California, when we said to handle discrimination differently, this isn't what we meant..

If you say “race/etc. discrimination is illegal” at the state level- that means that it becomes illegal for a state school or state job (like the police) to openly consider candidates of a certain race over others. This is a root of the popularization of “diversity.” Requiring a “diverse” group doesn’t ACTUALLY give PREFERENCE to candidates of any one group over another... in theory, since “diverse” would include people of any group. In practice however- to have a “diverse group” can mean intentionally picking “diversity hires” based on their group- but because that is not easily proven vs. a stated policy or quota- it essentially bends the law on the matter.

California is actually only one of 8 states that currently bans such discrimination at the state level. So if you apply to a state school in Oregon or Kentucky, or 42 states- they can legally and openly say “you’re perfect- but we don’t have enough <women/men/black/Hispanic/Asian/etc.>, so we are passing you up.” Group based scholarships like something the NAACP might offer are private and follow different laws- but in 48 states a college can say: “you are Asian, so we will give you a $20,000 scholarship, this person is a woman of Iranian decent so we will give her $50,000.”

The addition of those words to the CA constitution was hotly debated and contested at the time and passed by a narrow margin of 5% of votes. Not all or even most opposed it because of racism- quite the opposite. Many People who support diversity and even many groups for civil rights like the ACLU and Feminist Majority were against adding those words in the first place.

Not only has the faculty of the very liberal and progressive UC Berkeley (the hippie of hippie schools as it is known..) spoken out against including the words banning state discriminatory practices- but students from liberal schools such as UC Santa Cruz, Berkeley, UC SF, and UCLA protested against it and staged walk outs.

There have been several attempts over the decades past to repeal the bill that added those words in the first place, some making it to be put on the ballot before executive veto stopped them. California legislators have voted to repeal the words, again, but it still must make it to the ballot and pass a vote before the constitution could be re amended to its pre 1996 wording.

Tl:dr- this is primarily about “affirmative action” which has been illegal in California since 1996 when those words were added to the constitution. California is one of only 8 states that has such a clause which bans affirmative action. With that clause in place, state schools and jobs like the police cannot legally offer special protections to “minority” groups and cannot consider demographics of a certain race or gender in their hiring decisions (openly.) In 1996 the ACLU and many other prominent civil rights groups and liberal activists opposed the adding of the anti discrimination clause. It’s a complex issue that you’d think those words were very clear and “equal” but... there are different kinds of discrimination they each make legal. As the law stands- you can’t help one group more than another, even when one group “needs” more help.

Aiding people based on their immutable characteristics (incl. gender) is the literal definition of racism/sexism/ismism
So... affirmative action is by definition racist and implies that black people are worse than white people because of their skin color and thusly need state assistance. In other words, repealing this legislation can ONLY lead to more isms in California. Which is what they’re supposed to be fighting against by repealing it.

That’s one major argument against affirmative action. And a valid point- but it also depends on how it is used etc. For example- when a specific group is deprived something- say for instance that all the Norwegian kids in a school weren’t allowed to take summer school because the principal hated Norwegians- giving those kids tutoring isn’t exactly depriving other kids who DID have the opportunity to take summer school- it is making sure that the kids who had that taken are “made whole”

That is a principal of law- the guiding light for restitution is to do what is practical to make the victim whole again- as close as possible to if the transgression hadn’t happened. We know for a fact that certain people were treated in constitutionally- that crimes were committed and that the victims were never “made whole” by and large to where they were at a standard where such acts never occurred- or as close as possible to it.

Not being used as a method of “fighting past wrongs” though- there is still merit- namely that triage rules dictate that one direct resources to those most in need of those resources. Statistics show that certain groups are more in need than others in certain areas.

But- it’s complex. It is discrimination to set a retirement age, technically discrimination to set a drinking age of age to have guns or have sex. How does one know at what age one specific person out of 7 billion is mature or ready enough? Some people aren’t mature enough until older, some younger. If we don’t set an age for driving- but we set limits that most older people can’t meet for example- that’s TECHNICALLY not a discriminatory practice- but it IS still intended to target a group- we just aren’t saying it out loud. It still- regardless of wether it is discrimination- has the effect that one group is disproportionately effected.

We could say “well that’s life..” but people don’t say that when they are complaining about boomers or the wealthy or about politicians do they? We don’t shrug and say: “well- yeah I deserve to work this job and not have healthcare and have students loans. I made those choices that brought me here...” “Of course these people are rich. It’s just how it is. They have the prerequisites. If I can’t afford the cost of living- that’s just how it is...”

Most people don’t want to be a “token hire,” feel like or have others feel like they are only where they are because they were the right color. White people certainly don’t seem to like it when others talk about how easy white folks have it, or how they owe part of whatever success to race. So you’ll find people of all sorts on both sides of the issue- and the fact is that even if we use affirmative action “responsibly” and “judiciously” there’s always a slippery slope for what it CAN be used to do once the door is open. Most folks still don’t realize all the things the Patriot act allows- even the truly noblest of intentions can go wrong- as we watch actual hate groups use the constitution to allow their actions or see police literally murder people (manslaughter...) and get away with it thanks to well meaning and actually necessary laws designed to allow them to do their jobs in good faith... we have to remember that.

Any law passed in “good faith” in intentions and implementation opens doors for bad actors to abuse and twist it to their means. So it is VERY complex. The flaws of a largely binary system- we can’t just say “we are for these parts, against these ones, and want to see safe Baird’s like XYZ..” you take it all or you throw it back. Our government isn’t a fast food joint. If they offer a burger if ground beef and dog shit- you can’t ask for the burger hold the shit. So everyone gets to decide if they want beef bad enough to eat shit, or if they would rather go hungry for at least a year than eat shit.