FAQ's about California Votes NO on 209 Additional resources against Proposition 209 Impact of Proposition 209 on different groups
Affirmative action refers to programs that seek to remedy persistent and ongoing discrimination against women, minorities, and others by increasing the recruitment, promotion, retention, and on-the-job training opportunities in employment and by removing barriers to admission to educational institutions. Because of the long history of discrimination based on sex and race, most affirmative action programs have been directed towards improving employment and education opportunities for women and minorities.
Affirmative action strategies include expanding the pool of job or admission applicants through recruitment strategies which reach outside of usual or traditional channels. This helps to ensure that a fairer representation of qualified women and minorities are available to apply for admission or jobs. Some example are mailing admission applications to women high school seniors and posting of job notices in places where women and minorities are more likely to see them. Strategies in employment include an increase in on-the-job training opportunities that increase occupational mobility within workplaces. These strategies may be instituted by law or court decree, or voluntarily to increase the pool of qualified applicants and to diversify the workplace.
Public affirmative action programs specifically do not allow the acceptance of unqualified applicants or workers. There is a difference, however, between affirmative action instituted by law or court decree, following legal guidelines that we see in public situations and those programs that private businesses or institutions apply on a voluntary basis.
We have traditionally accepted less qualified candidates in education because it "served a greater purpose" to do so. The prime example is the preferential acceptance of children and relatives of alumni -- not women and minorities. These are the overwhelming beneficiaries of preferential treatment at colleges and universities, greater than the number of minorities and women accepted through affirmative action programs so far! The slots reserved for children of alumni are called "legacy" seats. This legacy preference in admissions has in many cases resulted in the acceptance of less qualified candidates over better qualified candidates. The legacy preferences are believed to especially benefit whites, males, and the children of wealthy alumni.
There are many examples of this preferential treatment. Children of alumni at Harvard University in 1991 were three times more likely to be accepted than other prospective students. At Yale, children of alumni are two and a half times more likely to be admitted. Dartmouth in 1991 gave admission to 57% of its legacy applicants, and only 27% of other students. Sixty-six percent of alumni children were accepted at the University of Pennsylvania. Twenty-five percent of Notre Dame's freshman class is saved for the children of alumni.
In unions and certain occupations, preferential treatment has traditionally been given to the relatives and friends of employees and management, especially at the entry level where unskilled employees receive on the job training that qualifies them for advancement.
Proposition 209 is a California ballot initiative voted on in November, 1996. It will change the constitution of the state of California. You can read the text of Proposition 209, while you learn the answers to questions about it here.
NO! Titled: "Prohibition against Discrimination and Preferential Treatment" this proposed amendment would actually open the doors to discrimination against women and minorities by ending affirmative action, and literally legalizing sex discrimination in public education, on the job and in awarding state contracts.
Because Proposition 209 does not use the phrase "affirmative action", most people do not undestand what it is really about. This means that polls referring only to the title, not the meaning of the proposition, show public support. The only reason Prop 209 is ahead in the polls is because of its deceptive title and wording. When pollsters first ask, a majority of Californians say they would vote for Prop 209. But when voters find out what Prop 209 would really do, support collapses.
Because it is loosely written, no one knows how the courts will interpret much of Proposition 209. There are a few areas, however, where we do know what it is likely to do.
According to the non-partisan California Legislative Analyst, Prop 209 would "...eliminate most affirmative action programs for women and minorities run by state or local governments..." This means Prop 209 will:
Sounds good, but "preferential treatment" is legal jargon. Prop 209 would outlaw any affirmative action program including outreach, recruitment, training, hiring, contracting and other programs to increase opportunities for women and minorities. It confuses the cure for discrimination with discrimination itself.
A critical aspect of Prop 209 is that it only prohibits actions based on gender or race. Other groups, such as veterans, relatives of others, legacies or people over 65 years old are still allowed to have preferential treatment and to seek other types of preferential treatment through legal action. The issue that preferential treatment is undesirable seems to only interest the supporters of Prop 209 when it doesn't apply to them!
Since Prop 209 prohibits legislation that benefits people based only on gender and race and not based on age, relations, veteran status, or where they went to school, women and minorities are not afforded equal protection under the law. Specifically, they can not seek new legislation to benefit them as the other groups can, without first seeking and passing a new amendment to the California Constitution to overturn Prop 209. This is a violation of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, which provides for everyone to have equal protection under the law. Women and minorities have to pass over a higher hurdle to have new legislation to benefit them compared to other groups. This preferential treatment is unconstitutional.
Clause c) reads: "Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting."
Again, sounds reasonable. But, in practice, what does this mean? According to 99 California law professors, Clause 'C' creates a constitutional right to discriminate against women and girls.
The phrase "reasonably necessary" in clause C is the critical issue here. In California, the standard against sex discrimination states that it is illegal to discriminate based on gender unless it is necessary to achieve a "compelling purpose". California has the highest standard in the nation because it is the equivalent to the Equal Rights Amendment. The standard for gender discrimination is somewhat lower in federal law (because the Equal Rights Amendment was never passed.) The "reasonably necessary" standard is lower still. If Proposition 209 is passed, clause C will allow discrimination based on gender if it is "reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education or public contracting." This is a lower standard that legal experts say is easy to prove in court and will result in women losing the EQUAL OPPORTUNITY that they currently have. Arguments that won't hold water today will be acceptable and women will not be hired or given opportunities because of perceived or possible gender issues, such as pregnancy interfering with night call.
The same people who are advocating Prop 209 want to lower the Federal standard for gender discrimination to this same "reasonably necessary" level. This would cause dramatic shifts in women's rights, as well as in funding and programs nationwide. The decision on the constitutionality of Prop 209 is critical to whether Prop 209 will be implemented. If the supporters of Prop 209 can win in California, expect the next fight in Congress!
Before the election, we encouraged everone to make sure that they are registered to vote and actually vote. We encouraged people to vote NO on 209. Now, you can discuss this with your friends, parents and other relatives, neighbors, patients, suppliers, sales people, hair dresser, tailor, grocery clerk and a hundred others. You can let them know that this Proposition is important to you, that it is misleading, and that there are reasons why Prop 209 needs to be overturned.
If you don't have time to tell others about NO on 209, you can help others spread the word. Even a small donation will help distribute literature, make phone calls, pay for ads, and get the word get out. And you can join others that oppose Proposition 209.
Over 400 diverse, community-based organizations are dedicated to defeating and reversing the November ballot initiative, Proposition 209. Several Campaigns are run with the assistance of numerous volunteers.
The so-called California Civil Right's Initiative, which is neither civil nor right, is really a deceptive attempt to constitutionalize gender discrimination and slam shut the doors of opportunity that both women and people of color have fought so hard to open. It places a hurdle to minorities and women that is not placed to others who seek legislation to benefit them. We invite you to learn the real facts and join people who have launched a campaign against this attempt to both divide our communities and jeopardize the futures of young woman and people of color.
On November 3, 1997, the US Supreme Court rejected a broad challenge to California's Proposition 209. This decision was to rule against hearing the appeal filed by the American Civil Liberites Union claiming that government sometimes has "an affirmative duty ...to employ race preferences" to make up for past or present discrimination against minorities. This sets the stage for full enforcement of Prop 209. However, since Prop 209 does not change Federal laws and since many of California's local programs get federal funding, many situations exist where Prop 209 can not be implemented. However, individual situations where past or present discrimination based on gender or race in public employment, education or contracting can still be litigated. These may wind their way up to the Supreme Court and provide a way to challenge Prop 209 in the future. /p>
The preceeding material on this page is adapted with many additions and modifications from many sources. Some of the material is used with permission from the Feminist Majority Website © 1996 (with permission from Eleanor Smeal). References are available on their site.
Some other excellent links to groups against Proposition 209 are available.
You may learn specific information about the issues:
If Proposition 209 passes in November, it will have a profound impact throughout California, affecting aspects of life and communities that are not obvious from just reading the text of the initiative. Check here to discover potential impacts on communities you care about.
Impact on the Business community
Impact on the Labor community
Impact on the Health community
Impact on the Legal community
Impact on the Latino community
Impact on the African American community
Impact on Women in Education
Impact on the Native American Community
Return to top of page 
or 
Return to California Votes NO on 209 home page
Disclaimer: This page is provided by an individual as a public service and is unrelated to any campaign. It is not run by any campaign or supported by any campaign funds. Material may be submitted by any individual, group, or campaign for inclusion on this website, however, the owner reserves the right to make all decisions regarding what material is accepted and displayed. Reasonable attempts to verify the accuracy of all material submitted will be made, however, submitted material and verifying documentation, by their electronic nature, may be inaccurate. We apologize if inadvertent errors are made and will promptly and prominently correct any inaccuracies that are identified and verified. All information, text and images, accessible on the 'noccri' website are copyright © 1996, 1997 or California Votes NO on 209 has authorization from the copyright holder.Technical problems and corrections on this site may be sent to Webmaster@ajdj.com
Last updated on May 21, 2001