Skip to comments.Court hears challenge to CA affirmative action ban
Posted on 02/13/2012 2:07:04 PM PST by WilliamIII
AP) SAN FRANCISCO Backers of affirmative action asked a federal appeals court Monday to overturn California's 15-year-old ban on considering race in public college admissions, citing a steep drop in black, Latino and Native American students at the state's elite campuses.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeal heard arguments in the latest legal challenge to Proposition 209, the landmark voter initiative that barred racial, ethnic and gender preferences in public education, employment and contracting.
The affirmative action ban has withstood multiple challenges since voters approved it in 1996, but advocates say their campaign to overturn it has been bolstered by recent court decisions, as well as support from Gov. Jerry Brown.
Dozens of minority students backing the plaintiffs filled the courtroom for the hour-long hearing, when the justices questioned whether they should tamper with a 1997 ruling in which the same appellate court upheld Proposition 209.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs said affirmative action is needed to increase racial diversity at the University of California's most prestigious campuses and professional schools.
"What you see before you is a new form of separate and unequal going on right before our eyes," plaintiffs' attorney George Washington told the three male justices.
Ralph Kasarda, who is defending Proposition 209, told the justices that the San Francisco-based appellate court was correct when it upheld the affirmative action ban.
"Proposition 209 guarantees everyone's right to be treated fairly and not be discriminated against based on skin color or gender," said Kasarda, an attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represented the sponsors of the 1996 ballot measure.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Good. Let’s make it mandatory that only affirmative action pilots control the Obamaloon and friend’s planes, only affirmative action doctors service congresscritter’s “Cadillac” health plans, and only affirmative action engineers design electronics and software that liberals use.
Sigh, here we go again: some minorities whining about race again.
So basically a leftist judge gets to decide if it is illegal to NOT descriminate against white people.
Wrong. A leftist judge gets to decide if it is illegal to NOT descriminate against Asians.
“Attorneys for the plaintiffs said affirmative action is needed to increase racial diversity at the University of California’s most prestigious campuses and professional schools. “
groan..If you have the money for tuition and the grades, race is the last thing on the admission rep’s mind. I went to meet a friend of mine at UCLA 2 weeks back, and I rarely saw a white guy.
I guess the white thing has already been okay’d
Let's also make it mandatory that NBA teams and hip-hop record labels have to have the proportional number of whites and asians that the country as a whole has.
Friend of mine went to med school up at Michigan State years ago. When he did his internship he was very outspoken about what he encountered there, I was shocked how blunt he said what he said considering the guy was quite liberal then.
He told me that if I ever was taken to a hospital in East Lansing and a black intern was seeing me I should refuse him and demand another. He said no matter how bad they were they only removed one student that was doing so poor it would have been criminal to allow her to practice medicine, just a CYA move.
Knowing him my whole life a statement like that coming from him just blew me away, he was sickened by the separate standards that white and asian students had to meet compared to their black counterparts, all based on political correctness, and that was almost 25 years ago.
“Wrong. A leftist judge gets to decide if it is illegal to NOT descriminate against Asians.”
And Jews, being the hardest hit by affirmative action policies.
White enrollment declined after they banned affirmative action.
They just continued it under a new name ... “economically disadvantaged” and whatnot
It’s time for a change. I’m thinking maybe to self-identify as a person of color. I could go Amish, though. Or Native American.
A plaintiffs attorney named George Washington arguing against equality.
What an affront to the name.
“”What you see before you is a new form of separate and unequal going on right before our eyes,” plaintiffs’ attorney George Washington told the three male justices.”
doug has it correct.
Here's a passage from the UC Diversity Accountability Report and Appendix (seriously):
UC often describes its diversity aspirations in terms of ―reflecting the diversity of California. The Universitys demographics have not kept pace with Californias growing Chicano/Latino population. In 2008-09, UCs undergraduate students were 14 percent Chicano/Latino compared with a total Chicano/Latino population statewide of 34 percent and nationwide of 14 percent. The gap for African Americans is less severe. African Americans comprised 5 percent of UCs undergraduate students compared with a total African American population statewide of 7 percent and nationwide of 13 percent.
I estimate from their chart, there are about 115 Asians per 100 White undergrads in UC schools according to that report. 54% of those students are female (vs. 50% of the state) but the diversity police obviously don't see that disparity as a problem. Go figure.
What people dont realize is that policies like Affirmative Action are State Sanctioned Racism — which is far, far worse than arbitrary/voluntary racism by individuals because there is an element of fascism in it (e.g. the govt forces it on people).
These greedy racists want the State to discriminate for them and against others.
How dumb are these people anyway? Can’t they see their blatant hypocrisy (e.g. “Let’s use racism to end racism!”).
So not discriminating by race is racist discrimination??????????
Just another day in Obamaland. :)
A letter to Attorney Kasarda who is defending Prop 209 (fighting against the neo-racists).
Hello Mr. Kasarda,
I’m so glad you’re taking the case to defend Prop 209 as most color-blind individuals understand that Prop 209 is as Constitutional as it gets...
As a Chinese-American, I have witnessed racial discrimination at UC Berkeley admissions. (Reference Dinesh D’Souza’s “Illiberal Education” book as a fantastic expose of the folly of so-called “Affirmative Action”).
Apparently there were too many highly-qualified Chinese applicants to UCB, so the administration set out to discriminate against Chinese via affirmative action programs in the pre-Prop-209 era.
What people dont realize is that policies like Affirmative Action are State Sanctioned Racism which is far, far worse than arbitrary/voluntary racism by individuals because there is an element of fascism in it (e.g. the govt forces people to make racist decisions).
I never hear the argument posed this way (that it’s State Sanctioned Racism).
These greedy racists want the State to discriminate for them by discriminating against other people with different skin color.
Cant the affirmative action proponents see their blatant hypocrisy (e.g. Lets use racism to end racism!)?
Anyone who preaches against racism should have consistent principles and not use racism as a tool to benefit groups of people with certain skin colors.
Affirmative Action is in DIRECT CONFLICT with the “Equal protection under the law” clause of the Constitution.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
Please use any of the foregoing sentences in your case proceedings.
Thank you for your time,