Passage of Prop.209 renews debate

Friday, November 8, 1996

REACTION:

Proponents hope to implement initiative right away while
opponents file court casesBy Brooke Olson

Daily Bruin Staff

Pro-affirmative action forces raced to the courthouse Wednesday
morning less than 12 hours after Californians voted to end
affirmative action, while Proposition 209 proponents sought a court
order allowing for the immediate enforcement of the initiative.

Campus reaction to the proposition varied dramatically. As
several student groups scrambled to organize a counter-protest,
university administrators issued guidelines on how to implement the
initiative.

Proposition 209, which passed with 54 percent of the vote,
banned race and gender considerations in public hiring, contracting
and education.

"(Proposition 209) will dramatically impact our campus," said
John E. Kobara, associate vice chancellor.

"Ethnic/gender programs may possibly have to be reformed … and
so will endowments targeting the recruitment of certain students
may have to be reformed.

"We’re talking millions of dollars here in events and programs
that have been planned for this year that may have to be changed,"
Kobara added.

Several student organizations, including the undergraduate
government, held meetings yesterday to determine what course of
action would be taken to stop the implementation of Proposition
209, said undergraduate President John Du.

Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took the
first official steps Wednesday to stop Proposition 209, filing a
suit with the U.S. District Court in San Francisco charging that
the initiative is unconstitutional.

"We are confident that Proposition 209 will not see the light of
day," said Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the Southern
California ACLU.

Proponents, though, believe otherwise. Moments after the
Sacramento County Superior Court opened Wednesday, initiative
supporters sought a court order to stop certain government agencies
from granting preferences on the basis of race or sex.

The agencies targeted were the Board of Governors of the
California Community Colleges, the State Lottery Commission and the
Department of General Services.

"Proposition 209 gives Californians … equal access to
opportunity," said Gov. Pete Wilson Wednesday, moments after
announcing an executive order requiring state officials to provide
a list within three weeks of any race- or gender-based affirmative
action programs.

But the question of what Proposition 209 would mean to working
Californians ­ a bitterly disputed point during the campaign
­ remained largely unanswered.

Supporters said the vote opened the door to equality and erased
programs that pit race against race.

"209 will institute a system based on meritocracy," said Jason
Steele, president of the Bruin Republicans. "This whole thing has
been indicative of how the focus of the civil rights movement has
changed focus.

"It was initially to end racial preferences which benefitted
white males, and now people are fighting to keep racial preferences
which currently benefit minorities," he added.

Opponents said the measure will slam the access doors shut,
affecting everything from hiring programs to outreach aimed at
minority youth.

"I think unfortunately that we might lose a lot ­ the
Academic Advancement Program and our fights for an ethnic and
gender studies requirement," said Angela Foster, president of the
Bruin Democrats.

In addition, many opponents worry that the initiative may be
fully within the limits of federal law and the Constitution, making
a lawsuit against the initiative nearly impossible to win.

"From what I’ve heard, 209 is written so that it’s
constitutional, and now the Regents have the law to back them up on
their decisions," Foster said.

Yet other opponents were more optimistic, noting that although
the entire initiative may not be unconstitutional, several clauses
within Proposition 209 could conflict with existing federal
law.

"There are arguments that can be made about several of the
initiative’s clauses, and certainly some of the ways the
legislature may interpret it could cause questions to be raised,"
said Student Regent Jess Bravin.

Even if parts of Proposition 209 are found unconstitutional, the
final clause of the initiative allows for those sections to be
removed without nullifying the entire initiative.

At the heart of the opponents’ argument is a fear that the UC
Regents are now legally bound to follow SP1 and SP2, the July 1995
decisions to end affirmative action in hiring and admissions
policies.

Their fears were confirmed Wednesday when Regent Chair Tirso del
Junco released a statement lauding California citizens for
asserting last year’s affirmative action decisions made by the
board.

"(The regents) made clear (last year) that the University can
reflect the rich diversity of California’s population without
preferences," del Junco said. "We will need to look to new ways of
accomplishing this goal ­ through mentoring, outreach and
other methods."

In addition to the regents’ approval of Proposition 209,
university administrators also released statements containing
decisions on how the campuses would abide by the law.

In a letter written to the University community, UC President
Richard Atkinson listed five steps he intended to take in order to
maintain diversity across the campuses. Atkinson’s plan includes
strengthening outreach programs and re-invigorating the UC’s
partnership with California’s K-12 schools.

The university president insists that the campuses would
continue to seek a diverse pool of applicants for jobs and
contracts.

"California is changing and so must we," Atkinson wrote. "What
cannot change, however, is the University’s historic responsibility
to serve Californians of every background and condition."

In addition, Provost C. Judson King issued guidelines to the UC
Chancellors Wednesday on how to enforce Proposition 209, which is
effective immediately unless a court order is issued prohibiting
the proposition’s implementation.

Specific steps were given following the guidelines of UC General
Counsel James Holst’s Oct. 4 letter regarding the potential impact
of Proposition 209.

The requirements note that all admissions decisions made after
Nov. 6 should not include considerations of race, sex, color,
ethnicity or national origin.

In addition, the General Counsel recommended the suspension of
all future financial aid awards which target specific ethnic or
gender groups.

King also wrote that race or gender attentive programs would not
be affected this year, although each UC chancellor must ensure in
the future that those organizations do not include race or gender
requirements.

While UCLA administrators claim that the university will
maintain diversity, some students fear that the campus will become
increasingly segregated as Proposition 209 takes effect.

"(I expect) that the campus will be mostly Asians and whites,"
said David Fetch, a third-year English and creative writing
student.

Yet some believe that although affirmative action is important,
it is time to shift the focus to other more pertinent issues
affecting the students.

"I think that 209 was an important issue but it’s not the be all
and end all issue for higher education in California," Bravin said,
adding that fee hikes and the loss of financial aid will also
dramatically affect students.

"There are many different avenues to keep higher education
accessible for all qualified high school graduates."

JUSTIN WARREN/Daily Bruin SUSIE MING HWA CHU/Daily Bruin

(l.) A student shows his view on Proposition 209 during the
protest that began on campus and eventually led to the Federal
Building Oct. 23. (r.) The Bruin Republicans hung a sign over Bruin
Walk Tuesday and Wednesday supporting the passage of Proposition
209.