Did you know?
California is one of only eight states that do not allow race or gender to be among the many factors considered in hiring, allotting state contracts or accepting students into the state’s public colleges and universities.
Now, what can you do?
Proposition 16 is a ballot measure that California voters will decide on in the November election.
The UCSD Anti-Racism Coalition wants to (1) lay out the history behind Prop 16, (2) clearly outline what the YES and NO positions really stand for, and (3) explain why the ARC and the UC system endorse YES on Prop 16.
In 1996, Proposition 209 amended the California Constitution by adding the following language: "The 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."
Proposition 16 is a ballot measure seeking to repeal that language. A YES vote will remove it; a NO vote will preserve it.
Proposition 209 succeeded in 1996 largely by stoking unfounded fears of discrimination against Asian Americans. Its enactment banned affirmative action within the University of California and California State University systems, decimating the number of BIPOC students in the following years.
According to the University of California’s own report, “Prop 209 caused a decline in systemwide URG enrollment by at least 12 percent,” with underrepresented-student enrollment at the Berkeley and UCLA campuses immediately falling by more than 60 percent. “Each [underrepresented] UC applicant became substantially less likely to earn admission at every UC campus in 1998,” leading to “each [underrepresented] applicant’s wages [falling] by about 5 percent between ages 23 and 35.”
Several prominent conservatives, including US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, have appropriated the language of equality and nondiscrimination in support of ending affirmative action. They state that consideration of race is in fact a form of discrimation, or that it implies that BIPOC are inferior because they require a “hand out.” This colorblind stance fails to acknowledge that systemic racism has intentionally excluded BIPOC from wealth accumulation for generations up to now.
Proposition 16 was introduced as ACA-5 in the state legislature in 2019 by Assemblywoman Dr. Shirley Weber—a true advocate for civil rights—to repeal this misguided constitutional amendment.
In response to the public outcry over the recent murders of George Floyd, Breana Taylor, and too many others to be named, the California legislature passed ACA-5 with supermajorities in both chambers. It now sits before the voters as Prop 16.
Proponents of the NO position will try to confuse voters by using the language and imagery of Martin Luther King, Jr. to keep the current Constitutional language in place, despite the fact that MLK’s spouse, Corretta Scott King, opposed it in 1996—as do MLK’s children today.
The author Dr. Ibram Kendi has written: “The only remedy for racist discrimination in the past is anti-racist discrimination in the present.” Racial equity is on the ballot this November. A NO vote on Prop 16 will set another generation of Black, Indigenous, students of color back.
In this moment, affirmative action must return if we want to right these wrongs. That is why we call on the UCSD community to join the Anti-Racism Coalition in the fight for justice by voting YES on Prop 16.
The UCSD Anti-Racism Coalition wants to (1) lay out the history behind Prop 16, (2) clearly outline what the YES and NO positions really stand for, and (3) explain why the ARC and the UC system endorse YES on Prop 16.
In 1996, Proposition 209 amended the California Constitution by adding the following language: "The 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."
Proposition 16 is a ballot measure seeking to repeal that language. A YES vote will remove it; a NO vote will preserve it.
Proposition 209 succeeded in 1996 largely by stoking unfounded fears of discrimination against Asian Americans. Its enactment banned affirmative action within the University of California and California State University systems, decimating the number of BIPOC students in the following years.
According to the University of California’s own report, “Prop 209 caused a decline in systemwide URG enrollment by at least 12 percent,” with underrepresented-student enrollment at the Berkeley and UCLA campuses immediately falling by more than 60 percent. “Each [underrepresented] UC applicant became substantially less likely to earn admission at every UC campus in 1998,” leading to “each [underrepresented] applicant’s wages [falling] by about 5 percent between ages 23 and 35.”
Several prominent conservatives, including US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, have appropriated the language of equality and nondiscrimination in support of ending affirmative action. They state that consideration of race is in fact a form of discrimation, or that it implies that BIPOC are inferior because they require a “hand out.” This colorblind stance fails to acknowledge that systemic racism has intentionally excluded BIPOC from wealth accumulation for generations up to now.
Proposition 16 was introduced as ACA-5 in the state legislature in 2019 by Assemblywoman Dr. Shirley Weber—a true advocate for civil rights—to repeal this misguided constitutional amendment.
In response to the public outcry over the recent murders of George Floyd, Breana Taylor, and too many others to be named, the California legislature passed ACA-5 with supermajorities in both chambers. It now sits before the voters as Prop 16.
Proponents of the NO position will try to confuse voters by using the language and imagery of Martin Luther King, Jr. to keep the current Constitutional language in place, despite the fact that MLK’s spouse, Corretta Scott King, opposed it in 1996—as do MLK’s children today.
The author Dr. Ibram Kendi has written: “The only remedy for racist discrimination in the past is anti-racist discrimination in the present.” Racial equity is on the ballot this November. A NO vote on Prop 16 will set another generation of Black, Indigenous, students of color back.
In this moment, affirmative action must return if we want to right these wrongs. That is why we call on the UCSD community to join the Anti-Racism Coalition in the fight for justice by voting YES on Prop 16.