Ironically, when the initiative was put on the ballot, it was the proponents who continually pointed out its narrow scope. They reminded voters that the initiative banned only "preferential treatment" based on race and gender in public education, contracting and employment. This would eliminate quotas, they argued, but leave modest measures such as targeted outreach unaffected.
But once the measure passed, the arguments shifted. Suddenly, Prop. 209's backers began claiming that race could never be considered under any circumstances, and that public officials had to sit on their hands when it came to grappling with persistent racial inequality.
Fortunately, the courts are now stepping in to reassert Prop. 209's limits -- and to emphasize government's overriding constitutional duty to remedy segregation and discrimination.
State affirms that race is still a factor
Prop. 209 doesn't demand complete color blindness
Oren M. Sellstrom, Diana C. Tate
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Two recent court decisions about race and equal opportunity demonstrate an increasing recognition of what civil rights advocates have long known: Taking race into account is sometimes necessary to secure integration and equality.
The rulings come at a time of increasing public unease with the results of rigid "color-blindness." Many Californians are justifiably disturbed when they hear that UCLA's 2006 freshman class is just 2 percent African American, now that admissions officials no longer even consider race as one of many factors in choosing among qualified applicants. They question how we can keep California's economy strong when two-thirds of the minority-owned businesses that once competed for state transportation contracts have gone out of business since the state's minority business outreach program was abolished.
