华人关注政治，不管站在哪一边，都是值得肯定的事。不过，在决定支持什么，肯定什么之前，最好搞清楚是怎么回事。大家先看看SCAS-5是怎么说的，注意，里面没有提“亚裔”：
BILL NUMBER: SCA 5 INTRODUCED
BILL TEXT
INTRODUCED BY Senator Hernandez
DECEMBER 3, 2012
A resolution to propose to the people of the State of California
an amendment to the Constitution of the State, by amending Section 31
of Article I thereof, relating to public postsecondary education.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SCA 5, as introduced, Hernandez. Public postsecondary education:
student recruitment and selection.
The California Constitution prohibits the state from
discriminating against, or granting 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.
This measure would provide that the above prohibition does not
prevent state institutions of higher education, as defined, from
implementing student recruitment and selection programs permissible
under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the United
States Constitution.
Vote: 2/3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
Resolved by the Senate, the Assembly concurring, That the
Legislature of the State of California at its 2013-14 Regular Session
commencing on the third day of December 2012, two-thirds of the
membership of each house concurring, hereby proposes to the people of
the State of California, that the Constitution of the State be
amended as follows:
That Section 31 of Article I thereof is amended to read:
SEC. 31. (a) 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.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), this section does not prevent
state institutions of higher education from implementing student
recruitment and selection programs that are permissible under the
equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution.
(b)
(c) This section shall apply only to action taken after
the section's effective date.
(c) Nothing in this
(d) This section shall not
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.
(d) Nothing in this
(e) This section shall not
be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent
decree which that is in force as of the
effective date of this section.
(e) Nothing in this
(f) This section shall not
be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to
establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program,
where if ineligibility would result in a loss of
federal funds to the State.
(f)
(g) (1) For the purposes of this
section, "State" shall include, but not necessarily be limited to,
the State itself, any city, county, city and county, public
university system, including the University of California, community
college district, school district, special district, or any other
political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within
the State.
(2) For the purposes of this section, "state institutions of
higher education" shall mean: (A) the California Community Colleges;
(B) the California State University, and each campus, branch, and
function thereof; and (C) each campus, branch, and function of the
University of California.
(g)
(h) The remedies available for violations of this
section shall be the same, regardless of the injured party's race,
sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available
for violations of then-existing California antidiscrimination law.
(h)
(i) This section shall be self-executing. If any part
or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with federal law
or the United States Constitution, the section shall be implemented
to the maximum extent that federal law and the United States
Constitution permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable
from the remaining portions of this section.
虽然没有提亚裔，可是还是跟亚裔有很大的关系，怎么回事呢？请看下面的报道：
California Lawmakers Consider Putting Affirmative Action On November's Ballot
Published January 31, 2014Fox News
The fight over affirmative action in California's higher education system is coming back.
Under a proposed constitutional amendment that passed the Senate on Thursday, voters would reconsider affirmative action programs at the University of California and California State University systems on the November ballot. SCA5 would remove certain prohibitions in place since 1996, when voters approved Proposition 209.
That initiative made California the first state to ban the use of race and ethnicity in public university admissions, as well as state hiring and contracting.
The amendment under consideration in the Legislature would delete provisions in Proposition 209 that prohibit the state from giving preferential treatment in public education to individuals and groups based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.
"A blanket prohibition on consideration of race was a mistake in 1996, and we are still suffering the consequences from that initiative today," said Sen. Ed Hernandez, D-Covina, who carried the measure. "You cannot address inequality by refusing to acknowledge it."
The proposed amendment does not mandate an affirmative action program or set a quota, Hernandez said. It also applies only to education and not employment.
Hernandez joined other Democrats in arguing that recruitment of minorities has slipped at the UC and CSU systems because of the affirmative action ban.
The state has seen a sharp drop in the proportion of blacks and Latinos at the system's most competitive campuses, particularly UC Berkeley and UCLA, in the years since votes approved Proposition 209.
However, while blacks and Latinos remain underrepresented, especially in the UC system, Asians dominate admissions at the UC's most prestigious campuses and are enrolled in numbers far greater than their proportion of California's population.
Whites also are underrepresented in the UC system, according to state population and university figures.
UC's 2013 freshman class was 36 percent Asian, 28.1 percent white, 27.6 percent Latino and 4.2 percent black, according to UC data. The representation of Asians was more than double their share of California's total population. At some campuses, including UC San Diego and UC Irvine, Asians account for more than 45 percent of admitted freshmen this year.
California also has undergone a tremendous shift since voters passed Proposition 209 nearly two decades ago. Latinos overtook whites this year as California's dominant group, and there is no majority racial or ethnic population in the state.
Republican lawmakers oppose the proposed amendment and blame the drop-off on poor performance by K-12 schools.
"This bill, the unintended consequence is that it actually allows our public schools to use race and gender and others to discriminate against students," said Senate Minority Leader Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar. "Is that really where we want to go?"
The measure passed on a party-line, 27-9 vote and now goes to the Assembly, which also is dominated by Democrats.
" rop. 209 creates a barrier for people of color to access higher education," said Sen. Ben Hueso, D-San Diego. "With these prohibitions we have seen a stark reduction in access to higher education by people of color."
Back in 2012, University of California leaders supported lifting the ban when they filed a friend of the court brief while the U.S. Supreme Court was considering a challenge to the University of Texas' consideration of race in undergraduate admissions.
Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, vetoed a similar bill by Hernandez in 2011, saying that while he agreed with the bill's goal, the courts should decide the limits of Proposition 209. The Legislature can put a constitutional amendment before voters without the governor's support.
After California outlawed affirmative action, voters in Arizona, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Washington state and Nebraska approved similar bans with similar results.
"We need to ensure that the students reflect our changing population," said Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens.
Sen. Joel Anderson, R-Alpine, said the state should instead limit admissions of university students from other nations to create more room for California children.
"It doesn't create more space in our colleges and universities," Anderson said of SCA5. "It just rearranges the chairs on the Titanic."
Based on reporting by The Associated Press.
Affirmative Action 要求政府在就业，项目投标等等方面禁止因为人种，肤色，性别等方面的歧视，以保护少数族裔和妇女的权益；目的是给少数族裔和妇女更多的机会，减少白人控制一切的可能。初衷是要求同等条件下，优先考虑少数族裔和妇女，实际操作时，困难重重；最后，就出现了按百分比的硬性规定，造成逆歧视，及对白人的要求提高了，可是许多不怎么合格的少数族裔却得到了照顾。
后来，加州举行全民公投，决定废除affirmative action 的硬性规定，不再给少数族裔特殊照顾，导致大学入学的亚裔人数激增 --- 因为许多亚裔以考试为学习目的，分数很高，白人和黑人的人数却下降了。至于亚裔在政府部门的人数是增加了，还是减少了，就不知道了--- 没有“平权法案”，人力资源的人可以以任何原因，比如把发音不准，说成不善于沟通，而拒绝录用。还有，亚裔的入学人数激增，是不是由于中国的自费留学生激增的缘故，我们也不清楚。
政府的资源使用，不能造成某一部分人控制社会的后果，它的政策希望反应社会的要求。 可是，不管怎么做，总会对有些人有利，而对另外一些人不利。
对于回复“平权法案”，是反对还是支持，应该在考虑自己的切身利益的同时，也要考虑社会的长远利益。
在个人层面，如果你是高收入人群，或者你的孩子成绩很优秀，无论如何，法案都不会影响到你；如果你是中等以下的收入，或者你的孩子考试成绩一般，回复“平权法案”，将对你有利；在现有的法案下，如果你的孩子不会考试，但是，他的情商很高，为人，处事都很优秀，可是因为考试成绩不好，你的孩子根本就进不了稍好的学校。
“平权法案” 有许多正面的例子。最著名的例子，是鲍温尔将军。他考试成绩一般，差一点进不了大学，可是因为“平权法案”，他上了大学，造就了辉煌的事业，成为杰出的上将，后来又荣任国务卿。
从社会的长远后果考虑，允许某一个族裔占有更多的社会资源是不可能的。就像作为多数人口的白人，不被允许控制社会资源一样；或者说，像民主投票是每人一票，而不是看收入的高低来决定票数的多寡 --- 凡是涉及到使用公共资源的地方，民选的官员，都会要求按照社会上人口的比例来决定资源分配。
“平权法案”有一定的积极作用，给考试成绩不高不低的人，提供了改变自己命运和为社会作出更多贡献的机会。Devil is in the details! 怎样操作，才不至于产生负面效果，才是问题的关键。 |
匿名
发表于 2014-2-22 08:30:32
发表于 2014-2-22 02:13:43