小心加州选民,你的希望正受到攻击

作者:goodoctor  于 2014-2-28 00:53 发表于 最热闹的华人社交网络--贝壳村

作者分类:分享|通用分类:活动报道|已有10评论

关键词:SCA5

作者:珍妮弗·格拉茨(JENNIFER GRATZ )

作者简介:珍妮弗·格拉茨(JENNIFER GRATZ )是美国一位普通的年轻白人女性。然而11年前的一桩一直告到联邦最高法院的大案,使格拉茨成为人们关注的中心人物。在这个案子里,格拉茨控告密西根大学在新生录取中采取照顾少数民族的平权政策,使她这个品学兼优的白人孩子受到歧视。密西根大学违反了宪法第14条的平等保护条款和民权法第6条的有关规定。这篇文章发表在洛杉矶时报February 7, 2014。

Much progress has been made in the fight for equal treatment under the law for all people. Unfortunately, California politicians are actively working to ensure that the state reverts to policies that treat people differently based on skin color or ethnic identity — policies that were rejected by voters more than 17 years ago.


In 1996, California voters outlawed the use of racial preferences in state institutions by overwhelmingly passing Proposition 209. This initiative amended the state Constitution to ban discrimination and preferential treatment based on race, color, sex, ethnicity or national origin in public education, public contracting and public employment. The simple language of the initiative relied on the important principle that it is wrong to treat people differently based on skin color.


Since then, many politicians have sought to undermine and reverse the law, with little success. But with a Democratic governor and supermajorities in both houses of the Legislature, things are different this time around.


Democrats in the state Senate on Jan. 30 used their two-thirds supermajority to pass a bill, SCA 5, which would put a constitutional amendment on the November ballot to overturn Proposition 209's ban on racial, ethnic and gender preferences in admissions by the state's public colleges and universities.


The U.S. Supreme Court issued a stark reminder last summer in Fisher vs. University of Texas that racial preferences are on their way out. The high court ruled that universities must take every possible race-neutral measure to foster diversity before resorting to racial policies. But Sen. Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina), the measure's author, and most of his colleagues are eager to ignore this and instead push California onto an ugly and legally unstable path back toward race-based preferences.


Since the passage of Proposition 209, California's public colleges and universities have embraced real diversity on campus through race-neutral alternatives, such as accepting the top percentage of students at all high schools, using socioeconomic consideration in admissions, adding mentorship and outreach to underperforming schools, dropping legacy preferences and expanding need-based scholarships.


Although the share of underrepresented minorities in the UC system dropped from 20% before the ban to 18.6% in 1997, by 2008 it had rebounded to 25%, with an 18% rise in graduation rates among minorities. The numbers at the elite UC Berkeley and UCLA campuses have not fully recovered to pre-Proposition 209 numbers, but they have made considerable progress. Moreover, both were listed in U.S. News & World Report's Economic Diversity Among the Top 25 Ranked Schools for the 2011-12 year, with the highest percentage of undergraduates receiving Pell grants.


This is precisely the kind of diversity improvement the court said in Fisher would preclude the reintroduction of race preferences.


My involvement with the issue of affirmative action began as a 19-year-old student when I sued the University of Michigan for using different admissions standards based on an applicant's race. The Supreme Court eventually ruled in my favor in its 2003 Gratz vs. Bollinger decision, but it allowed more nuanced forms of racial policies to continue in a companion case. This split decision moved me to follow California's example and spearhead a constitutional amendment similar to Proposition 209 in Michigan, which voters approved 58% to 42% in 2006. Since California's bold step toward equal treatment, seven states have followed its lead.


The proposed changes for California are profound. Disguised as calls for equalizing opportunities and increasing diversity for better learning, these changes are a clear assault on equal protection in California. We are all individuals, with unique dreams, goals and experiences. Racial preferences empower government officials to divide us into categories, giving special treatment to some while discriminating against others, all on the basis of skin color or ethnicity. This is not how a civil society should treat its citizens.


There is no doubt that affirmative action policies began with the best of intentions: for people to be treated without regard to race. But they have turned into policies that instead encourage administrators and politicians to treat people differently based on skin color, creating new injustices with new victims. Treating people differently to make up for inequalities or create diversity only reinforces inequality and deepens racial division.


No politician, public official or bureaucrat should be able to decide, based on race, ethnicity or sex, who should receive special treatment and who can be discriminated against. Each person has the right to be treated as a unique individual based on his or her personal achievements and characteristics. We as Americans must continue to insist on that right.


Jennifer Gratz is the founder and chief executive officer of the XIV Foundation, named after the 14th Amendment, to defend the principle of equal treatment and a colorblind society.



http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gratz-california-racial-preferences-20140207,0,3994041.story#ixzz2uXfbZk7n



高兴

感动

同情

搞笑

难过

拍砖

支持
7

鲜花

刚表态过的朋友 (7 人)

发表评论 评论 (10 个评论)

1 回复 goodoctor 2014-2-28 01:02
"No politician, public official or bureaucrat should be able to decide, based
on race, ethnicity or sex, who should receive special treatment and who
can be discriminated against. Each person has the right to be treated as
a unique individual based on his or her personal achievements and characteristics.
We as Americans must continue to insist on that right."


没有任何一个政治人物、政府官员或官僚能够决定,基于种族、民族或性别,谁应
该得到特殊待遇,谁应当被歧视。每个人都有根据他/她自己的成就和特点被当作一
个特定的人来看待的权力。我们作为美国人必须继续坚持这一权利。
1 回复 白露为霜 2014-2-28 01:28
很遗憾,如果去年Fisher v. University of Texas最高法院的判决是完全禁止平权法,就没有SCA5的问题了。可能最后还是要回到最高法院。
1 回复 人间世之心斋 2014-2-28 02:36
支持real diversity on campus through race-neutral alternatives。
0 回复 tangremax 2014-2-28 04:07
问题是老中也是少数民族。
3 回复 goodoctor 2014-2-28 04:31
人间世之心斋: 支持real diversity on campus through race-neutral alternatives。
现在加州,无论是好区还是坏区的高中,top的高中生都可以进UC的大学,他们还觉得不够,还用SCA5挑战亚裔的底线,实在让人愤怒。
2 回复 goodoctor 2014-2-28 04:33
BTW, 很多亚裔花大价钱为了孩子到好区买房子,也是不明智的,争取Irvine/Arcadia
高中的TOP10比LA downtown难度大多了。
1 回复 Giada 2014-3-1 03:46
goodoctor: BTW, 很多亚裔花大价钱为了孩子到好区买房子,也是不明智的,争取Irvine/Arcadia
高中的TOP10比LA downtown难度大多了。
同意,但是LAUSD的好多学校太烂,家长怕孩子自己不肯学,受到坏影响。
1 回复 ChineseInvest88 2014-3-5 12:47
好文章!支持了!
2 回复 goodoctor 2014-3-13 14:02
ChineseInvest88: 好文章!支持了!
thanks
2 回复 Lawler 2014-3-14 12:04
goodoctor: BTW, 很多亚裔花大价钱为了孩子到好区买房子,也是不明智的,争取Irvine/Arcadia
高中的TOP10比LA downtown难度大多了。
到好区买房子,在资金许可条件下,对孩子教育管理是上策。
- 好学区,对孩子生活学习环境,少了许多担心;
- 买的房子,不宜贬值、也是一种投资。

facelist doodle 涂鸦板

您需要登录后才可以评论 登录 | 注册

关于本站 | 隐私政策 | 免责条款 | 版权声明 | 联络我们 | 刊登广告 | 转手机版 | APP下载

Copyright © 2001-2013 海外华人中文门户:倍可亲 (http://www.backchina.com) All Rights Reserved.

程序系统基于 Discuz! X3.1 商业版 优化 Discuz! © 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc. 更新:GMT+8, 2019-6-7 08:42

倍可亲服务器位于美国圣何塞、西雅图和达拉斯顶级数据中心,为更好服务全球网友特统一使用京港台时间

返回顶部