www.berkeleycollegerepublicans.com
Ward Connerly, the chief proponent of Proposition 209, which prohibited preferential hiring and university admissions on the basis of race and gender in the state of California, wrote the following column in Flash Report in support of the BCR Increase Diversity Bake Sale Event. BCR thanks Mr Connerly for his support and for his dedication to ending all forms of discrimination in California. It was on March 6, 1961, at the height of America's "civil rights movement," that President John F Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925. This document included a provision which required all federal contractors to take "affirmative action" to ensure that all applicants and employees would be treated equally "without regard to race, creed, color or national origin." President Kennedy also set forth a national vision of "colorblindness" when he said, "race has no place in American life or law." That vision became law upon the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which sought to carry out Kennedy's vision of nondiscrimination and equal treatment of all Americans. Responding to demands of civil rights advocates, such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, President Lyndon B Johnson took the nation in a decidedly different direction when he issued Executive Order 11246. This executive order repealed that of Kennedy and included sex in the list of affected attributes. Johnson's order went further, however, because it abandoned the policy on nondiscrimination and, instead, required that goals and timetables be used for the achievement of the goals established. Since that time, the Federal government, states and local governments all across the nation perfected their policies of discrimination in the name of "affirmative action." To my amazement, the courts have consistently concurred with this departure from the principle of equal treatment for all Americans, which is a foundational principle for our nation. In 1996, the people of California decided to return to this principle when they approved Proposition 209, a measure that read: "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 education, public employment or public contracting." From the moment of its passage, there have been countless attempts to circumvent it, none more blatant than the abuse of power by the California Legislative Latino Caucus. On three separate occasions, a member of this caucus has introduced legislation to require or "authorize" the University of California and the California State University campuses to "consider" race, sex and ethnicity in their admissions processes. Each time that such a bill passed and reached the governor's desk in previous sessions of the Legislature, former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it. His message to the Legislature was that those bills were unconstitutional and a violation of Proposition 209. The latest attempt to circumvent Proposition 209 is a bill, SB 185, authored by State Senator Ed Hernandez. This measure is the top priority of the Latino Caucus and is now resting on the desk of Governor Brown. There is a determined effort by the proponents of race preference to convince Governor Brown to sign SB 185. One of the tactics was a phone bank operated by the Associated Students at UC Berkeley, in which students called the governor's office and asked him to sign the bill. Fortunately for the people of California, the Berkeley College Republicans (BCR) were not content to stand by and simply watch this display of contempt for the voters of California manifested by SB 185. To price baked goods on the basis of skin color and ethnic background is inherently racist, but so is admitting students on the same basis. Shawn Lewis, president of the BCRs said it well when he told CNN that "the purpose of the pricing structure is to cause people to disagree with this kind of preferential treatment. We want people to say no race is above another race, or no race is below another one. I was so impressed by the courage of the BCRs that I accepted their invitation and joined them at the sale, which was a huge success - they sold 300 cupcakes and cookies. More important, they triggered a profoundly vigorous discussion on campus about the issue of race preferences. As I sat at their table, dozens of students approached and we civilly presented our respective views. It was heartening to me to discover that the overwhelming number of students was open-minded and, I believe, most were supportive of the BCR message of equal treatment for all. This experience carried several important messages: first, the contempt of the Legislative Latino Caucus for the rule of law and the will of the people can no longer be ignored; second, the courage of the Berkeley College Republicans should hearten us all about the future of California; and third, the defenders of race preferences are like dinosaurs, but don't seem to know it. If anyone wonders why the Golden State is in such trouble, SB 185 is a valuable lesson. Our legislature is dysfunctional, under the control of some who have no respect for the voters, and those in control are willing to expose public agencies to legal action defending policies passed by the Legislature that betray common sense and the will of the people and which are likely to result in expenditure on lawsuits at a time when those agencies can least afford it. Is there anyone else in favor of a part-time legislature?
|
http://csua.com/feed/