https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/...r-the-law/amp/
So California introduced an amendment I assume to their state constitution against racial discrimination. They have just repealed this law that gave equal protections to all races.Here are some unexpected developments: In Mississippi, Republicans have decided to excise the Confederate flag; in California, Democrats have decided to legalize racial discrimination.
Who had that on their 2020 bingo card?
I feel that National Review is correct when it links this to racial clientelism. As I understand it, the California legislature has repealed this amendment that banned racial discrimination by the state in public employment, education or contracting. There is of course sex, nationality, colour etc as well there.In 1996, California voters by a substantial margin enacted a constitutional amendment reading: “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.” The Democrat-run state legislature has just voted to repeal that amendment.
Racial clientelism to me, is where something, for example a political party, panders to an exclusive section of the population. So surprise surprise, politician does something to get votes.
It is most likely to attract votes from the state’s minority black and latino population, at the calculated expense I suspect of the state’s white, asian, and probably Jewish population too. In doing so, they have sold out any principles they may have had against racial discrimination and inequality.
I say this because as the article implies, University admissions could be a big issue here. Now that discrimination is legal, education institutions can now presumably discriminate against Asians, whites and Jews, in favour of under represented blacks and latinos (don’t get me started on why hispanics are actually just iberian whites). This is unjust, and will exacerbate racial tensions in the state and in the country as the government plays favourites with it’s chosen ethnic groups.
I don’t feel the need to outline why racial discrimination especially in education is wrong, yet, but I will if someone actually argues against that position.
The article outlines that affirmative action for University admission is a form of patronage, which I guess can be considered to be true. Again, it’s this idea of the state favouring, or being the patron of some groups and not others in exchange for electoral support they think they will get out of it.
The recent events surrounding racism issues have no doubt contributed to this, but repealing racial equality is a huge over correction.
Lastly, at the start of July they banned discrimination based on ‘natural hair’. Obviously, this is about pandering for African American votes. I actually think that could be a good idea, after all it’s perfectly plausible that a racist would enforce a strict hair code if they wanted an excuse not to hire blacks.
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...html?_amp=true
By the way, cornrows and braids are obviously not natural hair, so I don’t support those parts of the bill. But afros and nappy hair - be my guest.Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday signed a bill into law that legally protects people in workplaces and K-12 public schools from discrimination based on their natural hair. The new law, which takes effect Jan. 1, prohibits the enforcement of grooming policies that disproportionately affect people of color, particularly black people. This includes bans on certain styles, such as Afros, braids, twists, cornrows and dreadlocks — or locs for short.
My concern is that they do not actually care about equality, and just want money and power. It’s a virtuous deed for an evil cause.
I personally lament this development. Post below what you think about the Californian senate’s decision.