《舊金山紀事報》社論：加州應該重新考慮對平權法案的禁令

点击上方蓝字可以订阅哦

自1996年加州通過第209號法案以來，加州成為全美僅有的8個禁止平權法案的州，20多年來默許和縱容了在公共合同，公務員和公共教育領域對女性和有色人種的歧視。

加州“機會均等聯盟”（The Opportunity for All Coalition），在3月10日發布了ACA5議案，旨在廢除這項過時的209號法案。詳見：廢除209號法案，“ACA5议案”重磅發布！平權法案或將重回加州

以下是舊金山紀事報針對解除加州對平權法案的禁令的社論：

Nearly a quarter of a century ago, California voters passed the deceptively named California Civil Rights Initiative. But Proposition 209 was not about advancing civil rights. It was about prohibiting the consideration of race and gender in public education, employment and contracting.

大約四分之一世紀之前（1996年），加州的選民通過了壹項名稱極具欺騙性的法案，即“加州民權行動”。但是，這項加州第209號法案實際上卻與推進公民權利沒有任何關系，它實際上是禁止加州在公共教育，公務員招聘和公共合同簽約中考慮種族和性別因素。

Here is the key point: It was not about eliminating all preferences in college admissions, construction projects and other state and local endeavors. It was effectively targeted only at programs that could provide opportunity to women and people of color who are historically underrepresented in those taxpayer-supported roles. Its elimination of affirmative action was sold to voters as a way to restore fairness and reward meritocracy.

這裏是關鍵點：209號法案不是說真的就能消除所有公共合同，公共就業和教育領域對種族和性別的偏好，它是非常有效的專門針對（禁止）那些給歷史上代表性不足的女性和有色人種提供機會的項目，這些項目也都在所有納稅人共同支撐的領域。209號法案禁止這些項目，當時兜售給選民的理由是，這是恢復公平和獎勵精英階層的方式。

In doing so, it overlooked myriad entrenched practices that skew the odds against women and minorities. It did not prohibit universities from taking into consideration an applicant’s alumni parents, geographic balance or proficiency in sports, music or other skills that enrich the campus atmosphere but have nothing to do with academic potential. It did not prevent cities and counties from giving bidding preference to local businesses or elected officials from drawing up a request for a proposal that advantage their buddies or campaign contributors.

209號法案忽略了讓女性和少數族裔陷入困境的各種根深蒂固的社會和歷史原因。

實施20多年來，加州209法案沒有禁止大學錄取時對那些校友父母因素的考慮，也沒有禁止大學對地理多樣化的平衡，或有運動、音樂或其他特長的因素的考慮，這些因素都跟學生的學術潛能沒有關系。

209法案也從沒有阻止過市和縣政府對本地企業競標優先權的考慮，更沒有阻止過民選的政府官員出臺壹個有利於自己的競選捐助者或同盟的法案。

It was just about shutting the door on efforts to overcome those institutional barriers to the full participation of women and minorities.

這個法案就僅僅是關閉了女性和少數族裔想要努力克服他們參與性不足的體制性障礙的大門。

It was wrong in 1996, when it was passed by 55% of California voters, and it is wrong now.

這項法案在1996年被55%的加州選民通過時就是錯誤的，現在也仍是錯誤的。

It should be repealed.

加州第209號法案應該被廢除。

 1995年10月，加州伯克利大學學生在集會中對平權法案的支持。圖片來自舊金山紀事報，版權屬於原作者Andy kuno.

Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, D-San Diego, has taken a step in that direction with the introduction of ACA5, the California Act for Economic Prosperity. The state constitutional amendment would require the approval of two-thirds of members of both the Assembly and Senate to reach the November ballot — where it could pass with a simple majority.

2020年3月，通過發布“ACA5”議案（全稱是眾議院憲法修改5號案），又稱《加州經濟繁榮法》，加州聖地亞哥女議員雪莉·韋伯（Shirley Weber）為朝著廢除209號法案的方向邁進了壹步。ACA5議案作為州憲法修正案，將需要獲得州眾議院和參議院三分之二的多數席位，才能進行11月的投票，屆時就只需多數票通過即可。

“ACA5”議案發布現場

If it were to reach the ballot, Weber’s measure would be decided in a much different political climate than Proposition 209 encountered when it was championed by businessman and former UC Regent Ward Connerly in 1996. Republican voter registration, 36.4% then, has sunk to 23.9%. The measure also had a big booster in Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, who had been positioning for a presidential run.

如果ACA5議案能夠進入11月份的投票，韋伯議員的措施將面臨與1996年時加州通過第209號提案時完全不同的政治氣氛。

1996年時的209號議案是由商人、原加州大學董事會董事沃德·康納利（Ward Connerly）提出的，當時的共和黨選民登記率為36.4％，如今已降至23.9 ％。這項措施對時任共和黨州長皮特·威爾遜（Pete Wilson）起到了很大的推動作用，後者一直在準備競選總統。

California’s demographics also have changed significantly since 1996, when whites were a majority. Today, more than half of the state’s residents are either Latino, Asian American or African American.

自1996年以來，加州的人口統計數據也發生了深刻的重大變化，當時，白人占加州的大多數。今天，加州超過一半的居民是拉丁美洲人，亞裔美國人或非裔美國人。

Also, the college admissions scandal showed the world that affirmative action is alive and well for unqualified students whose wealthy parents have the means and the schemes to cheat their way into elite schools.

此外，近年來爆出的各種大學錄取醜聞也已向全世界表明，我們仍舊需要平權法案。因為那些本身資質不夠的學生，總能靠著富有的父母用各種方法乃至欺騙手段將他們送進精英大學。

更多相關文章，請點擊：