Legalized Discrimination?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

So, the CA state legislature has voted to remove legal protection against discrimination.

https://fee.org/articles/california-legislature-votes-to-strike-the-state-shall-not-discriminate-from-constitution-opening-the-door-to-legalized-discrimination/

Apologies for the source, other sources such as the OC Register and Wall Street Journal are behind paywalls.

The vote was to remove the following language from the state's 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.”

This begs the question, why would they do this? It seems rather contrary to the liberal position of equal treatment under the law.

[Belsnickel]

So, I dug up the Wikipedia page on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_16

Now, I am the first to say that it is a complete fabrication that we actually live in a meritocracy. The research shows us that with convincing regularity. I am having a hard time with this, though. Based on this surface level research on ACA 5, it seems to be primarily aimed at allowing affirmative action programs to go forward in the state. However, this seems like one of those instances where a chainsaw is being used instead of a scalpel. Maybe they are relying on federal law to cover the anti-discrimination bases? I don't know what their thought process is with this one.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-02-2020, 03:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, I dug up the Wikipedia page on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_16

Now, I am the first to say that it is a complete fabrication that we actually live in a meritocracy. The research shows us that with convincing regularity. I am having a hard time with this, though. Based on this surface level research on ACA 5, it seems to be primarily aimed at allowing affirmative action programs to go forward in the state. However, this seems like one of those instances where a chainsaw is being used instead of a scalpel. Maybe they are relying on federal law to cover the anti-discrimination bases? I don't know what their thought process is with this one.

Your thoughts mirror mine almost exactly.  If enabling affirmative action was the goal then you would only need to strike "or grant preferential treatment to", from the state constitution.  The fact that they axed the entire paragraph would indicate that is not their sole intent.

[fredtoast]

(07-02-2020, 04:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your thoughts mirror mine almost exactly.  If enabling affirmative action was the goal then you would only need to strike "or grant preferential treatment to", from the state constitution.  The fact that they axed the entire paragraph would indicate that is not their sole intent.

I'd say they just wanted to avoid the semantics argument that "granting preferential treatment" to one group is exactly the same as "discriminating against" the other groups.


What do you think their purpose is?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-02-2020, 05:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I'd say they just wanted to avoid the semantics argument that "granting preferential treatment" to one group is exactly the same as "discriminating against" the other groups.


What do you think their purpose is?

I don't know, hence the thread.  What are the potential reasons that you see?

[Dill]

LOL Side issue, or may be not: this "example" from the article is not about liberal equality under the rule of law, though it refers to a legal/political milestone along the way.

Second, equality before the law is arguably the greatest pillar of a liberal society. It’s an idea that reaches back across time and civilizations, from philosophers like Guan Zhong (720 B.C. - 645 B.C.) to historians such as Thucydides, who at the funeral of Pericles stated, “If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if to social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way.”

Race, sex, ethnicity, poverty, national origin--that had everything to do with "equal justice" under Pericles. Once all those accidents of birth have been properly applied, "equality" and "merit-not-class-standing" applies to about 10,000 people in a city of 400,000 residents.

Key here, and a point which might eventually apply to the CA case, is the range and construction of "justice to all in their private differences."

[fredtoast]

(07-02-2020, 05:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't know, hence the thread.  What are the potential reasons that you see?

I have not researched it, but the affirmative action programs sound like some obvious motives.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-02-2020, 06:08 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL Side issue, or may be not: this "example" from the article is not about liberal equality under the rule of law, though it refers to a legal/political milestone along the way.

Second, equality before the law is arguably the greatest pillar of a liberal society. It’s an idea that reaches back across time and civilizations, from philosophers like Guan Zhong (720 B.C. - 645 B.C.) to historians such as Thucydides, who at the funeral of Pericles stated, “If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if to social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way.”

Race, sex, ethnicity, poverty, national origin--that had everything to do with "equal justice" under Pericles. Once all those accidents of birth have been properly applied, "equality" and "merit-not-class-standing" applies to about 10,000 people in a city of 400,000 residents.

Key here, and a point which might eventually apply to the CA case, is the range and construction of "justice to all in their private differences."

Fascinating and not really relevant to the question I'm asking.  I already stated the source was not my source of preference, the others were behind paywalls.  

(07-02-2020, 06:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I have not researched it, but the affirmative action programs sound like some obvious motives.

Then why eliminate the protection against discrimination as well?  Bel asked the same question and expressed the same apprehensions about the vote based on that very fact.

[Dill]

(07-02-2020, 07:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Fascinating and not really relevant to the question I'm asking.  I already stated the source was not my source of preference, the others were behind paywalls.  

Then why eliminate the protection against discrimination as well?  Bel asked the same question and expressed the same apprehensions about the vote based on that very fact.

I don't think all posts on this thread have to be "relevant to your question."  My post was thrown out for general discussion because your source thought the quote from Thucydides relevant to the change in legal language just voted in, and as in illustrative of something purportedly valued by that vote.

However, contrary to the implications of the quote, "the liberal position of equal treatment under the law" is quite historically variable, subject to changes in a society's demographic and economic composition, and accompanying shifts in the notion/defintion of "equal justice."

Your question-"why would they do this"--is a marker of that kind of change. That's why you and others are sorting out its effect on protection--who feels more protected by the change (Asians seeking increased admissions to UCal?), who less (historically under-represented populations?)? 

So the reference to a de-historicized Thucydides in your source might be a clue to how one side is constructing "equality" in this debate.  I'm a great admirer of Pericles, Thucydides, and Athenian democracy, but the latter was not a "liberal" state based on any modern conception of individual rights and equality. Lumping T. in with the adviser to a feudal monarch suggests "the greatest pillar of liberal society," around for millennia, is somehow restored in this change.  Long jump from Zhong and T. to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, though. And another jump (albeit much shorter) to CA after that.  

[BmorePat87]

Reading it makes me assume what Matt and Fred said. It allows affirmative action and would still allow federal anti discrimination laws to protect groups from discrimination.

Like Matt said, it’s probably not the best way to ensure that, however.