Hello Everyone:
I don't think we have a chance in the world to take this
ruling head-on. I imgine our only chance is to alter the tune and pick up
their phrase "modified so they benefit all disadvantaged students." In
fact,
I believe that is what EQUALS has always done--benefitted all students who
did not profit from the way mathematics was being taught.
Kay
In a message dated 12/1/00 12:45:08 PM, jfranco@uclink4.berkeley.edu
writes:
"It means that some of our outreach programs will have to be eliminated or
modified so they benefit all disadvantaged students and not just those who
are black or Hispanic or other underrepresented minorities," said UC
Regent Ward Connerly, one of the prime backers of the anti-affirmative
action initiative. "There are still several programs where we pitch to
underrepresented minorities."
Court's reasoning: The court said that the program is unconstitutional
because it gives preferential treatment to women and minorities. The court
said it was not outlawing all outreach programs, only programs based on
race or sex.
-- What it means: The decision could jeopardize similar programs
throughout the state, including those of the University of California.
Below is the full text for those who did not receive it.
Kay Gilliland
14240 Skyline Blvd.
Oakland, CA 94619-3626
510/638-6393
GillilandK@aol.com
I wanted to share with you some recent rulings that we are facing in
California. It could possibly have an impact on our work. The jury is still
out.
Subject:Prop. 209 prohibits minority-based outreach
Not good news, could have implications for EQUALS down the road.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was sent to you by someone who found it on SF Gate.
The original article can be found on SFGate.com here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/12/0
1/MN125747.DTL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
December 1, 2000 (SF Chronicle)Affirmative Action Setback/State Supreme
Court rules Prop. 209 prohibits minority-based outreach Harriet Chiang, at
chiang@sfchronicle.com.
In a crippling blow to affirmative action programs throughout the state,
the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously yesterday that Proposition
209 prohibited cities and counties from using recruitment and outreach
programs that focus on women and minorities.
The decision is the first time the high court has interpreted the scope
of
Proposition 209, the 1996 voter-approved initiative that bans state and
local governments from giving preference to women and minorities in
contracting, hiring and college admissions.
The ruling strikes down a San Jose program that required contractors to
recruit, or explain why they didn't recruit, female and minority
subcontractors for city contracts worth $50,000 or more.
In yesterday's decision, the justices found that San Jose's program
violated Proposition 209 because it gave preferential treatment based on
race and gender.
The decision was written by Justice Janice Rogers Brown, the only
African
American on the court. She was sharply critical of the evolution of
affirmative action programs in general and found that San Jose's program
penalized firms without evidence that they had discriminated against women
or minorities.
"With the approval of Proposition 209," Brown wrote, "the electorate
chose
to reassert the principle of equality of individual opportunity as a
constitutional imperative."
Three other justices joined Brown's majority opinion, and the three
remaining justices filed separate opinions.
Brown's broadly written ruling will jeopardize thousands of government
programs, predicted Sharon Browne, an attorney with the Pacific Legal
Foundation, a conservative Sacramento group that had challenged the San
Jose program.
"This will impact every single program that employs race or sex in either
employment, contracting or education," she said.
Officials at the University of California, which is spending $180 million
this year on minority outreach programs in elementary and secondary
schools, were scrambling to determine whether the ruling would kill those
programs.
"It means that some of our outreach programs will have to be eliminated
or
modified so they benefit all disadvantaged students and not just those who
are black or Hispanic or other underrepresented minorities," said UC
Regent Ward Connerly, one of the prime backers of the anti-affirmative
action initiative. "There are still several programs where we pitch to
underrepresented minorities."
UC spokesman Terry Lightfoot said lawyers were still reviewing the
opinion
to try to determine its impact. He said their primary concern was over
UC's practice of sending admission and financial aid information to
underrepresented minorities.
Other observers predicted that the ruling would encourage
anti-affirmative
action efforts in other states.
Many cities and counties, including San Francisco, filed briefs in
support
of San Jose's program.
"Obviously, we're very disappointed," said San Francisco City Attorney
Louise Renne.
Despite the ruling, San Jose City Attorney Rick Doyle said, city
officials
will continue to try to come up with programs that are legally
permissible. "Given the past discrimination, we can't just sit on our
hands," he said. "We have to correct it."
While the seven justices agreed that San Jose's program was illegal
under
Proposition 209, they split four ways over how far the court should go in
restricting affirmative action.
In an unusually harsh opinion, Chief Justice Ronald George criticized
the
Brown's majority opinion for its sweeping condemnation of all affirmative
action programs.
"By using misleading and unflattering slogans" to characterize past civil
rights decisions upholding these programs, he said, the majority opinion
presented an "unfair and inaccurate caricature of the objective" of
affirmative action efforts.
Proposition 209 "does not prohibit all affirmative action programs,"
said
George, who was joined in his opinion by Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar.
He said that cities and counties could expand their advertising for public
contracts and divide large projects into smaller segments to give new
subcontractors a chance to compete.
The San Jose ordinance requires contractors to solicit bids from at least
four subcontracting companies owned by women or minorities, negotiate with
them and then accept one of their bids or provide legitimate reasons for
rejecting them.
The San Jose program was challenged by Hi-Voltage Wire Works, a
general
contracting firm from Rancho Cordova (Sacramento County) that
unsuccessfully bid on a 1997 city project for a water pollution plant.
The firm was the lowest bidder, but the city found it had failed to
comply
with the city's outreach program. Hi-Voltage said it didn't need
subcontractors and planned to use its own work force.
In February 1998, Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Richard Turrone ruled
that the program was illegal under Proposition 209. Last year, a state
appeals court agreed.
In yesterday's opinion, the justices said that California voters clearly
intended to change the law by prohibiting any form of discrimination.
San Jose's program violates the law, the court said, because it requires
contractors to notify, solicit and negotiate with female and minority
subcontractors or justify why they reject them.
The court found that approach "discriminates on the basis of race and
sex"
and is therefore illegal under Proposition 209
The justices cautioned that they were not outlawing outreach programs
that
were not based on race or sex.
The Ruling The California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 209 bars
cities and counties from recruiting women and minorities in order to
remedy past discrimination.
The issue: The court struck down a San Jose program that requires
contractors to solicit bids from at least four subcontracting firms owned
by women or minorities.
Court's reasoning: The court said that the program is unconstitutional
because it gives preferential treatment to women and minorities. The court
said it was not outlawing all outreach programs, only programs based on
race or sex.
-- What it means: The decision could jeopardize similar programs
throughout the state, including those of the University of California.
Chronicle staff writer Tanya Schevitz contributed to this report. / E-mail
Harriet Chiang at hchiang@sfchronicle.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
copyright 2000 SF Chronicle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Apr 12 2002 - 15:16:38 EDT