SAN DIEGO — Depending on how you look at it, it has been the good fortune or the misfortune of Jews to reach measurable levels of success in numbers that are disproportionate to our percentage within the overall population. A tiny fraction of the American population, our people have a strong record of success in the medical, legal, broadcast, and entertainment professions, among others. Much of that success is predicated on our earning, on the basis of merit, admission to excellent public universities such as the University of California and California State University systems. That would appear to be our good fortune. But our successes as a people also have stirred up envy and resentment among other people. That is our misfortune.
Now comes along California Proposition 16 which would remove from our state constitution the following words, approved by voters back in 1996: “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.”
The word “Jew” isn’t mentioned in the official ballot argument, but it’s clear that resentment is what fuels proponents of this measure. “White men are still overrepresented in positions of wealth and power in California,” the official ballot measure says. “Although women, and especially women of color, are on the front lines of the Covid-19 response, they are not rewarded for their sacrifices.”
The same proponents then turn around to suggest that it is not they, but others, who practice racism. “We are seeing the rise of overt racism, white supremacists on the march, the daily demonization of Latino immigrants, Black people gunned down in our streets, anti-Asian hate crimes on the rise, women’s rights under attack and COVID-19 ravaging our communities,” they say in the ballot argument. Like the proponents, we rue each of these evils. We also note the fact that the greatest number of hate crimes aimed at a religious group is aimed at Jews, and that is not mentioned.
So, what are those of us who believe in social justice, and tikkun olam, supposed to do, when an alliance of minority groups calls for doing away with constitutional protections against discrimination?
I think we should heed the official ballot arguments made by opponents of the measure. “Not every Asian American or white is advantaged,” it says. “Not every Latino or black is disadvantaged. Our state has successful men and women of all races and ethnicities. Let’s not perpetuate the stereotype that minorities and women can’t make it unless they get special preferences.”
The opponents go on to say that even now there are legal ways to help people who have been historically disadvantaged without using race as a criterion. “For example, state universities can give a leg-up for students from low-income families or students who would be the first in their family to attend college,” the opponents say. “The state can help small businesses started by low-income individuals or favor low-income individuals for job opportunities.”
The opponents of Proposition 16 are listed as Tom Campbell, former dean of the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley; Leo Terrell, a civil rights lawyer, Kali Fontanilla, a public school teacher; Ward Connerly, president of Californians for Equal Rights; Gail Heriot, a professor of law, and Betty Tom Chu, a former California Constitution Revision Commissioner.
Proponents are listed as Carol Moon Goldberg, president of the League of Women Voters of California; Thomas A. Saenz, president of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund; Eva Patterson, president of the Equal Justice Society; E. Toby Boyd, president of the California Teachers Association; Norma Chavez-Peterson, executive director of the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties, and Dr. Bernice King, CEO of the Martin Luther King, Jr., Center.
Clearly, there are thoughtful, intelligent people on both sides of this issue. Weighing the arguments, we believe the best course of action is to vote “No” on Proposition 16, and to press for further outreach to families and businesses — whatever their race — who have been economically disadvantaged.
*
Donald H. Harrison is editor of San Diego Jewish World. He may be contacted via donald.harrison@sdjewishworld.com
Pingback: Comprehensive list of SDJW endorsements - San Diego Jewish World
What also needs to be pointed out here is that affirmative action (reverse discrimination) is based on the real (if unspoken) premise that people of certain races or genders are somehow inherently guilty for the socio-economic or demographic contexts in which they happen to be born. Thus, it is presumed to be “fair” to subject the members of that race or gender to reverse discrimination. This is really nothing more than an updated, “politically correct” version of the Doctrine of Original Sin — the notion that we are somehow inherently guilty from birth for what allegedly happened long ago in the Garden of Eden. Like Original Sin, “white guilt” (or guilt based on any race or gender) is a complete figment of the imagination of those who made it up. It exists nowhere in reality.
Sasha, if you are white, and lived in this nation for a couple of generations or more, then you are a beneficiary of certain privileges, such as being able to live where you want to live, limited only by money, not skin color. You had opportunities others who are both poor and persons of color did not have, as well. I know my family has benefited from coming of age at a time when Jews began to be seen as “white.” What exists in reality is institutional racism.
Don Harrison’s editorial is a thoughtful and measured essay. He is surely right that abolishing California’s constitutional prohibition on race and sex discrimination would be truly retrograde, and would advance nothing – and no one – other than the power of bureaucrats to divide and tribalise us even further. It is a sad commentary that some once-responsible organizations and institutions are endorsing this effort to give the state government a green light for racial preferences and discrimination. Bravo to Don Harrison for his intellectual and moral courage and clear-sightedness.
Prop 16 is a blank check for California government to discriminate on the basis of race.
Don’t allow it. Vote No.
Interestingly, Jewish organizations were once heavily against affirmative action due to the power of it to discriminate against outperforming minority groups. (https://www.jta.org/1978/06/29/archive/jewish-organizations-hail-court-ruling-in-bakke-case-say-it-vindicates-their-stand-against-quotas)
Sadly, the ADL has completely reversed its position of “no preferences based on race or religion” and would rather take the more politically easy stance of endorsing Prop 16 than the more just position: admitting affirmative action policies in universities are racially discriminating against a different overperforming minority group, Asian Americans.
The supporters of prop16, funded by 17 million dollars from a handful of billionaires, argue that the government should be given the power to discriminate to address the existing discrimination in our society. Judging from the records of California government who couldn’t put out a fire or keep our street safe from drug overdose and violence, and the fact that this amendment is funded by so few so rich, why should such a government be trusted with such a power?
Don, I am confused by your opposition to Proposition 16. The proposition which it seeks to repeal, Proposition 209 from 1996, does not mention Jewishness, either. It seems like you are attacking a straw man, meaning, for others, not you, you are making an argument irrelevant to Proposition 16 itself. What we know happened with Prop 209 is that African-American and Latino attendance at UCs went down and, while Latinos have crawled back up over a twenty-five year period, African-Americans still lag in acceptance rates to UCs. I am hopeful with the change away from discriminatory and gaming the test SATs, the UCs may increase acceptance from every high school, including those in economically challenged areas (The UC study showed the greatest predictor of academic success in college was the GPA of the student in high school, not their SAT score).