More and more I’m convinced we’re living in the world George Orwell predicted in his book 1984. In California, a state with a constitutional amendment prohibiting systematic racism, they recently considered a proposition to “fight…systematic racism” by removing the amendment prohibiting systemic racism and allowing systematic racism. And if that doesn’t make your head spin, then you may have already succumbed to this newspeak future we’re creating.
The California legislature placed Proposition 16 (Prop 16) on the ballot for the November 3rd, 2020 election. This proposition:
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.
CA Proposition 16
Systemic Racism
If we’re going to see our way through this twisted mess, we need to define a few terms.
racism noun
1 : a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race2a : the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another
2b : a political or social system founded on racism and designed to execute its principles
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
systemic adjective
fundamental to a predominant social, economic, or political practice
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
So systemic racism is the predominant social, economic, or political practice based on the idea that race is the fundamental determinant of human traits and that one human race is inherently superior to another.
Proposition 16
Back in 1996, California amended their Constitution with Proposition 209. This proposition added Article I, Section 31, to the Constitution.
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.
CA Proposition 16
In other words, back in 1996 the people of California decided their government was not to discriminate either for or against anyone based on their race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin when it came to public employment, education, or contracting. In other words, race would not enter into the decision if you applied for public sector employment, to a public college, or for a public contract. As the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. famously said:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I Have a Dream Speech
It appears the dream that Dr. King had, a dream that the people of California brought closer to fruition in 1996, is on the edge of becoming a nightmare. Will Californians awaken from their dream to the realization that a majority of them wish to return to a system of racism? Where your future is determined not by your skill, character, or even your fortitude, but by the color of your skin? Will the people of California return to discrimination in their government? How many people, how many families, will Californians sacrifice on the alter of “diversity”?
Equal Protection
State and Federal Constitutions Require Equal Protection.
CA Proposition 16
The state and federal constitutions provide all people equal protection, which generally means that people in similar situations are treated similarly under
the law.
Even the Attorney General of California, who prepared the proposition for the ballot, recognizes that the constitutions of both the State of California and of the United States require that all people receive equal protection.
A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;
California Constitution, Article I, Section 7(a)
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
United States Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1
So I ask you: Doesn’t this law defy equal protection? Doesn’t the idea that someone has a better chance of getting a job, being accepted by a school, or winning a state contract because of their race, mean the law does not protect everyone equally? Those who support Proposition 16 claim:
Prop. 16 expands equal opportunity to all Californians, increasing access to fair wages, good jobs, and quality schools for everyone. Prop. 16 fights wage discrimination and systemic racism, opening up opportunities for women and people of color.
CA Proposition 16
How does allowing the promotion of one race, sex, or heritage over another expand opportunities for all? It seems this basic fact is lost on the supporters of Prop 16; when you give someone a job because of their race, then someone lost their chance at that same job because of their race. In order to accept one person to a state college because of their race, you must deny someone else acceptance because of their race. This is the very definition of racism!
Racism and Sexism on Display
As part of the proposition, arguments for and against it are included.
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 sacrifices. 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 hoard wealth instead of investing it back into communities. Prop. 16 opens up contracting opportunities for women and people of color.
CA Proposition 16
Did you notice the change in focus? I’m sure most of us agree that we all deserve equal opportunities, but the supporters of Prop 16 go from desiring equal opportunities to listing non-equal results. They don’t point to examples of non-white people being denied the opportunity to accumulate wealth. They simply assume that if more white people are wealthy it’s because they had more opportunity to become so. They claim that women, especially women of color, are not rewarded for their sacrifices. Do they have any examples of women of color not being paid for the work they are doing? They claim that nearly all public contracts go to large companies, and assume they are run by older white men. As someone who used to work for large companies run by both men and women of color, I want to see their data. They claim women earn only 80¢ for every dollar a man makes, but there have been a number of studies that take into account things like type of work, experience, and hours worked, and find that number to be closer to 97¢. They use this false and misleading information to claim that an elite few “hoard wealth”, ignoring the fact that most wealthy people do not keep their money in a vault like Scrooge McDuck, but invest it in companies that are employing the very people they claim to want to help.
We know that small businesses are the backbone of our economy. Yet, Main Street businesses owned by women and people of color lose over $1,100,000,000 in government contracts every year because of the current law.
CA Proposition 16
I wonder how many of those “Main Street businesses” lost those contracts because they were unable to provide the same services at the same price as others? Because you know what they don’t mention? The number of “Main Street businesses” that lost contracts, not to mention how much taxpayer money was wasted, because of the racist and sexist discrimination that existed before Prop 209. I used to work for one of those “Main Street businesses”. We had a contract for typewriter repair with a state agency. (Some of you may be asking, “What’s a typewriter?” So yes, this was quite a few years ago.) When that agency wanted to upgrade to computers, we put in a bid. We offered a better system, with more features, at a better price. However, since the company was owned by a white man, not only did this “Main Street business” lose the contract, but the very large, minority owned corporation sold this state a more expensive, less functional solution. Unfortunately, they quickly discontinued that product line, leaving the agency unsupported. So much for all of us deserving equal opportunities.
Racism Undercover
Worse than the blatant racism, sexism, and bigotry displayed by the argument for Proposition 16, is the assumption that it makes. Prop 16 assumes the only way for certain races, sexes, and ethnicities to compete is for government to give them preferential treatment. In my 30 year career before starting The Constitution Study, I’ve worked with hundreds of successful people, black, white, brown, yellow. African, Jamaican, Mexican, Haitian, Indian, Pakistani, and countless others. And you know the one thing they all had in common? They didn’t need any special treatment to be a success. In fact, laws like Prop 16 made many of them work harder because of the assumption that they were an “affirmative action” hire. I find it insulting and disgusting to suggest that the only way certain races can succeed is if they have a head-start. The very idea behind Proposition 16 is the racist attitude that people of color cannot compete without help and that women cannot compete without special advantages. Proposition 16 effectively states that the determining factor of the capabilities of millions of Americans is either the color of their skin or their genitalia. In other words, the very definition of racist. They convince such people they cannot succeed without government help by creating a system that politically, socially, and economically advantages one racial group above another. Proposition 16 and all the other programs like it, are not only a racist proposal, but they create the very system of racism they claim to fix. They perpetuate the systemic racism we have been dealing with for over 60 years. Proposition 16 will destroy the very people they claim to want to help.
Conclusion
I agree with the supporters of Proposition 16 that everyone deserves an equal opportunity to thrive, to have fair wages, good jobs, and quality schools. However, this proposal will do exactly the opposite. It promotes the idea that people of color are less capable than others. They ignore the fact that many people of color are denied admission to their public colleges and universities not because of their color, but because of the state’s failing public school system. And just like the days of “separate but equal”, they trap minorities in failing public schools, denying them the equal opportunities to thrive. They deny them the skills that will help them get into college or start a successful career, and then have the chutzpah to ask the people of California to discriminate in favor of those they have disadvantaged in the name of “diversity”? What they are doing is asking the people to subsidize their racism.
Color is only an issue in their minds. They want to tell the black man, the latino, and the woman what they must do, which schools they must attend, what jobs they must take, and based on the words of some media personalities, who they must vote for. They don’t believe that these “people of color” can compete on a level playing field. They believe that “equal protection of the law” doesn’t apply to races they think are too stupid to reason for themselves. Not only are these people racist, but they want to return to a systemic racism denounced by one of the great men of the civil rights movement. The question is: Will the people of California follow these racists down the path of destroying the lives of more minorities?
