IntroductionIt has been said that Californias 1996 Proposition 209 is misleading. It can also be said that it is discriminating to women and minorities. Proposition 209 was passed on November, 5 1996 but has not taken effect since the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional in February 1997. BodyAs I stated before, Proposition 209 was passed in 1996 by California voters. It was passed by a margin of 56% to 46% but was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1997 and has not taken effect.
There are many loop-holes in Proposition 209. One, for instance, is the title on the ballot: Prohibition Against Discrimination and Preferable Treatment. The proposed amendment would actually make sexual and racial discrimination more legal while attracting voters at the poll with its loosely written title. What Proposition 209 really does is end affirmative action outreach programs for women and minorities in government jobs and contracts, bans courts from ordering affirmative action remedies in the case of racial or sexual discrimination, and scraps math and science programs for girls. The proposed amendment is worded so carefully that it would persuade the average reader to vote for it, thinking they were voting against discrimination, while they were voting against discrimination programs.
Proposition 209 hurts Californians in several ways. It would prohibit many outreach programs for women and minorities. Prohibiting outreach programs for women in any state would cause a decline in the economy, but also the prohibition of minority outreach programs in the state of California, a state with an almosthalf-hispanic population, would definitely be hurt by this amendment. Non-English speaking residents would have a much harder time finding work. There are 12 million Mexican American people in the U.
S. , most of them in California, and most of them speak Spanish. (The Mexicans) California, the worlds leading agricultural economy, provides much work that is available for even non-English speakers. The non-English speaking residents, mostly Spanish speaking, would have a harder time finding work without these outreach programs, which would cause a decline in production on farms. Proposition 209 is also unconstitutional.
If the supporters of Prop 209 can win in California, expect the next fight in Congress! (NO! on 209 FAQs) It singles out women and minorities. It outlaws preferable treatment on race and sex. 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. (NO! on 209 FAQs) Preferable treatment would be legal, however, on things such as age, or military status. My opinion on Proposition 209 is that it is wrong, morally and constitutionally. It allows the government of California to discriminate against people upon hiring them according to sex and ethnic background, and it terminates organizations that are made to help groups of people seeking for work. Prop. 209 will end up hurting Californias economy.
There are too many people affected by this proposed amendment and it could cause a shortage of jobs as well as the hiring of unqualified people. If there should be any type of discriminating, it should be against illegal aliens, which will save the most grief for California. By making laws that affect a variety of people fitting the description of a typical immigrant, things will only get more complicated, but by making laws that affect only illegal aliens, then it would save a lot of problems.Words/ Pages : 577 / 24