Proposition 16

Bringing Back Racial Preferences to California

"Our world is not divided by race, color, gender, or religion. Our world is divided into wise people and fools. And fools divide themselves by race, color, gender, or religion."

Mohamad Safa


Be one of the wise people. Oppose Prop 16 which seeks to remove the following from the California Constitution: "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting."

Vote for the only two serious City Council Candidates that oppose discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin; Steven Scharf & Kitty Moore.
"

I am a lifelong Democrat. I was protesting against the Vietnam war when Nixon was president. I believe in the Democratic Party Platform which states: "Democrats will always fight to end discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.”

Proposition 16, if it passes, would repeal the section of the California Constitution that states "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting." Discrimination and preferential treatment would once again be legal if Proposition 16 passes.

While Proposition 16 is a State, not a City issue, it is of deep concern to Cupertino residents because if it passes, and racial discrimination/preferential treatment is once again made legal, many of our residents will be negatively affected.

Cupertino City Council Candidates' Position on Proposition 16.

Let me unequivocally state my position: I strongly oppose Proposition 16. It is unethical, it is terrible public policy, and it will actually hurt the people that it claims to help. And I say this as a lifelong progressive Democrat. I have opposed racial discrimination ever since I was a teenager and my position has never changed.

Preferences in college admissions can legitimately be based on socio-economic considerations, differences in K-12 educational opportunities, geography, and physical or other disabilities. Using some of these criteria would increase racial diversity by default. But explicit preferences/discrimination based on race, ethnicity, color, gender, or sexual orientation, should not be made legal.

Two Cupertino City Council Candidates, Hung Wei and J.R. Fruen Explicitly Support Bringing Back Discrimination and Racial Preferences to California. These two candidates unambiguously stated their support for Proposition 16 in a candidate forum on September 16, 2020. See https://youtu.be/??????????? (sorry. I was told by the organization that conducted the forum that I could not post the link to the Youtube video of the forum nor could I disclose who conducted the forum. You can Google "Cupertino Candidate City Council Forum September 16 2020" to find it (should be the first video result), and then go to 1:22:59.  I also had a screenshot of the raised hands below, but the organization that conducted the forum requested that I remove it. Clearly there are two City Council candidates that don't want anyone to see their position on Prop 16 and keep complaining to the forum organizers that I have been publicizing it. And I should point out that nothing was taken out of context in their answers to the question regarding Proposition 16.


And shame on the forum presenters for phrasing the question in such a dishonest way and only allowing a Yes or No answer. I would have expected more transparency from this organization based on their mission. No one opposes diversity. There are many ways to achieve diversity without racial discrimination.

Affirmative Action is Still Legal in California

It's not accurate to state the Proposition 16 restores Affirmative Action in California. Affirmative Action was not made illegal by Prop 209. Affirmative Action based on socio-economic factores, based on the quality of K-12 education, based on geographic factors, etc., is still legal. What is illegal is Affirmative Action based on race, gender, or national origin.

Polling Shows Proposition 16 Failing

Fortunately polling shows that Prop 16 is doing poorly among all segments of the population, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, male, female, non-binary, White, Black, Asian, and Hispanic. See https://edsource.org/2020/california-ballot-measure-to-lift-ban-on-affirmative-action-widely-opposed-by-surveyed-voters/640237.

In the latest poll 31% of Californians are in favor of Prop 16, 47% are opposed and 22% are undecided. This is bad news for the proponents since support for any Proposition tends to fall as election day approaches, and undecideds are more likely to vote no.

My Views on Proposition 16

I have some strong personal feelings about Proposition 16, due to my background and my wife’s background. This should not be an issue that pits Whites against Blacks against Latinx against Asians. Discrimination by race is wrong no matter who it hurts or who it benefits. Labeling Prop 16 as anti-Asian is wrong, We can, and have, found better ways to increase diversity of historically underprivileged groups.The lack of factual evidence in the campaign by the proponents of Prop 16 is unacceptable.

"Optical Diversity"

The goal of Prop 16 is "optical diversity." This phrase was coined by Sheryll Cashin, law professor at Georgetown University, who, in her book Place, Not Race, pointed out that the result of affirmative action policies was “optical diversity” rather than diversity of students based on their socio-economic circumstances.

The Sad History of Race-Based Non-Admissions in the United States

In the past, the Ivy League schools used to discriminate against Jewish applicants the way they discriminate against Asian applicants now. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. You can read about this here: Harvard once capped the number of Jews. Is it doing the same thing to Asian Americans now?

When the European Jews came to America, they were mostly not college educated. They opened restaurants. They opened stores. They worked in the garment industry in sweat shops. They were determined that their children would be educated and have a better life. The children excelled in school. Academically, they qualified for admission to the finest schools. But discrimination meant that their chances of admission were small because the Ivy League schools wanted White Christian students, not "Hebrews."

The same thing occurred with the first wave of Chinese immigrants from southern China. My wife’s family was part of that wave of immigrants. Her father was in college in China when the Japanese invaded. They fled to Hong Kong and them emigrated to America when he was in his 50’s. Her father worked as a cook at Ming’s restaurant in Palo Alto, living in accommodations provided by the restaurant and going home only on days-off to see his family in San Francisco. My wife was the first of eight children to go to college.

The more recent wave of immigrants from Asia tended to be more highly-educated. They came to America and worked in, and start, high-technology companies. Their children had economic and educational opportunities that some other immigrant groups did not enjoy. They got admitted to the top universities because of their academic success.

UC and CSU Admission Statistics

I compiled a table of admissions data for UC and CSU:

 To summarize, currently, for UC:

Today, for the UC system, if admissions mirrored race, Asians would be greatly hurt, Blacks would be moderately hurt, non-Hispanic Whites would barely be affected, and Hispanic Whites would benefit greatly. If admission rates were adjusted to try to make up for past discrimination then Asians, Blacks, and Hispanic Whites would all benefit, depending on how far back you wanted to go in looking at past discrimination.

Giving some preference to those that come from economically disadvantaged families, regardless of race, is already legal and already being done. It has caused some positive changes in admission rates but not to the extent some people desire. Using economic circumstances as one factor in UC admissions is fine, as long as minimum academic standards are met. Not many people believe that admissions should be based solely on SAT scores or GPAs. In fact, non-academic factors are already being used and it is legal because it’s not raced based. There are economically disadvantaged students of all races.

The UC program that admitted a certain percentage of the top high school students from each high school, as long as they met minimum academic standards, was a good program. It should be reinstated and the percentage could be raised until diversity increases to a more acceptable level, as long as the students continue to meet some minimum level of academic qualifications. Someone with a 4.3 GPA with two AP classes would probably have as good a chance at success in UC as someone with a 4.7 GPA and five AP classes. There will still be people upset about not getting admitted to the top UCs because admissions are not solely based on GPA and test scores, but at least they will know that racial preferences were not the reason that they did not get admitted.

If you use racial preferences how do you deal with the increasing number of multi-racial students? Should an applicant be able to choose whichever race would increase his or her chances of admission? Should an applicant be required to specify which percentage of each race they are? How do you verify claims of race? Right now, an applicant’s race is whatever race they claim and there is no verification permitted.

Prop 16 doesn't address the root cause of the problem of the lack of diversity in UC and CSU admissions. To fix that you have to start much earlier than college. But addressing the root causes would require a lot more money for K-12 education and California has not been willing to properly fund education for many decades. Prop 16 is an inexpensive Band-Aid approach that does not address the root cause of systemic racism that has led to the disparity in academic achievement.

The bottom line is that Prop. 16 is bad public policy, at least when it comes to college admissions. Using racial preferences in college admissions is a dangerous path to walk down. In the past it’s been used to discriminate both against, and in favor, of minorities. Given what has transpired in the U.S., after the murder of George Floyd, reducing Black admissions to UC, which Prop 16 would likely lead to if admission rates were aligned by race with the number of high-school graduates, is a bad idea. I doubt if many people even know what the admission rates by race, compared to the number of high-school graduates by race, actually are.

One proposal for college admissions has been a lottery system. There would be a minimum SAT or ACT score, and a minimum GPA for each institution, and then there would be a lottery. This would put a lot of the after-school cram schools out of business. No more paying someone to write essays either. With the temporary elimination of consideration of SAT and ACT scores in admissions, and if Prop 16 passes, a lottery may be the only practical solution. Weighted and adjusted GPAs would still be used and admissions offices already look at the classes offered by a high school as well as the quality of a high school. AP classes and grades, and AP test scores, will become increasingly important for admission to the top-tier schools as a substitute for SAT and ACT scores.

We need to look at the big picture and not create more racial tension. When Proposition 209 passed it was because of discrimination against Whites had been legitimized. Even though the reason for racial preferences and quotas was to address historic and systemic discrimination, people didn’t think that that was the right way to solve the problem. Long term, we have to address the systemic racism, part of which is economic, that is the root cause of these disparities.

It's a reasonable goal to try to increase diversity in the UC and CSU systems, but using racial preferences is a dangerous path to walk down. In the past racial, religious, and ethnic preferences have been used to discriminate both against, and in favor, of different groups.

Proposition 16 doesn't address the root cause of the lack of diversity. To address the root causes, you have to start much earlier than college, but that would require a lot more spending on education, something the State of California is unwilling and unable to do.

Looking at the Proposition 16 position of candidates for State and local office is very important. In Cupertino, two out of four of the serious candidates are opposed to Proposition 16 (myself and Kitty Moore). Two of the candidates are in favor or Proposition 16 and have been endorsed by entities that have come out in support of Proposition 16.

Proposition 16 is an important California issue, that affects residents of every part of the State. City, County, and State candidates need to be held accountable for their positions on this issue.

Proudly NOT Endorsed or Funded by the Developer-Controlled Cupertino Chamber of Commerce and San Jose Mercury News, Special Interest Groups, or WIMBYs!

Steven Scharf for Cupertino City Council 2020 FPPC ID #1388099