CA Proposition 209 -Affirmative Action - Essay Example

Following the 1995 Supreme Court verdict controlled granting of contracts on the basis of gender and race, Clinton promised to ‘mend not end’ affirmative action. The Clinton government, in May 1995, disclosed a new strategy of granting government contracts (Frankel 435). The strategy ends ethnic/racial preferences in areas where the underprivileged are common, though, maintains them in areas where discrimination continues. Marginalized groups and other economically deprived business owners comprise of 6.

6 percent of all central government’s contracts for both goods and services. Seemingly not contended with Clinton’s suggestion, House Republicans formulated a more extensive bill to prohibit preferences in the entire federal contracts and hiring. The bill, inaugurated by discontented Democrats as the 1997 Equal Opportunity Repeal Act, endorsed the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional matters in July. The debate on affirmative action took center stage when the President promised to make advanced relationships between races/ethnic groups a top precedence in his second rule.

The Prop 209’s opponents filed a claim in 2010 in the federal court to challenge the requirements of Prop 209 by permitting the University of California to apply Affirmative Action principles in its admissions assessments, as it was applied before the endorsement of Proposition 209 in 1996. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit voted to support Proposition 209 on April 2, 2012. The similar federal appeals courts had earlier upheld the Prop 209. The claim that resulted into the April 2012 verdict had asserted that a new decision was needed by new proof demonstrating that in the years following the endorsement of Proposition 209, underprivileged admissions to California’s most esteemed universities declined.

In the wake of the approval of Proposition 209, debate persisted in the interest of or necessity for affirmative action at the colleges in California. As lately as 2010, Joe R. Hicks and David A. Lehrer who sustained Prop 209 in 1996, contended that statistics regarding racial composition of admissions at the University of California illustrated that partisan admissions actions were not essential to bring about multiplicity (Laird 133)). Whereas it is somewhat early to evaluate the long-standing impacts on women of stopping California’s affirmative action, various predictions can be drawn.

Post-secondary learning chances will possibly undergo the minimal effect; women are attending schools and graduating from colleges in huge numbers compared to their male counterparts. However, the women who are poised to suffer from this gender and race predilections are the African Americans and Latino women; because of much of institutional remains of a race other than gender discrimination. The subject of affirmative action has been vastly discordant; opponents of this proposition hold the noble-sounding oratory of color-blindness and uphold that it is incorrect for an individual to miss out on something important exclusively because of one’s race/ethnicity.