affiliation, still values racial neutrality. Discrimination, although long enchanted in American history, is in opposition to the fundamental values of America, the values that inspired the great Martin Luther King Jr. to proclaim in 1963 at the Lincoln Memorial, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Proposition 209 upholds that very same spirit, so let us keep it.
