State laws requiring hiring of minorities, women upheld

Monday, December 7, 1998

State laws requiring hiring of minorities, women upheld

COURT: Prop. 209 limited by ruling but remains in effect; two
quota laws eliminated

By Barbara Ortutay

Daily Bruin Staff

In a decision that could alter the status of affirmative action
in California, a Sacramento judge upheld three state laws on Monday
that require state agencies to recruit women and racial
minorities.

Since Proposition 209 banned the consideration of race and
gender in hiring and in college admissions when voters approved it
in 1996, many California affirmative action programs have become
illegal.

Spearheaded by Gov. Pete Wilson, the proposition also resulted
in a drop in minority admissions to UC campuses across the state
this fall.

In his ruling, Superior Court Judge Lloyd Connelly disagreed
with Wilson’s stance that all affirmative action programs violate
Proposition 209.

"(Proposition 209) does not prohibit the use of race and gender
without discrimination or preferential effect for the purpose of
equalizing employment, education and contracting opportunities,"
Connelly said.

The ruling could have implications for the University of
California if the UC Board of Regents were to repeal its ban on
affirmative action, because it imposes limitations on Proposition
209.

One of the laws upheld by the decision requires community
college districts to recruit and hire people who are
underrepresented, including women, the disabled and minorities.

"It sounds like the courts are finally realizing how unjust and
immoral Proposition 209 is," said Undergraduate Students
Association Council General Representative Mike de la Rocha.

He added that despite the ruling, as long as Proposition 209 is
in effect, students are going to continue to mobilize to defeat
this "unjust and discriminatory" law.

Connelly said that the district has the authority and the duty
to assess discrimination in its employment practices, and if so, to
"take narrowly drawn race and gender-conscious measures to
eradicate such discriminatory practices."

Some proponents of affirmative action see the ruling as a way to
get around 209.

"(It’s) a complete victory for the state in assuring that
Proposition 209 is not interpreted to eliminate equal opportunity,"
said Jeffrey Bleich, a civil rights attorney who represented
organizations seeking to uphold the laws.

The ruling, however, does not eliminate Proposition 209 – it
simply gives a looser interpretation of the law.

Despite upholding three affirmative action laws, Connelly did
strike down two others that required race and gender quotas for
state contracting policy.

One of these policies required at least 15 percent of all state
contracts to go to minority-owned enterprises, 5 percent to
woman-owned ones, and 3 percent to disabled veterans.

The policies that were upheld did not have specific minority or
gender quotas. Instead, most were aimed at correcting discrepancies
in representation and hiring of women and minorities, not granting
preferences, according to Connelly.

With Bruin wire reports

Comments, feedback, problems?

© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]