SCA-5 Dead (for now..this year…)….Don’t let the Hernandez/senate bring it up in 2016…

[Coronita]

It’s dead for this year…. Good…

But not great..

Let’s make sure it’s really dead for good….

And let’s vote out the aholes that even passed this in the senate…Especially Ted Lieu who is now back peddling….

http://www.scpr.org/blogs/multiamerican/2014/03/17/16109/affirmative-action-bill-sca-5-dead-for-the-year/

A legislative plan to ask California voters whether they want affirmative action reinstated at public universities is not going forward this year.

Assembly Speaker John Pérez on Monday returned SCA 5 — short for Senate Constitutional Amendment 5 — back to the Senate without an Assembly vote required to get the question placed on the November ballot.

Pérez said he decided not to put SCA 5 to a vote at the request of the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Ed Hernandez, D-West Covina. Hernandez’s office said he’s more focused on getting the measure on the 2016 ballot.

During a press briefing in Sacramento, Pérez said both Democratic-controlled houses of the California legislature believe in promoting access to public universities for all students, but that “level of support does not exist” for SCA 5, which would have needed a two-thirds vote to move onto the state ballot.

Pérez and Senate President Pro-Tem Darrell Steinberg are instead calling for a task force that will look at expanding student access to the public university system. Pérez said he and Steinberg would work over the next two weeks on crafting “language dealing with the specific charge of the task force” and who would be on it.

“It is important we engage in a very broad conversation with all interested stakeholders, with academics and with leaders of our institutions of higher education to understand where we are and where we’d like to get as a state to have the broadest access to our public university system as possible,” Pérez told reporters.

Hernandez had said the goal of his legislation was to admit more students of color from groups underrepresented on the University of California and Cal State campuses, including African-Americans, American Indians and Latinos.

But Asian-American groups are worried that allowing race-conscious recruitment and admissions would cost college placements for Asian-Americans, the most-represented racial minority of the UC freshmen class.

Organizations such as the 80-20 National Asian American P.A.C. have pressured Asian-American Assembly members to oppose SCA 5.

The Senate’s three Asian-American members had all voted for SCA 5 in late January. Under fire from SCA 5 critics, they’ve been distancing themselves from SCA 5, saying in joint statements that they were not aware of the opposition to the bill until after the vote.

One of them, Sen. Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, put out a statement Monday, praising Pérez’s decision to return the bill to the Senate.

“Without action in the Assembly, SCA 5 is dead for the year,” he said.

[Coronita]

Interesting what is going on in the bay area too…

Lol….

http://www.mercurynews.com/education/ci_25356235/chinese-americans-wooed-by-gop-over-anti-affirmative

CUPERTINO — Chinese-Americans were exhorted Sunday to redouble their opposition to the proposed California constitutional amendment that would reinstate affirmative action in public universities.

If passed by the Legislature and then by state voters, Senate Constitutional Amendment 5 would jeopardize their children’s chances of being admitted to state universities, opponents told more than 150 people gathered at a “Stop SCA 5” forum at the Cupertino Community Center.

“It would be a serious mistake to let the Latino caucus secure the vote of all Democrats,” said Ward Connerly, author of Proposition 209, which SCA 5 would overturn. Connerly’s proposition outlawed consideration of race in University of California and California State University admissions. He called SCA 5 “a violation of all democratic principles.”

Frank Lee, of the conservative Pacific Justice Institute, said, “No student should be favored or degraded because of race.” He vowed that the institute would sue if the initiative passed.

Proponents have said that SCA 5 would simply allow admissions officers to consider applicants’ race.

The controversial anti-affirmative-action activist and former University of California regent, dismissed that claim.

“I guarantee you the number of Asians will be diminished and the number of Latinos will be increased” if SCA 5 passes, said Connerly. “That’s the whole objective.”

MANY DIRE WARNINGS

Besides rallying opposition to the bill, Sunday’s forum sponsored by the San Francisco-based Chinese-American Institute for Empowerment also served to drum up votes for local Republican candidates and contributions to GOP candidates elsewhere.

Sensing the potential political gain in this issue, the top GOP leaders of both chambers addressed the session, which was conducted in Mandarin and English.

Senate Minority Leader Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar, warned that the bill could also restrict parent choice in K-12 schools, by influencing admission to charter schools, what he called laboratories of innovation.

SCA 5 “takes away the incentive,” said Assembly Minority Leader Connie Conway, R-Visalia. “Why work hard when that hard work will not be rewarded?”

She urged participants not to relent on their pressure, even if the bill is set aside. “It’s like at the grocery store. Once it’s on the shelf, it is always for sale.”

With five Asian-American legislators under heavy pressure from Chinese-American parents, the bill’s passage in the Assembly isn’t certain. In addition, three Asian-American senators who supported the bill have changed their minds and asked Assembly Speaker John Perez to halt it.

Lee urged against compromise.

MORE SELECTIVITY

The safeguard against SCA 5 ever passing is to diminish the Democrats’ legislative majority, said Mei Mei Ho, president of a Los Angeles County GOP group. Republican legislators oppose SCA 5. She suggested Silicon Valley Chinese-Americans “adopt” GOP candidates — sending them contributions — in the Central Valley and Southern California swing districts.

In 1996, Proposition 209 passed with support of 61 percent of Asian-American voters. But since then, the Asian-American population has swelled, in part from wealthy immigrants to Silicon Valley who have a starkly different history from Asians descended from immigrant laborers of the early 20th century.

And admissions have become more selective at elite colleges, including UC’s Berkeley and Los Angeles campuses, which many immigrant Asians perceive as the most desirable UCs.

Three years ago, Professor William Jiang of San Jose State University said he found that Asian-American applicants needed to score 400 points higher on the SAT test in order to be offered a slot at an Ivy League college.

If Democrats don’t watch out, affirmative action could do for them what Proposition 187 did for Republicans in 1994, warned Shichang Miao of Foster City. The anti-illegal immigration proposition, which was passed by voters then invalidated by the courts, alienated Latinos from the Republican Party for a generation.

[Coronita]

Note:

[quote]

Pérez said he decided not to put SCA 5 to a vote at the request of the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Ed Hernandez, D-West Covina. Hernandez’s office said he’s more focused on getting the measure on the 2016 ballot.

[/quote]

Hernandez plans on bringing this up again on the 2016 ballot. Two years… to make sure it doesn’t happen….

[an]

That’s good to hear.

[Anonymous]

I think you guys are making way too big a deal out of this. Although in general I am against affirmative action if it means putting less qualified people in positions in place of more qualified, I don’t necessarily feel that way when it comes to our public universities.

Fact is, these are tax payer subsidized institutions funded by all Cal tax payers. If, for example, only 10% of the population is Asian but 50% of the student body is Asian, THAT IS A PROBLEM. So what if an Asian student gets beat out by a black student with a slightly lower SAT score. As long as there are minimal standards maintained I don’t have a problem with that.

It is common sense that a state university should strive to have a demographic at least partially in line with the state demographic. The entire purpose of a public school is to provide a service by educating state residents. Ther eis no law that says they have to admit only kids with the highest SAT scores.

College educationis highly overrated in the first place but that is a completely different debate.

[Coronita]

[quote=deadzone]I think you guys are making way too big a deal out of this. Although in general I am against affirmative action if it means putting less qualified people in positions in place of more qualified, I don’t necessarily feel that way when it comes to our public universities.

Fact is, these are tax payer subsidized institutions funded by all Cal tax payers. If, for example, only 10% of the population is Asian but 50% of the student body is Asian, THAT IS A PROBLEM. So what if an Asian student gets beat out by a black student with a slightly lower SAT score. As long as there are minimal standards maintained I don’t have a problem with that.

It is common sense that a state university should strive to have a demographic at least partially in line with the state demographic. The entire purpose of a public school is to provide a service by educating state residents. Ther eis no law that says they have to admit only kids with the highest SAT scores.

College educationis highly overrated in the first place but that is a completely different debate.[/quote]

Uh, whatever.

I think the problem is that asians don’t make a big deal out of most things, and that’s exactly why asians are in the predicament that they are in right now of consistently getting in the nuts…well, at least until now….. That’s the problem.

As far as equal opportunity..Well, considering that America has made history, with first the African American President of the U.S, I think this remarkable achievement has demonstrated one thing…We have evolved beyond classifying “disadvantaged people” because of race or skin color… This is the 21st century, afterall…Doing so, screams nothing more than racism and sterotypes.

[an]

[quote=deadzone]I think you guys are making way too big a deal out of this. Although in general I am against affirmative action if it means putting less qualified people in positions in place of more qualified, I don’t necessarily feel that way when it comes to our public universities.

Fact is, these are tax payer subsidized institutions funded by all Cal tax payers. If, for example, only 10% of the population is Asian but 50% of the student body is Asian, THAT IS A PROBLEM. So what if an Asian student gets beat out by a black student with a slightly lower SAT score. As long as there are minimal standards maintained I don’t have a problem with that.

It is common sense that a state university should strive to have a demographic at least partially in line with the state demographic. The entire purpose of a public school is to provide a service by educating state residents. Ther eis no law that says they have to admit only kids with the highest SAT scores.

College educationis highly overrated in the first place but that is a completely different debate.[/quote]Why did you say slight? What make you think it’s slight? What if it’s drastic? Would you still stand by your argument? Last I check, discrimination is discrimination, regardless of how slight it is. Why should race even be considered? I’m a tax payer, why should my tax dollar go subsidize a less qualified candidate? Can we use the same logic in the private sector?

[joec]

The fact of the matter I feel is that a lot of people actually don’t like asians taking up all the UC slots, buying up all the houses, moving into “MY” area, vacationing and being rude/loud/obnoxious/etc, and simply don’t want more of these types of people around.

It’s just natural human nature IMO to be around people similar/like you. Everyone’s a little racist as much as we’d like to think we aren’t (I claim that I am however)…

At the end, if the law won’t hurt you, some people would just say, what’s the big deal? People are selfish like that even though it may not be right…

However, once it hurts their situation, they’ll then scream bloody murder and say how unfair it is.

Glad this is gone for now…If the black/hispanic person wants to get into the top UC, maybe instead of studying, they spent their time playing sports. Use that or any other things they were spending on Kumon math and playing the Piano/Violin to round out their application compared to the 2000 other asian guy/girl who got 2300 on his/her SATs. The system already does that.

Also, when I checked this Sunday Union Tribune paper, why is ALL the starting SDSU basketball players black? That’s just not fair and we need to have at least some hispanic/asians/WHITIES in there too. How badly can it hurt? Just 1 other race person (20%) and we all know the san diego area isn’t 100% black…

Let’s vote for affirmative action and use race for athletics as well so my son has a chance to play college bball and my daughter can star in the swim team.

You see how stupid this starts to become now?

[ocrenter]

[quote=deadzone]
It is common sense that a state university should strive to have a demographic at least partially in line with the state demographic. The entire purpose of a public school is to provide a service by educating state residents. Ther eis no law that says they have to admit only kids with the highest SAT scores.
[/quote]

I would agree it would be nice, just like communism as a “concept” is nice, but doesn’t really work in the real world.

please remember SCA5 and any other affirmative action plans backfire and end up hurting the disadvantaged minority student.

In UC Berkeley, after passage of prop 209, Hispanic graduation rate went from 60% to 85%.

So again, why would you create an artificial mismatch that would guarantee a promising Hispanic student’s eventual drop out??????

Why would you support a policy that would do that?

Why do you hate Hispanics students so much? Why would you want to create more Hispanic drop outs? Why do you want to keep them down?

Or are you just like Pol Pot, who would massacre millions of Cambodians in the name of progress for the Cambodian people.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=ocrenter]
I would agree it would be nice, just like communism as a “concept” is nice, but doesn’t really work in the real world.

please remember SCA5 and any other affirmative action plans backfire and end up hurting the disadvantaged minority student.

In UC Berkeley, after passage of prop 209, Hispanic graduation rate went from 60% to 85%.

So again, why would you create an artificial mismatch that would guarantee a promising Hispanic student’s eventual drop out??????

Why would you support a policy that would do that?

Why do you hate Hispanics students so much? Why would you want to create more Hispanic drop outs? Why do you want to keep them down?

Or are you just like Pol Pot, who would massacre millions of Cambodians in the name of progress for the Cambodian people.[/quote]

Long statement full of false equivalences.

Graduation rates don’t matter as much as total number of graduates.

If you don’t let a student enter school, then that student is not promising to begin with.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=AN] Can we use the same logic in the private sector?[/quote]

Actually, hiring and admission in the private sector is a lot more opaque.

For instance, the UC has to account for its admission standards. Compare that to the ivy league where they don’t feel as much pressure to admit students with the highest scores. If I recall Asians are only about 13% at the Ivy league.

As society becomes more complex, more standards, rules and procedures are introduced. Academic standards or exam results become objective measures of merit. That’s worrying parents whose kids don’t do well academically.

[Coronita]

Well I’m personally glad it seems more people are beginning to see the bigger problem… You know things are really starting to get weird when joec, AN, FLU, ocrenter start having the same viewpoint….

I’m more concerned that our wacked politicians are simply deferring the issue, post election….You know, counting on the fact that with this “deferred”, they can try a run at it again after elections… making the big assumption/gamble that asians won’t turn out to vote out these jerks out of office……Which you can interpret to be the most insulting thing, thinking they can try to kick around this issue again…

Afterall, they aren’t “killing” it… Hernandez simply mentioned it would be back for reconsideration in 2016…

In other words, we have work to do to make sure it can’t possibly come up again in the state senate….I think this is where it’s time to throw money at the problem and time and resources…. And make sure it’s DOA…

Really happy silicon valley is just as stirred up about this… because that’s where I think possibly we can get a lot of traction from some heavyweights.

[ocrenter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
Long statement full of false equivalences.

Graduation rates don’t matter as much as total number of graduates.

If you don’t let a student enter school, then that student is not promising to begin with.[/quote]

You can’t be more wrong with the above statement.

First, students are STILL going to enter school. The question here is you want students meant for lower tier UC to go to higher tier UC. While promoting students meant for CSU to lower tier UC. And bump up CC students into CSU.

So let’s take 100 Hispanic students. And you create mismatch for all 100 of them, which lead to a 40% dropout rate, which means 60 of them go on and be productive citizens while 40 of them are dropouts no better than high school grads. That is better than making sure ALL 100 Hispanic students ALL getting into the RIGHT school evironment for them, which lead to 85 of them going on and be productive and only 15 dropping out?

What are you smoking Brian???

[FlyerInHi]

There is no link that some admission accommodations (how much has not even been determined) for lower academic scores lead to higher drop out rates and ruined lives. Again, compare to the Ivy league.

You’re making a link that is not based on facts. Pointing back prior to Prop 209 is not valid either because things have changed.

your communism and pol pot argument is just reductio ad hitlerum

[an]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=AN] Can we use the same logic in the private sector?[/quote]

Actually, hiring and admission in the private sector is a lot more opaque.

For instance, the UC has to account for its admission standards. Compare that to the ivy league where they don’t feel as much pressure to admit students with the highest scores. If I recall Asians are only about 13% at the Ivy league.

As society becomes more complex, more standards, rules and procedures are introduced. Academic standards or exam results become objective measures of merit. That’s worrying parents whose kids don’t do well academically.[/quote]This is not about opaqueness. It’s about overt and transparent discrimination. I’m pretty sure if a private company say, we take race into consideration when we’re hiring, they will be sued until they will no longer do that.

[Author]

Posts