Home Uncategorized eco

Uncategorized

eco

11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 1/27

California Proposition

Election date
November 3, 2020

Topic

Af�rmative action

Status
Defeated

Type

Constitutional

amendment

Origin

State

legislature

List of California

measures

Submit

California Proposition 16, Repeal
Proposition 209 Affirmative Action

Amendment

(2020)

California Proposition 16, the Repeal Proposition 209
Af�rmative Action Amendment, was on the ballot in
California as a legislatively referred constitutional
amendment on November 3, 2020. Proposition 16 was
defeated.

A “yes” vote supported this constitutional amendment
to repeal Proposition 209 (1996), which stated that the
government and public institutions cannot discriminate
against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the
basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in
public employment, public education, and public
contracting.

A “no” vote opposed this constitutional amendment,
thereby keeping Proposition 209 (1996), which stated
that the government and public institutions cannot
discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to
persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or
national origin in public employment, public education,
and public contracting.

Election results

California Proposition 16

Result Votes Percentage

Yes 7,042,077 42.85%

No 9,390,914 57.15%

SUBSCRIBE   DONATE

https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_California_ballot_measures

https://ballotpedia.org/California_2020_ballot_measures

https://ballotpedia.org/Affirmative_action_on_the_ballot

https://ballotpedia.org/Defeated

https://ballotpedia.org/Legislatively_referred_constitutional_amendment

https://ballotpedia.org/California_State_Legislature

https://ballotpedia.org/California_2020_ballot_measures

https://ballotpedia.org/

California

https://ballotpedia.org/Legislatively_referred_constitutional_amendment

https://ballotpedia.org/California_2020_ballot_measures

https://ballotpedia.org/

Support

https://ballotpedia.org/

11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 2/27

Precincts reporting: 100%

Election results are unof�cial until certi�ed. These results were last updated on November 17, 2020 at 11:05:36 AM

Eastern Time.

Source

Reactions
The following is a list of reactions to the defeat of Proposition 16:

Vincent Pan, executive director of Chinese for Af�rmative Action, said, “Both in

California and across the country, we’re not witnessing a repudiation of Trumpism that

we’d like to see. There’s a lot of work to do to help enlist more folks who are

championing the promotion of policies that really �x structural racism.”

University of California Regents Chair John Perez said, “The failure of Proposition 16

means barriers will remain in place to the detriment of many students, families and

California at large. We will not accept inequality on our campuses and will continue

addressing the inescapable effects of racial and gender inequity.”

Roger Clegg, board member of the Center for Equal Opportunity, stated, “So we have

our most populous, and very blue, state rejecting by a decisive vote — apparently a

greater margin than the 1996 vote — a measure that would reinstate politically correct

discrimination, a.k.a. ‘af�rmative action.’ Not only that, but the extremely diverse people

of California did so in the year of the ‘woke’ and they did so despite the fact that the

proposition’s supporters vastly outspent its opponents and had overwhelming support

from all the usual establishment suspects.”

Yukong Zhao, president of the Asian American Coalition for Education, said, “Going

forward, I’d like to warn liberal politicians in California and nationwide: focus your

efforts on devising effective measures to improve K-12 education for Black and

Hispanic children, instead of introducing racially divisive and discriminatory laws time

and again. You have failed in California in 2014, as well as Washington State and New

York City in 2019.”

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board wrote, “This rejection of identity politics in one

of America’s bluest and most diverse states should echo around America, not least at

the U.S. Supreme Court. … And as welcome as it will be for Californians to keep their

state of�cially colorblind, it may also help with two big cases about the use of race in

college admissions that could end up at the Supreme Court.”

Overview

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

https://ballotpedia.org/How_and_when_are_election_results_finalized%3F_(2020)

https://electionresults.sos.ca.gov/returns/ballot-measures

11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 3/27

What was Proposition 16?

See also: Changes to the California Constitution

Proposition 16 was a constitutional amendment that would have repealed Proposition 209,
passed in 1996, from the California Constitution. Proposition 209 stated that discrimination and
preferential treatment were prohibited in public employment, public education, and public
contracting on account of a person’s or group’s race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.
Therefore, Proposition 209 banned the use of af�rmative action involving race-based or sex-
based preferences in California.

Without Proposition 209, the state government, local governments, public universities, and
other political subdivisions and public entities would—within the limits of federal law—be
allowed to develop and use af�rmative action programs that grant preferences based on race,
sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin in public employment, public education, and public
contracting.

What do discrimination and preferential treatment mean
within the context of Proposition 209?

In Hi-Voltage Wire Works v. San Jose (2000), the California Supreme Court held that, within the
context of Proposition 209:

discrimination means “to make distinctions in treatment; show partiality (in favor of ) or

prejudice (against)” and

preferential means “a giving of priority or advantage to one person … over others.”

There was disagreement about the signi�cance of Proposition 209 including language to
prohibit discrimination. Assembly Judiciary Committee counsel Thomas Clark said, “The
measure’s language prohibiting ‘discrimination’ was largely super�uous, given that state and
federal law, as well as the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, already prohibit such
discrimination. What was new about Proposition 209, therefore, was the prohibition on
‘preferential treatment.'” Wenyuan Wu, executive director of the campaign opposed to
Proposition 16, responded, “If the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution could suf�ciently
render anti-discrimination laws at the state level super�uous, then there would have been no
need to establish or keep laws such as Article I Section 7 of the State Constitution which
explicitly reaf�rms the U.S. Constitution’s principle of equal protection of the laws and equal
opportunity, the California State Education Code (EDC), Article 3 Section 220, or Donahoe
Higher Education Act, Article 2 Section 66010.2 (C). Or one could argue these aforementioned
laws could render one another ‘super�uous’?”

From Proposition 209 to Proposition 16

See also: Background of Proposition 16

Proposition 209 received 54.55 percent of the vote at the election on November 5, 1996,
making California the �rst state to adopt a constitutional ban on race-based and sex-based
af�rmative action.

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_209,_Affirmative_Action_Initiative_(1996)

https://ballotpedia.org/California_1996_ballot_measures

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Constitution

https://ballotpedia.org/Affirmative_action

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Supreme_Court

https://ballotpedia.org/Judiciary_Committee,_California_State_Assembly

11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 4/27

Ward Connerly, a member of the University of California Board of Regents, led the campaign
behind Proposition 209. “Af�rmative action was meant to be temporary,” wrote Connerly, “It
was meant to be a stronger dose of equal opportunity for individuals, and the prescription was
intended to expire when the body politic had developed suf�cient immunity to the virus of
prejudice and discrimination.” He added, “Three decades later, af�rmative action is permanent
and �rmly entrenched as a matter of public policy. … not because of any moral imperative but
because it has become the battleground for a political and economic war that has racial self-
interest as its centerpiece.” In 1997, Connerly founded the American Civil Rights Institute,
which supported ballot initiatives modeled on Proposition 209 in Washington, Michigan,
Colorado, Nebraska, Arizona, and Oklahoma.

In 2020, Asm. Shirley Weber (D-79) introduced the legislation that would become Proposition
16, stating that “the ongoing [coronavirus] pandemic, as well as recent tragedies of police
violence, is forcing Californians to acknowledge the deep-seated inequality and far-reaching
institutional failures that show that your race and gender still matter.” She also said, “This is
probably an opportune time given people’s interest in politics and given the kind of turnout that
is anticipated — and given the fact that this is a different generation, that it may be possible for
us to begin to work to reverse Prop. 209.” Connerly, responding to the proposal to repeal
Proposition 209, said, “I believe we would win by a landslide once we let people know what
af�rmative action is really about.”

What types of af�rmative action would have been allowed?

See also: U.S. Supreme Court on af�rmative action laws, policies, and programs

Proposition 16 would have removed the ban on af�rmative action involving race-based or sex-
based preferences from the California Constitution. Therefore, federal case law would have
de�ned the parameters of af�rmative action. The U.S. Supreme Court held that race-based
af�rmative action in higher education and government contracting must be reviewed under
strict scrutiny. In the U.S., strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that requires a law, policy, or
program to serve a compelling state interest and be narrowly tailored to address that interest.
Courts had ruled that strict racial quotas and racial point systems in higher education
admissions are unconstitutional but that individualized, holistic reviews that consider race, when
tailored to serve a compelling interest (such as educational diversity), are constitutional.

Text of measure

Ballot title
The ballot title was as follows:

“
Allow Diversity as a Factor in Public Employment, Education, and Contracting Decisions.
Legislative Constitutional Amendment. ”

Ballot summary

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

https://ballotpedia.org/Ward_Connerly

https://ballotpedia.org/Shirley_Weber

https://ballotpedia.org/U.S._Supreme_Court

11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 5/27

The ballot summary was as follows:

“
Permits government decision-making policies to consider race, sex, color,

ethnicity, or national origin to address diversity by repealing article I, section

31, of the California Constitution, which was added by Proposition 209 in

1996.

Proposition 209 generally prohibits state and local governments from

discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, individuals or

groups on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the

operation of public employment, education, or contracting.

Does not alter other state and federal laws guaranteeing equal protection and

prohibiting unlawful discrimination. ”

Fiscal impact statement
The �scal impact statement was as follows:

“
No direct �scal effect on state and local entities because the measure does

not require any change to current policies or programs.

Possible �scal effects would depend on future choices by state and local

entities to implement policies or programs that consider race, sex, color,

ethnicity, or national origin in public education, public employment, and public

contracting. These �scal effects are high uncertain. ”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article I, California Constitution

The measure would have repealed Section 31 of Article I of the California Constitution. The
following struck-through text would have been repealed:

Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the below text to see the full text.

[15]

[16]

[15]
[16]
[6]

https://ballotpedia.org/Article_I,_California_Constitution

https://ballotpedia.org/Article_I,_California_Constitution#Section_31

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Constitution

11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 6/27

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas,

Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability

scores are designed to indicate the reading dif�culty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas

account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the

dif�culty of the ideas in the text. The attorney general wrote the ballot language for this

measure.

The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 18, and the FRE is -21. The word count for the ballot
title is 15, and the estimated reading time is 4 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is
grade level 22, and the FRE is -9. The word count for the ballot summary is 85, and the
estimated reading time is 22 seconds.

Support

The Opportunity for All Coalition, also known as Yes on Prop 16, led the campaign in support of
Proposition 16. In the California State Legislature, Asm. Shirley Weber (D-79) was the lead
sponsor of the constitutional amendment. Chairpersons of Yes on 16 include Eva
Paterson, president of the Equal Justice Society; Vincent Pan, co-executive director of Chinese
for Af�rmative Action; and Thomas Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense
and Educational Fund.

Supporters

(a) 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.

(b) This section shall apply only to action taken after
the section’s effective date.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as
prohibiting bona �de quali�cations based on sex
which are reasonably necessary to the normal
operation of public employment, public education,
or public contracting.

(d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as
invalidating any court order or consent decree

[17]

[18][19][20][21][22]

[23]

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_measure_readability_scores,_2020

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_measure_readability_scores,_2020#Flesch-Kincaid_Grade_Level

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_measure_readability_scores,_2020#Flesch_Reading_Ease

https://ballotpedia.org/Shirley_Weber

11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 7/27

The campaign provided a list of endorsements, which is available
here .

Of�cials
U.S. Senator Dianne

Feinstein

(D)

U.S. Senator Kamala D.

Harris (D)

Vermont U.S. Senator

Bernie Sanders

(Independent)

U.S. Representative

Nanette Barragán (D)

U.S. Representative Karen

Bass (D)

U.S. Representative Ami

Bera (D)

U.S. Representative Julia

Brownley (D)

U.S. Representative TJ Cox

(D)

U.S. Representative Mark

DeSaulnier (D)

U.S. Representative Anna

Eshoo (D)

U.S. Representative Jimmy

Gomez (D)

U.S. Representative Jared

Huffman (D)

U.S. Representative Ro

Khanna (D)

U.S. Representative

Barbara Lee (D)

U.S. Representative Ted

Lieu (D)

U.S. Representative Alan

Lowenthal (D)

U.S. Representative Doris

Matsui (D)

U.S. Representative Jerry

McNerney (D)

U.S. Representative Grace

Napolitano (D)

Speaker of the U.S. House

Nancy Pelosi (D)

U.S. Representative Katie

Porter (D)

U.S. Representative Lucille

Roybal-Allard (D)

U.S. Representative Raul

Ruiz (D)

U.S. Representative Brad

Sherman (D)

U.S. Representative Jackie

Speier (D)

U.S. Representative Eric

Swalwell (D)

U.S. Representative Linda

Sánchez (D)

U.S. Representative Mark

Takano (D)

U.S. Representative Juan

Vargas (D)

U.S. Representative

Maxine Waters (D)

Governor Gavin Newsom

(D)

State Senator Steven

Bradford (D)

State Senator Richard Pan

(D)

State Senator Scott

Wiener (D)

Assemblymember Lorena

Gonzalez Fletcher (D)

Assemblymember Miguel

Santiago (D)

Assemblymember Shirley

Weber (D)

Assemblymember Buffy

Wicks (D)

San Diego Mayor Kevin

Faulconer

(Nonpartisan)

Long Beach Mayor Robert

Garcia (Nonpartisan)










































https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/

https://ballotpedia.org/Dianne_Feinstein

https://ballotpedia.org/Kamala_Harris

https://ballotpedia.org/Bernie_Sanders

https://ballotpedia.org/Nanette_Barrag%C3%A1n

https://ballotpedia.org/Karen_Bass

https://ballotpedia.org/Ami_Bera

https://ballotpedia.org/Julia_Brownley

https://ballotpedia.org/TJ_Cox

https://ballotpedia.org/Mark_DeSaulnier

https://ballotpedia.org/Anna_Eshoo

https://ballotpedia.org/Jimmy_Gomez

https://ballotpedia.org/Jared_Huffman

https://ballotpedia.org/Ro_Khanna

https://ballotpedia.org/Barbara_Lee_(California)

https://ballotpedia.org/Ted_Lieu

https://ballotpedia.org/Alan_Lowenthal

https://ballotpedia.org/Doris_Matsui

https://ballotpedia.org/Jerry_McNerney

https://ballotpedia.org/Grace_Napolitano

https://ballotpedia.org/Nancy_Pelosi

https://ballotpedia.org/Katie_Porter

https://ballotpedia.org/Lucille_Roybal-Allard

https://ballotpedia.org/Raul_Ruiz

https://ballotpedia.org/Brad_Sherman

https://ballotpedia.org/Jackie_Speier

https://ballotpedia.org/Eric_Swalwell

https://ballotpedia.org/Linda_S%C3%A1nchez

https://ballotpedia.org/Mark_Takano

https://ballotpedia.org/Juan_Vargas

https://ballotpedia.org/Maxine_Waters

https://ballotpedia.org/Gavin_Newsom

https://ballotpedia.org/Steven_Bradford

https://ballotpedia.org/Richard_Pan

https://ballotpedia.org/Scott_Wiener

https://ballotpedia.org/Lorena_Gonzalez_Fletcher

https://ballotpedia.org/Miguel_Santiago_(California)

https://ballotpedia.org/Shirley_Weber

https://ballotpedia.org/Buffy_Wicks

https://ballotpedia.org/Kevin_Faulconer

https://ballotpedia.org/Robert_Garcia_(California)

https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Support%20Letter%20for%20Repeal%20of%20Proposition%20209%2006.22.20

https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/

https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Support%20Letter%20for%20Repeal%20of%20Proposition%20209%2006.22.20

https://twitter.com/yesprop16/status/1303426327287078913

https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Support%20Letter%20for%20Repeal%20of%20Proposition%20209%2006.22.20

https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/

https://www.sacbee.com/article243767857.html

https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/

https://a79.asmdc.org/press-releases/20200310-lawmakers-business-community-announce-california-act-economic-prosperity

https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200ACA5

CA is not immune to the systemic racism that pervades our nation — & since 1996, we've had blinders on to this uncomfortable truth.

It's time to repeal #Prop209, permanently dismantle systemic racism, & create real opportunity for all.

Proud to support @AsmShirleyWeber's #ACA5. pic.twitter.com/sk8YdUtyxJ

— Buffy Wicks (@BuffyWicks) June 11, 2020

https://voteyesonprop16.org/why-prop-16/endorsements/

11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 8/27

Former Of�cials
Former U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D)

Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg

Former U.S. Representative Mike Honda (D)

Former State Senate President Kevin de León (D)

Political Parties
California Democratic Party

Government Entities
University of California Board of Regents

Los Angeles County Board of Education

San Jose City Council

Monterey County Board of Supervisors

Individuals
Dolores Huerta – Co-Founder of the United Farm Workers

Bernice King – President of the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social

Change

Tom Steyer (D) – Founder of NextGen America

Unions
AFSCME California

California Federation of Teachers

California Labor Federation

California Nurses Association

California Teachers Association

National Nurses United

SEIU California State Council

Corporations

San Jose Mayor Sam

Liccardo (Nonpartisan)

San Francisco Mayor

London Breed

(Nonpartisan)

Los Angeles Mayor Eric

Garcetti (D)

Oakland Mayor Libby

Schaaf

Stockton Mayor Michael

Tubbs (Nonpartisan)

Lieutenant Governor Eleni

Kounalakis (D)

Secretary of State Alex

Padilla (D)

State Superintendent of

Public Instruction Tony

Thurmond (Nonpartisan)

State Controller Betty Yee

(D)

AirBnB

Blue Shield of California

Facebook

Golden State Warriors

Instacart

Kaiser Permanente




































https://ballotpedia.org/Barbara_Boxer

https://ballotpedia.org/Pete_Buttigieg

https://ballotpedia.org/Mike_Honda

https://ballotpedia.org/Kevin_de_Le%C3%B3n

https://ballotpedia.org/Democratic_Party_of_California

https://ballotpedia.org/Tom_Steyer

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Teachers_

Association

https://ballotpedia.org/National_Nurses_United

https://ballotpedia.org/SEIU_California_State_Council

https://ballotpedia.org/Sam_Liccardo

https://ballotpedia.org/London_Breed

https://ballotpedia.org/Eric_Garcetti

https://ballotpedia.org/Libby_Schaaf

https://ballotpedia.org/Michael_Tubbs

https://ballotpedia.org/Eleni_Kounalakis

https://ballotpedia.org/Alex_Padilla

https://ballotpedia.org/Tony_Thurmond

https://ballotpedia.org/Betty_Yee

https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/

https://voteyesonprop16.org/why-prop-16/endorsements/

https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/

https://voteyesonprop16.org/why-prop-16/endorsements/

No one expected the kid living in a Barrio Logan basement would ever get to college. They surely didn't think I would become the Leader of the California Senate.

But I did.

Affirmative action gave me a chance to thrive. How many have we left behind since? Vote YES on #ACA5.

— Kevin de Leόn (@kdeleon) June 10, 2020

https://cademorg-media.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/28204844/CDP-PropEnsorsements__Interactive

https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-board-regents-endorses-aca-5-repeal-prop-209

https://www.lacoe.edu/Home/News-Announcements/ID/4458/LA-County-Board-of-Education-votes-to-support-bill-to-repeal-ban-on-affirmative-action

https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-to-take-a-stand-on-measure-to-bring-back-affirmative-action/

Today, Monterey County Supervisors officially voted to endorse #Prop16 to restore affirmative action & #Prop18 to allow 17-year olds to vote in the primary if they will be 18 by the General Election! These are 2 just ballot initiatives & we stand in support⚖️! @yesprop16 @prop_18 pic.twitter.com/sLZrnN0hww

— Luis Alejo⚖️ (@SupervisorAlejo) September 1, 2020

https://twitter.com/yesprop16/status/1290828157604360192

I endorse @YesProp16, which will help create a stronger economic future for women & communities of color. This is aligned with my father’s dream & work to eradicate injustice, including economic injustice. To those who disagree, I invite you to study #MLK more comprehensively.👇🏾 pic.twitter.com/szMykkl4y9

— Be A King (@BerniceKing) July 20, 2020

https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1425738&view=received&session=2019&psort=TRANS_DATE

https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/

https://voteyesonprop16.org/news/release-yes-on-prop-16-campaign-announces-new-500000-contribution-from-blue-shield-of-california/

https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/california-playbook/2020/08/26/newsom-backs-gascon-guilfoyle-breaks-the-internet-squaw-valley-to-be-renamed-wildfire-destruction-continues-cannabis-business-tax-relief-490186

https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/

11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 9/27

Organizations

Arguments

State Sen. Steven Bradford (D-35): “I know about discrimination. I live it every day. We

live it in this building. Quit lying to yourselves and saying race is not a factor… the

bedrock of who we are in this country is based on race.”

U.S. Rep. Karen Bass (D-37): “Proposition 209, deceptively titled the California Civil

Rights Initiative, passed by referendum in 1996 amidst an orchestrated campaign of

dog-whistle politics attacking all attempts to level the playing �eld for women and

people of color. Before Prop 209, those efforts at advancing equity had made real

progress. But the Wall Street-backed authors of the initiative saw a threat to their

economic stranglehold from an increasingly diverse and highly educated population in

California; a population better situated to compete in jobs, education, government

contracts and other areas of the state’s economy. In passing Prop 209, those groups

limited competition in their industries and bene�ted their own businesses by erecting

new institutional barriers burdening the ability of California’s women and people of

color achieve positions of economic and business leadership.”

University of California President Janet Napolitano: “It makes little sense to exclude

any consideration of race in admissions when the aim of the University’s holistic

process is to fully understand and evaluate each applicant through multiple

Lyft

Oakland Athletics

PG&E Corporation

San Francisco 49ers

San Francisco Giants

Twitter

Uber

United Airlines

Wells Fargo

ACLU of California

ACLU of Northern California

ACLU of Southern California

Alliance of Californians for Community

Empowerment

American Beverage Association

Anti-Defamation League

Asian Paci�c Islander Legislative Caucus

California Asian Chamber of

Commerce

California Black Chamber of Commerce

California Charter Schools Association

California Hispanic Chambers of

Commerce

California NAACP State Conference

California State Association of Counties

California State Student Association

Center for American Progress

Chinese for Af�rmative Action

Democracy for America

Environmental Defense Fund

Equality California

Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce

National Organization for Women

Natural Resources Defense Council

NextGen California

San Francisco Chamber of Commerce








































https://ballotpedia.org/Democracy_for_America

https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1425738&view=received&session=2019&psort=TRANS_DATE

https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1425738&view=received&session=2019&psort=TRANS_DATE

https://www.aclusocal.org/2020ballotguide

https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1425738&view=received&session=2019&psort=TRANS_DATE

https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/

https://apicaucus.legislature.ca.gov/APILCSupportforACA5

https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1425738&view=received&session=2019&psort=TRANS_DATE

https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/

https://twitter.com/yesprop16/status/1302004185530019840

https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/

https://www.democracyforamerica.com/props

https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/

https://www.sacbee.com/article243767857.html

https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Support%20Letter%20for%20Repeal%20of%20Proposition%20209%2006.22.20

11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 10/27

dimensions. Proposition 209 has forced California public institutions to try to address

racial inequality without factoring in race, even where allowed by federal law. The

diversity of our university and higher education institutions across California, should —

and must — represent the rich diversity of our state.”

Varsha Sarveshwar, president of the University of California Student Association:

“Today, colleges can consider whether you’re from the suburbs, a city or a rural area.

They can consider what high school you went to. They can consider your family’s

economic background. They can look at virtually everything about you – but not race. It

makes no sense – and is unfair – that schools can’t consider something that is so core

to our lived experience. Repealing Prop. 209 will not create quotas or caps. These are

illegal under a Supreme Court decision and would remain so.”

Otto Lee, former mayor of Sunnyvale, California, and founder of the Intellectual

Property Law Group LLP: “With President Trump’s latest proclamations of Chinese

virus, or “Kung Flu,” many Asian Americans recently have experienced racial

discrimination and have been told to “Go back to China.” As a Chinese American, I

recognize the urgent need for us to build bridges with all people of color, as

discrimination against one is discrimination against all. We must stand tall together to

call out these unacceptable behaviors and not allow ACA 5 to become a wedge that

divides us.”

Asm. Shirley Weber (D-79): Asm. Shirley Weber (D-79), the principal sponsor of the

constitutional amendment and chairwoman of the Legislative Black Caucus, stated the

following:

“Californians have built the �fth largest and strongest economy in the world,

but too many hardworking Californians are not sharing in our state’s

prosperity—particularly women, families of color, and low-wage workers.

Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5 will help improve all of our daily lives

by repealing Proposition 209 and eliminating discrimination in state contracts,

hiring and education. [ACA 5] is about equal opportunity for all and investment

in our communities.”

“We have all survived and endured Proposition 209, and it has not been a

luxury. It has been a hard journey. And it has caused a lot of losses.”

“Since Proposition 209’s passage, California has become 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.”

“As we look around the world, we see there is an urgent cry — an urgent cry for

change. After 25 years of quantitative and qualitative data, we see that race-

neutral solutions cannot �x problems steeped in race.”

“The ongoing pandemic, as well as recent tragedies of police violence, is

forcing Californians to acknowledge the deep-seated inequality and far-





https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-board-regents-endorses-aca-5-repeal-prop-209

https://www.sacbee.com/article243306511.html

Opinion: ACA 5 will bring racial equity and fairness to California

11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 11/27

reaching institutional failures that show that your race and gender still

matter.”

Eva Paterson, president of the Equal Justice Society: “People of color are treated

differently. One way that people can act on their desire to eliminate systemic racism is

to vote for Proposition 16. It gives people of color, and women, more power, more

money. If you have more money you have more access, more clout in the political

system.”

Of�cial arguments

The following is the argument in support of Proposition 16 found in the Of�cial Voter
Information Guide:

Opposition

Californians for Equal Rights, also known as No on 16, led the
campaign in opposition to Proposition 16. Ward Connerly, who
was chairperson of the campaign behind California Proposition
209 (1996), was chairperson of Californians for Equal Rights.

Opponents
The campaign provided a full list of coalition members and
endorsements on its website, which is available here .

Of�cials
State Senator Ling Ling Chang (R)

State Senator Melissa Melendez (R)

Former Of�cials
Former U.S. Representative Tom Campbell (R)

Former Senate Minority Leader Bob Huff (R)

Of�cial Voter Information Guide: YES on Prop. 16 means EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS. All of us deserve equal opportunities to thrive with fair

wages, good jobs, and quality schools. Despite living in the most diverse state in

the nation, white men are still overrepresented in positions of wealth and power

in California. Although women, and especially women of color, are on the front

lines of the COVID-19 response, they are not rewarded for their sacri�ces.

Women should have the same chance of success as men. Today, nearly all public

contracts, and the jobs that go with them, go to large companies run by older

white men. White women make 80¢ on the dollar. The wage disparity is even

worse for women of color and single moms As a result an elite few are able to



[24]

[25]

[26]







https://ballotpedia.org/Ward_Connerly

https://californiansforequalrights.org/our-coalition/

https://ballotpedia.org/Ling_Ling_Chang

https://ballotpedia.org/Melissa_Melendez

https://ballotpedia.org/Tom_Campbell_(California)

https://ballotpedia.org/Bob_Huff

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-10-18/proposition-16-affirmative-action-california-election

https://www.sacbee.com/article243767857.html

California doesn’t need a new fight over Proposition 209

https://www.pe.com/2020/07/29/proposition-16-will-bring-back-racial-discrimination-bob-huff-2/

https://myvalleynews.com/campa-najjar-issa-debate-the-issues-in-forum-moderated-by-league-of-women-voters/

11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 12/27

Former U.S. Representative Darrell Issa (R)

Political Parties
Republican Party of California

Individuals
Ward Connerly – Chairperson of the campaign behind

California Proposition 209 (1996)

Organizations
American Civil Rights Institute

American Freedom Alliance

Association for Education Fairness

Chinese American Civic Action Alliance

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc.

Arguments

Richard D. Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation in Washington,

D.C.: “Because it is much cheaper to provide racial preferences to upper middle class

Latino and African American students than it is to do the hard work of recruiting

economically disadvantaged and working-class Latino and African American students,

I fear that many of these progressive reforms could be diluted if 209 is repealed.”

Former U.S. Rep. Tom Campbell (R): “Nevertheless, if more spaces are to be made for

the under-represented, they must come from the over-represented. Asian Americans

are 15.3 percent of Californians, yet 39.72 percent of UC enrollees. Those numbers are

why bringing this issue forward now would inevitably divide Californians racially: Latino

Americans and African Americans on one side, Asian Americans on the other. The

politics are inescapably racial.”

Wenyuan Wu, director of administration for the Asian American Coalition for

Education: “Built on partial evidence and shallow prescriptions for an unrealistic utopia,

ACA-5 is in essence divisive and discriminatory. Its overarching goal to undo

Proposition 209, a bill that won the popular vote in 1996 and has withstood legal

scrutiny over time, is misguided in that ACA-5 proposes instant but wrong solutions to

persistent social ills.”

Wen Fa, an attorney with the Paci�c Legal Foundation: “We’re de�nitely going to take

a hard look at that and see whether it complies with the 14th Amendment, or whether

it violates the constitutional principle of equality before the law. Racial preferences are

wrong, no matter who they bene�t.”

Asm. Steven S. Choi (R-68): “Is it right to give someone a job just because they are

white, or black or green or yellow? Or just because they are male? Repealing

Proposition 209, enacted by voters 24 years ago, is to repeal the prohibition of














https://ballotpedia.org/Darrell_Issa

https://ballotpedia.org/Republican_Party_of_California

https://ballotpedia.org/Ward_Connerly

https://myvalleynews.com/campa-najjar-issa-debate-the-issues-in-forum-moderated-by-league-of-women-voters/

https://www.cagop.org/s/endorsements

Prop. 16 threatens California’s commitment to equality: Ward Connerly

https://californiansforequalrights.org/our-coalition/

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/PDFGen/pdfgen.prg?filingid=2479626&amendid=0

California universities prepare for possible return of affirmative action in admissions

California doesn’t need a new fight over Proposition 209

A hasty hearing on a constitutional amendment that would overturn Prop. 209

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/california-proposal-could-bring-back-affirmative-action

11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 13/27

judgment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity and national origin. We are talking about

legalizing racism and sexism.”

Sen. Ling Ling Chang (R-29): “I have experienced racial discrimination so I know what

that’s like. But the answer to racial discrimination is not more discrimination which is

what this bill proposes. The answer is to strengthen our institutions by improving our

education system so all students have access to a quality education, and give

opportunities to those who are economically disadvantaged. ACA 5 legalizes racial

discrimination and that’s wrong.”

John Fund, national-affairs reporter for the National Review: “Liberals in California’s

one-party state are on an ideological crusade to continue a racial spoils system forever.

They should realize how much of the country disagrees with them and how the politics

of the issue could once again surprise them and blow up in their face.”

Michelle Steel, chairwoman of the Orange County Board of Supervisors: “The

Californians who voted to pass Prop. 209 knew that discrimination, though long

entrenched in our society, is against the fundamental values of American culture. Prop.

209 applied to California the essence of Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream of a nation

where individuals would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of

their character.”

Former Senate Minority Leader Bob Huff (R): “California is the most diverse state in

the nation and must step up to the challenges that brings. The real solution for racial

equality is comprehensive public-school reform in our K-12 system, not government

sanctioned discrimination to create more losers than winners as Proposition 16 will

do.”

Ward Connerly, chairperson of the campaign behind Proposition 209: “The

fundamental nature of our nation is that we are a collection of free people who have

rights given to us by our Creator. Liberty and equality are precious rights deemed

essential to our pursuit of that which ful�lls our objective of happiness. More than just

for the pursuit of happiness, however, equality is essential to the maintenance of a civil

society. This is especially so in a state now identi�ed as a “majority minority” state. … I

ask you all to vote No on Proposition 16, which would delete that commitment to

equality from the California Constitution.”

Haibo Huang, co-founder of San Diego Asian Americans for Equality: “Race is a

forbidden classi�cation for good reason, because it demeans the dignity and worth of a

person to be judged by ancestry instead of his or her own merit and essential qualities.

Racial preference is not transformed from patently unconstitutional into a compelling

state interest simply by relabeling it racial diversity. … Judging people by their skin color

is morally repugnant. Equal opportunity is referenced to individual merits, it never

guarantees equal results. To the contrary, enforcing equal outcome regardless of

quali�cation and effort bears the hallmark of communism.”

Former U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa (R), who served as the co-chairperson of the campaign

behind Proposition 209: “You can support af�rmative action by looking for legitimate









https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article243426346.html

https://chang.cssrc.us/content/senator-chang-issues-statement-aca-5-vote

California Democrats Want to Bring Racial Preferences Back

Proposition 16 will bring discrimination in the name of equality: Michelle Steel

https://www.pe.com/2020/07/29/proposition-16-will-bring-back-racial-discrimination-bob-huff-2/

Prop. 16 threatens California’s commitment to equality: Ward Connerly

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/story/2020-06-09/california-keep-prop-209-affirmative-action

11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 14/27

outreach on other issues, people who have just come to the United States and would

have been at a disadvantage in their education, people who are economically at a

different level. There’s nothing in our constitution that prohibits outreach, but the fact

is Proposition 209 has worked, the minority graduation rate has risen under this and I

support the continuation of our constitution.”

Betty Chu, a co-chair of Californians for Equal Rights: “In my lifetime, I have seen

Asian Americans prevail against racism to be treated as fully American, as equal

citizens, employees and leaders. This has occurred in large part because racism itself

has become unacceptable in America. What a triumph! … This response minimizes the

concerns of Asian Americans about a measure that will allow the state to put them at a

disadvantage solely on the basis of their race. Those of us who believe that people

should be treated as individuals, not merely as members of groups or tokens, know

Prop. 16 only sows division and is plain wrong. Yet, such racial animus is today implicitly

endorsed by the supporters of Prop. 16: a whole slew of corporate interests, politically

connected high-bid contractors who wish to win government contracts based on race

and a biased media that refuses to cover a potential amendment to the California

Constitution fairly.”

Of�cial arguments

The following is the argument in opposition to Proposition 16 found in the Of�cial Voter
Information Guide:

Campaign �nance

The campaign �nance information on this page re�ects the most recently scheduled

reports processed by Ballotpedia, which covered through October 17, 2020. The deadline

for the next scheduled reports is February 1, 2021.

Of�cial Voter Information Guide: The California Legislature wants you to strike

these precious words from our state Constitution: “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.” Don’t do it! Vote NO.

Those words—adopted by California voters in 1996 as Proposition 209—should

remain �rmly in place. Only by treating everyone equally can a state as brilliantly

diverse as California be fair to everyone. REPEAL WOULD BE A STEP

BACKWARD Discrimination of this kind is poisonous. It will divide us at a time we

desperately need to unite Politicians want to give preferential treatment to their



[27]

Reject state-sanctioned discrimination, reject Proposition 16: Betty Chu

11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 15/27

See also: Campaign �nance requirements for California ballot measures

The Opportunity for All Coalition was organized as a political action committee (PAC) to
support Proposition 16. The campaign had raised $20.39 million. M. Quinn Delaney was the
largest donor, contributing $5.5 million.

Californians for Equal Rights and Parents and Students for Racial Equality were organized to
oppose Proposition 16. Together, the committees had raised $1.49 million, including $50,000
from Students for Fair Admissions, Inc.

Cash

Contributions

In-Kind

Contributions

Total

Contributions
Cash

Expenditures

Total
Expenditures

Support $19,182,536.84 $1,204,417.91 $20,386,954.75 $17,841,327.69 $19,045,745.60

Oppose $1,494,542.17 $0.00 $1,494,542.17 $1,250,148.79 $1,250,148.79

Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of
the initiative.

Committees in support of Proposition 16

Committee
Cash

Contributions
In-Kind
Contributions
Total
Contributions
Cash
Expenditures
Total
Expenditures

Yes on 16,

Opportunity

for All

Coalition

$15,186,003.09 $1,150,382.54 $16,336,385.63 $15,326,118.11 $16,476,500.65

Educators for

Equity,

Yes on

15 and 16,

See also

2020 measures California News and analysis

javascript:collapseTable(1);

https://ballotpedia.org/2020_ballot_measures

https://ballotpedia.org/Affirmative_action_on_the_ballot

https://ballotpedia.org/Dates_of_2020_state_legislative_sessions

https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_California_ballot_measures

https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_ballot_measures_in_California

https://ballotpedia.org/Affirmative_action

https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_ballot_measure_lawsuits_in_2020

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_measure_readability_scores,_2020

https://ballotpedia.org/2020_ballot_measure_polls

https://ballotpedia.org/California_State_Assembly

https://ballotpedia.org/Approved

https://ballotpedia.org/California_State_Senate

https://ballotpedia.org/Approved

https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_in_California

https://ballotpedia.org/2020_ballot_measures

https://ballotpedia.org/California_2020_ballot_measures

https://ballotpedia.org/Category:Ballot_measure_analyses_by_year

https://ballotpedia.org/The_Ballotpedia_News_Update

11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 27/27

Ballotpedia features 318,845 encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of
editors, writers, and researchers. Click here to contact our editorial staff, and click here to report an
error. Click here to contact us for media inquiries, and please donate here to support our continued

expansion.

External links

Information

California Assembly Concurrent Resolution 5 (2020)

Of�cial Voter Information Guide

Support

Opportunity for All Coalition – Yes on Prop 16

Opportunity for All Coalition – Yes on Prop 16 Facebook

Opportunity for All Coalition – Yes on Prop 16 Twitter

Opposition

California for Equal Rights – No on 16

California for Equal Rights – No on 16 Facebook

California for Equal Rights – No on 16 Twitter

Footnotes

Only the �rst few references on this page are shown above. Click to show more.

1. San Francisco Chronicle, “Prop. 16: Why California voters refused to lift af�rmative

action ban,” November 4, 2020

2. Ed Source, “Unclear ballot language, lack of time to connect with voters explain

af�rmative action loss, backers say,” November 5, 2020

3. National Review, “Good News from California Indeed,” November 4, 2020

4. Insider Higher Ed, “Why Did Prop 16 Fail?” November 9, 2020

5. Wall Street Journal, “Racial Thunder Out of California,” November 4, 2020

mailto:editor@ballotpedia.org

https://ballotpedia.org/Help:Report_an_error

mailto:media@ballotpedia.org

https://ballotpedia.org/Support

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200ACA5

https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/

https://voteyesonprop16.org/about/

https://www.facebook.com/yesonprop16/

Tweets by yesprop16

https://californiansforequalrights.org/

https://www.facebook.com/CaliforniansForEqualRights

Tweets by CA4equalrights

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Prop-16-Why-California-voters-refused-to-lift-15702261.php

Unclear ballot language, lack of time to connect with voters explain affirmative action loss, backers say

Good News from California Indeed

https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2020/11/09/experts-discuss-failure-californias-proposition-16

https://www.wsj.com/articles/racial-thunder-out-of-california-11604533888

Writing Assignment 3: DUE NOVEMBER 20 by 2 PM PST on Canvas.

Purpose: In this assignment, you will critically analyze California’s Proposition 16, a ballot

initiative to permit affirmative action (the consideration of race and gender) in public

employment and education. You should answer these questions using the economic concepts

learned in class.

Steps:

1. Read over the ballot initiative provided on Ballotpedia. Provide two arguments

supporting the proposition and two arguments against the proposition. (We will not give

points if you copy/paste from the article or include direct quotes; read over the arguments

provided and rephrase them in your own words.)

2. Assume that without Proposition 16 there is no way for college admissions officers to

determine the race of applicants (assume they cannot figure out race by name, country of

origin etc.). Suppose that college admissions officers have taste-based discrimination

against Asian students. How would you have expected Proposition 16 to affect the

admission of Asian students at UCSD, if it had passed? Answer the same question under

the assumption that instead college admissions officers statistically discriminate in favor

of Asian students (that is, they assume that the expected GPA for Asian students is higher

than for students of other races). Explain your answers.

3. Suppose that UCSD mechanizes the admissions process by designing an algorithm that

predicts which students will have high GPAs using four observable characteristics: SAT

score, high school GPA, parents’ highest educational attainment, and native English

speaker status. Suppose that each of these factors has a positive impact on expected GPA

(i.e. native English speakers have higher average GPAs than non-native speakers,

students with parents who have PhDs have higher average GPAs than students with

parents who didn’t graduate high school, etc.) Under this system colleges will only admit

students who are predicted to have a GPA above a certain threshold. Would you expect

the racial composition of UCSD to be like that of California?1 Why or why not? Do

algorithms always remove racial bias in decision-making processes? Refer to another

article you read for class in making your argument.2

4. Revise your draft.

• Check: does each paragraph express one clear idea? Do you tell the reader what

that idea is in a topic sentence?

1 “No race or ethnic group constitutes a majority of California’s population: 39% of state residents are Latino, 37%

are white, 15% are Asian American, 6% are African American, 3% are multiracial, and fewer than 1% are American

Indian or Pacific Islander, according to the 2018 American Community Survey.” Quoted from

https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-

population/#:~:text=No%20race%20or%20ethnic%20group,the%202018%20American%20Community%20Survey.
2 This can include breakout room readings, papers discussed in lecture, or papers on the syllabus. You must cite this

paper in a Works Cited using the format of your choice.

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/GRAMMAR/paragraphs.htm#topic_sentences

https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-population/#:~:text=No%20race%20or%20ethnic%20group,the%202018%20American%20Community%20Survey

• Print your draft and read it out loud to help you identify spots where the language

or ideas could be clearer.

• Ask a friend or relative who is NOT in this class to proofread your essay. If you

have someone read over your essay, please mention who did so at the end of your

essay, e.g. “My friend Carla read my essay.”

• If you read outside of the referenced article to assist you with this assignment,

please cite it using the format of your choice.

Format: You need to write using the APA general guidelines for racial and ethnic identity

(posted as APA_Racial and Ethnic Identity in the assignment instructions on Canvas). We

encourage you to read the guidelines, but most pertinently to this assignment, do not use

“whites” and “blacks”, but rather White people (or workers, Americans, etc.) or Black people.

You have 600 words to say everything you want to say. Write freely and then revise to express

your ideas clearly and concisely. Note that Turnitin can give us a slightly different page count

than Word or files, so you should aim for a 650 word count maximum to be safe (we will

take off points if Turnitin has you listed as more than 700 words regardless of what your Word

doc count says! Sorry, there is no way for you to check this or for us to do it beforehand.). There

is no need to include your name, PID, headers, titles – stick to the economics.

You must submit a or file. We are unable to read any other file extension and you will

receive no points for the assignment.

You do not need to write an introduction or conclusion. Be sure that each paragraph states its

focus in a topic sentence.

You can write in the 1st person, using “I” statements (e.g. “I was surprised by what the test

asked”).

To make it easier for us to read, use Times New Roman 12 point font with double-spaced lines.

Grading: The graders will follow the below rubric. There is no partial credit within any of the

subsections.

Step 1: pro/con arguments 2 pts: first argument in favor of prop 16

2 pts: second argument in favor of prop 16

2 pts: first argument against prop 16

2 pts: second argument against prop 16

Step 2: prop 16 and Asian student

admission

2 pts: if taste-based, what happens

2 pts: taste-based explanation

2 pts: if statistical, what happens

2 pts: statistical explanation

Step 3: algorithms 2 pts: will UCSD race = CA race?

2 pts: why or why not?

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/GRAMMAR/paragraphs.htm#topic_sentences

2 pts: do algorithms always solve our

problems?

2 pts: cite algorithm paper

Step 4: legibility 2 pts: formatted correctly

2 pts: within 500-700 words (including

headers, footnotes, works cited)

4 pts: turned in before 2PM deadline (if

turned in past 5PM, additional points can

be taken off)

Regrading Policy: The graders will leave detailed comments on your essay explaining where

and why you lost points. You can visit any of the teaching assistants’ office hours to go over

those comments in more detail if you would like further clarification. Teaching assistants are not

available to provide feedback via email.

If you believe you lost points in error, you can submit a regrade request to Alyssa’s email

(aab005@ucsd.edu) until one week after grades are released. In this request you need to state

which step you think you deserve more points on and why. By submitting a request, you agree to

wager half of the lost points, such that if she denies your request she will take those points off

your essay.

For example, suppose you receive 4/8 points on Step 1 because you only made one argument for

and one argument against Prop 16. If you submit a regrade request for those 4 lost points, and

she rereads your essay and cannot find two more arguments, she will deduct 2 points so you

receive 2/8 points on Step 2.

Given this penalty, you should only submit requests for grades that you are confident were

made in error. We will not tell you via email whether you should submit a request.

mailto:aab005@ucsd.edu

10/28/2020

Racial and Ethnic Identity

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 1/15

Racial and Ethnic Identity

When you are writing, you need to follow general
principles (/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-
language/general-principles) to ensure that your
language is free of bias. Here we provide guidelines
for talking about racial and ethnic identity with
inclusivity and respect.

Terms used to refer to racial and ethnic groups
continue to change over time. One reason for this is
simply personal preference; preferred designations
are as varied as the people they name. Another
reason is that designations can become dated over
time and may hold negative connotations. When
describing racial and ethnic groups, be appropriately
specific and sensitive to issues of labeling as
described in general principles for reducing bias
(/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/general-

principles) .

Racial and ethnic
identity is covered
in Section 5.7 of the
APA Publication
Manual, Seventh
Edition
(/products/publication-
manual-7th-edition)

This guidance has been

expanded from the 6th

edition.

Home Style and Grammar Guidelines Bias-Free Language
Racial and Ethnic Identity

STYLE AND GRAMMAR GUIDELINES PRODUCTS

INSTRUCTIONAL AIDS BLOG

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/general-principles

https://apastyle.apa.org/products/publication-manual-7th-edition

https://apastyle.apa.org/

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language

https://apastyle.apa.org/instructional-aids

https://apastyle.apa.org/blog

10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 2/15

Race refers to physical differences that groups and
cultures consider socially significant. For example, people
might identify their race as Aboriginal, African American or
Black, Asian, European American or White, Native
American, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Māori, or
some other race. Ethnicity refers to shared cultural
characteristics such as language, ancestry, practices, and
beliefs. For example, people might identify as Latino or
another ethnicity. Be clear about whether you are referring
to a racial group or to an ethnic group. Race is a social
construct that is not universal, so one must be careful not
to impose racial labels on ethnic groups. Whenever
possible, use the racial and/or ethnic terms that your
participants themselves use. Be sure that the racial and
ethnic categories you use are as clear and specific as
possible. For example, instead of categorizing participants
as Asian American or Hispanic American, you could use
more specific labels that identify their nation or region of
origin, such as Japanese American or Cuban American.
Use commonly accepted designations (e.g., census
categories) while being sensitive to participants’ preferred
designation.

Spelling and Capitalization of Racial and Ethnic
Terms
Racial and ethnic groups are designated by proper nouns
and are capitalized. Therefore, use “Black” and “White”
instead of “black” and “white” (do not use colors to refer to
other human groups; doing so is considered pejorative).
Likewise, capitalize terms such as “Native American,”
“Hispanic,” and so on. Capitalize “Indigenous” and
“Aboriginal” whenever they are used. Capitalize

10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 3/15

“Indigenous People” or “Aboriginal People” when referring
to a specific group (e.g., the Indigenous Peoples of
Canada), but use lowercase for “people” when describing
persons who are Indigenous or Aboriginal (e.g., “the
authors were all Indigenous people but belonged to
different nations”).

Do not use hyphens in multiword names, even if the
names act as unit modifiers (e.g., write “Asian American
participants,” not “Asian-American participants”). If people
belong to multiple racial or ethnic groups, the names of
the specific groups are capitalized, but the terms
“multiracial,” “biracial,” “multi-ethnic,” and so on are
lowercase.

Terms for Specific Groups
Designations for specific ethnic and racial groups are
described next. These groups frequently are included in
studies published in APA journals; the examples provided
are far from exhaustive but illustrate some of the
complexities of labeling.

People of African Origin

When writing about people of African ancestry, several
factors inform the appropriate terms to use. People of
African descent have widely varied cultural backgrounds,
family histories, and family experiences. Some will be from
Caribbean islands, Latin America, various regions in the
United States, countries in Africa, or elsewhere. Some
American people of African ancestry prefer “Black,” and
others prefer “African American”; both terms are
acceptable. However, “African American” should not be

10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 4/15

used as an umbrella term for people of African ancestry
worldwide because it obscures other ethnicities or
national origins, such as Nigerian, Kenyan, Jamaican, or
Bahamian; in these cases use “Black.” The terms “Negro”
and “Afro-American” are outdated; therefore, their use is
generally inappropriate.

People of Asian Origin

When writing about people of Asian ancestry from Asia,
the term “Asian” is appropriate; for people of Asian
descent from the United States or Canada, the appropriate
term is “Asian American” or “Asian Canadian,”
respectively. It is problematic to group “Asian” and “Asian
American” as if they are synonymous. This usage
reinforces the idea that Asian Americans are perpetual
foreigners. “Asian” refers to Asians in Asia, not in the
United States, and should not be used to refer to Asian
Americans. The older term “Oriental” is primarily used to
refer to cultural objects such as carpets and is pejorative
when used to refer to people. To provide more specificity,
“Asian origin” may be divided regionally, for example, into
South Asia (including most of India and countries such as
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal), Southeast
Asia (including the eastern parts of India and countries
such as Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Indonesia, and the
Philippines), and East Asia (including countries such as
China, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea and North Korea, and
Taiwan). The corresponding terms (e.g., East Asian) can be
used; however, refer to the specific nation or region of
origin when possible.

People of European Origin

10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 5/15

In North America, the collective terms “Native
American” and “Native North American” are acceptable
(and may be preferred to “American Indian”). “Indian”
usually refers to people from India. Specify the nation or
people if possible (e.g., Cherokee, Navajo, Sioux).

Hawaiian Natives may identify as “Native American,”
“Hawaiian Native,” “Indigenous Peoples of the
Hawaiian Islands,” and/or “Pacific Islander.”

In Canada, refer to the Indigenous Peoples collectively
as “Indigenous Peoples” or “Aboriginal Peoples”
(International Journal of Indigenous Health, n.d.);

When writing about people of European ancestry, the
terms “White” and “European American” are acceptable.
Adjust the latter term as needed for location, for example,
“European,” “European American,” and “European
Australian” for people of European descent living in
Europe, the United States, and Australia, respectively. The
use of the term “Caucasian” as an alternative to “White” or
“European” is discouraged because it originated as a way
of classifying White people as a race to be favorably
compared with other races. As with all discussions of race
and ethnicity, it is preferable to be more specific about
regional (e.g., Southern European, Scandinavian) or
national (e.g., Italian, Irish, Swedish, French, Polish) origin
when possible.

Indigenous Peoples Around the World

When writing about Indigenous Peoples, use the names
that they call themselves. In general, refer to an
Indigenous group as a “people” or “nation” rather than as
a “tribe.”

10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 6/15

specify the nation or people if possible (e.g., People of
the First Nations of Canada, People of the First Nations,
or First Nations People; Métis; Inuit).

In Alaska, the Indigenous People may identify as
“Alaska Natives.” The Indigenous Peoples in Alaska,
Canada, Siberia, and Greenland may identify as a
specific nation (e.g., Inuit, Iñupiat). Avoid the term
“Eskimo” because it may be considered pejorative.

In Latin America and the Caribbean, refer to the
Indigenous Peoples collectively as “Indigenous
Peoples” and by name if possible (e.g., Quechua,
Aymara, Taíno, Nahuatl).

In Australia, the Indigenous Peoples may identify as
“Aboriginal People” or “Aboriginal Australians” and
“Torres Strait Islander People” or “Torres Strait Island
Australians.” Refer to specific groups when people use
these terms to refer to themselves (e.g., Anangu
Pitjantjatjara, Arrernte).

In New Zealand, the Indigenous People may identify as
“Māori” or the “Māori people” (the proper spelling
includes the diacritical macron over the “a”).

For information on citing the Traditional Knowledge or Oral
Traditions of Indigenous Peoples as well as the
capitalization of terms related to Indigenous Peoples, see
Section 8.9 of the Publication Manual.

People of Middle Eastern Origin

When writing about people of Middle Eastern and North
African (MENA) descent, state the nation of origin (e.g.,
Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Israel) when possible. In some

10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 7/15

cases, people of MENA descent who claim Arab ancestry
and reside in the United States may be referred to as
“Arab Americans.” In all cases, it is best to allow individuals
to self-identify.

People of Hispanic or Latinx Ethnicity

When writing about people who identify as Hispanic,
Latino (or Latinx, etc.), Chicano, or another related
designation, authors should consult with their participants
to determine the appropriate choice. Note that “Hispanic”
is not necessarily an all-encompassing term, and the labels
“Hispanic” and “Latino” have different connotations. The
term “Latino” (and its related forms) might be preferred by
those originating from Latin America, including Brazil.
Some use the word “Hispanic” to refer to those who speak
Spanish; however, not every group in Latin America
speaks Spanish (e.g., in Brazil, the official language is
Portuguese). The word “Latino” is gendered (i.e., “Latino”
is masculine and “Latina” is feminine); the use of the word
“Latin@” to mean both Latino and Latina is now widely
accepted. “Latinx” can also be used as a gender-neutral or
nonbinary term inclusive of all genders. There are
compelling reasons to use any of the terms “Latino,”
“Latina,” “Latino/a,” “Latin@,” and/or “Latinx” (see de Onís,
2017), and various groups advocate for the use of different
forms. Use the term(s) your participants or population uses;
if you are not working directly with this population but it is
a focus of your research, it may be helpful to explain why
you chose the term you used or to choose a more
inclusive term like “Latinx.” In general, naming a nation or
region of origin is preferred (e.g., Bolivian, Salvadoran, or

10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 8/15

Costa Rican is more specific than Latino, Latinx, Latin
American, or Hispanic).

Parallel Comparisons Among Groups
Nonparallel designations (e.g., “African Americans and
Whites,” “Asian Americans and Black Americans”) should
be avoided because one group is described by color,
whereas the other group is not. Instead, use “Blacks and
Whites” or “African Americans and European Americans”
for the former example and “Asian Americans and African
Americans” for the latter example. Do not use the phrase
“White Americans and racial minorities”; the rich diversity
within racial minorities is minimized when it is compared
with the term “White Americans.”

Avoiding Essentialism
Language that essentializes or reifies race is strongly
discouraged and is generally considered inappropriate.
For example, phrases such as “the Black race” and “the
White race” are essentialist in nature, portray human
groups monolithically, and often perpetuate stereotypes.

Writing About “Minorities”
To refer to non-White racial and ethnic groups collectively,
use terms such as “people of color” or “underrepresented
groups” rather than “minorities.” The use of “minority” may
be viewed pejoratively because it is usually equated with
being less than, oppressed, or deficient in comparison with
the majority (i.e., White people). Rather, a minority group is
a population subgroup with ethnic, racial, social, religious,
or other characteristics different from those of the majority

10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 9/15

of the population, though the relevance of this term is
changing as the demographics of the population change
(APA, 2015). If a distinction is needed between the
dominant racial group and nondominant racial groups, use
a modifier (e.g., “ethnic,” “racial”) when using the word
“minority” (e.g., ethnic minority, racial minority, racial-ethnic
minority). When possible, use the specific name of the
group or groups to which you are referring.

Do not assume that members of minority groups are
underprivileged; underprivileged means having less
money, education, resources, and so forth than the other
people in a society and may refer to individuals or
subgroups in any racial or ethnic group. Terms such as
“economically marginalized” and “economically exploited”
may also be used rather than “underprivileged.” Whenever
possible, use more specific terms (e.g., schools with
majority Black populations that are underfunded) or refer
to discrimination or systematic oppression as a whole.

Examples of Bias-Free Language
The following are examples of bias-free language for racial
and ethnic identity. Both problematic and preferred
examples are presented with explanatory comments.

1. Description of African American or Black people

Problematic:
We interviewed 25 Afro-American people living in rural
Louisiana.

10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 10/15

Preferred:
We interviewed 25 Black people living in rural Louisiana.
We interviewed 25 African Americans living in rural
Louisiana.

Comment: “Afro-American” and “Negro” have become
dated; therefore, usage of these terms generally is
inappropriate. Specify region or nation of origin when
possible to avoid the impression that all people of African
descent have the same cultural background, family history,
or family experiences. Note that “Black” is appropriate
rather than “African American” to describe people of
African descent from various national origins (e.g., Haitian,
Nigerian).

2. Description of Asian or Asian American people

Problematic:
Participants were 300 Orientals.

Preferred:
There were 300 Asian participants; among these, 100
were from South Asia (India, Nepal, Bangladesh), 100 were
from Southeast Asia (Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam), and
100 were from East Asia (China, South Korea, Japan).

Comment: “Orientals” is considered pejorative; use
“Asian” for people from Asia, “Asian American” for people
of Asian descent in North America, or be more specific by
providing nation and region of origin (Japanese, Chinese,
Vietnamese, etc.).

10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 11/15

3. Description of European American or White people

Problematic:
All participants were Caucasian.

Preferred:
All participants were European American.
All participants were White.

Comment: The term “Caucasian” is considered offensive
to some cultures; use “White” or “European American”
instead for people of European descent living in North
America, or be more specific by providing the nation of
origin.

4. Description of Indigenous People

Problematic:
The 50 Indians represented…

Preferred:
The 50 Native Americans (25 Choctaw, 15 Hopi, and 10
Seminole) represented…
The 50 Indigenous People (23 First Nations, 17 Inuit, 10
Métis) represented…

Comment: When appropriate, authors should identify
groups indigenous to North America by specific group or
nation; when the broader designation is appropriate, note
that “Native American” may be preferred to “American
Indian.” “Indian” refers to people from India. In general,
refer to a group as a “people” or “nation” rather than as a
“tribe.”

10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 12/15

Problematic:
We studied Eskimos.

Preferred:
We studied Inuit from Canada and Aleuts.
The 50 Indigenous People (23 First Nations and 27 Inuit)
represented…

Comment: Native peoples of northern Canada, Alaska,
eastern Siberia, and Greenland may prefer “Inuk” (“Inuit”
for plural) to “Eskimo.” Alaska Natives include many
groups in addition to Eskimos. “Indigenous Peoples” may
be used when the broader designation is appropriate.

5. Description of Latinx or Hispanic people

Problematic:
Participants were 200 Hispanics/Latinos.

Preferred:
Participants were from Central America (150 from
Guatemala, 50 from Honduras, and 50 from Belize).

Comment: “Hispanic” and “Latinx” (or Latino, etc.) have
different meanings; ask participants to self-identify with a
term and use a precise nationality if possible.

6. Racial-ethnic comparisons

Problematic:
Participants’ race was categorized as either White or non-
White.

10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 13/15

Preferred:
Participants’ race was categorized as European American,
African American, Asian American, or Latin American.

Comment: Use parallel terms, especially in table labels.
“Non-White” implies a standard of comparison and is
imprecise.

7. Discussion of racial and ethnic minorities

Problematic:
minorities
minority students

Preferred:
racial minorities, ethnic minorities, racial-ethnic minorities
racial minority students, ethnic minority students, racial-
ethnic minority students
people of color
underrepresented people, underrepresented groups

Comment: “Minority” is usually equated with being less
than, oppressed, and deficient in comparison with the
majority. When it is necessary to compare a dominant
racial group with a nondominant racial group, use a
modifier like “racial,” “ethnic,” or “racial-ethnic.” Otherwise,
other terms may be preferred, such as “people of color” to
refer to non-White racial and ethnic groups or
“underrepresented people.”

8. Use of qualifying adjectives with racial and ethnic identity

10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 14/15

Problematic:
the articulate Mexican American professor

Preferred:
the Mexican American professor

Comment: Qualifying adjectives may imply that the
“articulate” Mexican American professor is an exception to
the norm (for Mexican American professors). Depending
on the context of the sentence, ethnic identity may not be
relevant and therefore should not be mentioned.

References
American Psychological Association. (2015). Guidelines for

psychological practice with transgender and gender

nonconforming people. American Psychologist,

70(9), 832–864. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039906

(https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039906)

de Onís, C. M. (2017). What’s in an “x”? An exchange about

the politics of “Latinx.” Chiricú Journal: Latina/o

Literatures, Arts, and Cultures, 1(2), 78–91.

https://doi.org/10.2979/chiricu.1.2.07

(https://doi.org/10.2979/chiricu.1.2.07)

javascript: openSocialShare(‘https://twitter.com/share?url=https%3a%2f%2fapastyle.apa.org%2fstyle-grammar-guidelines%2fbias-free-language%2fracial-ethnic-minorities&via=APA_Style&text=Racial+and+Ethnic+Identity’)

javascript: openSocialShare(‘https://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=https%3a%2f%2fapastyle.apa.org%2fstyle-grammar-guidelines%2fbias-free-language%2fracial-ethnic-minorities&title=Racial+and+Ethnic+Identity&summary=Race+refers+to+physical+differences+that+groups+and+cultures+consider+socially+significant+(e.g.%2c+Aboriginal%2c+African+American+or+Black%2c+Asian%2c+European+American+or+White).+Ethnicity+refers+to+shared+cultural+characteristics+such+as+language%2c+ancestry%2c+practices%2c+and+beliefs.+’)

javascript:openEmail();

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039906

https://doi.org/10.2979/chiricu.1.2.07

10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 15/15

Home About APA Style Contact Privacy Statement Terms of Use Accessibility Help Site Map

750 First St. NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242

Telephone: (800) 374-2721; (202) 336-5500

TDD/TTY: (202) 336-6123

CONNECT WITH APA STYLE:

https://apastyle.apa.org/

https://apastyle.apa.org/about-apa-style

https://apastyle.apa.org/contact

https://apastyle.apa.org/privacy

https://apastyle.apa.org/terms

https://apastyle.apa.org/accessibility

https://apastyle.apa.org/apa-style-help

https://apastyle.apa.org/sitemap

https://www.apa.org/about/contact/copyright/index

https://www.facebook.com/APAStyle/

Tweets by APA_Style

https://www.instagram.com/officialapastyle/

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ eco ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Hire a Writer

Client Reviews

4.9

Sitejabber

4.6

Trustpilot

4.8

Our Guarantees

100% Confidentiality

Information about customers is confidential and never disclosed to third parties.

Original Writing

We complete all papers from scratch. You can get a plagiarism report.

Timely Delivery

No missed deadlines – 97% of assignments are completed in time.

Money Back

If you're confident that a writer didn't follow your order details, ask for a refund.

New to Your Trusted Assignment Help Service? Sign up & Save

Calculate the price of your order

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

You will get a personal manager and a discount.

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by at

Total price:

$0.00

Power up Your Academic Success with the
Team of Professionals. We’ve Got Your Back.

Power up Your Study Success with Experts We’ve Got Your Back.

Order Now Order Now