SB 185 Vetoed: Jerry Brown Vetoes Affirmative Action-Like Bill

On Saturday, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed SB 185, an affirmative action-like bill that would have allowed public universities to consider factors including race, gender and ethnicity in the admissions process, according to The Daily Californian. SB 185 gained extensive public attention when the UC Berkeley group Berkeley College Republicans held an Increase Diversity Bake Sale protesting the bill.

Currently, California admissions officers are unable to consider race, gender and ethnicity due to Proposition 209, passed in 1996. SB 185 would have overruled such practices.

In a veto message, Jerry Brown explained that he agreed with the spirit of SB 185, and stated that Proposition 209 should be interpreted to allow admissions officers to consider race, gender and ethnicity, keeping within the bounds of the 14th Amendment. However, he stated that the courts should determine the limits of Prop. 209, and suggested that the passing of SB 185 would only lead to further confusion and lawsuits:

I wholeheartedly agree with the goal of this legislation...[However] Our constitutional system of separation of powers requires that the courts -- not the Legislature -- determine the limits of Proposition 209...Signing this bill is unlikely to impact how Proposition 209 is ultimately interpreted by the courts; it will just encourage the 209 advocates to file more costly and confusing lawsuits.

Upon hearing news of the veto, Berkeley College Republicans President Shawn Lewis posted an open letter on the group's website applauding Brown's decision:

On behalf of the Berkeley College Republicans, I am pleased with the governor's decision to veto this bill. SB 185 was an attempt to undermine the will of the voters who passed Proposition 209 in 1996. Indeed, a September 26 Survey USA poll showed that 77 percent of Californians opposed this specific piece of legislation. The people of California believe, as does the Berkeley College Republicans, that college admission decisions should be based on the qualifications of the applicant and the individual challenges he or she has faced, not based on his or her race. We are glad Governor Brown agrees and has chosen to respect the will of the voters.

Comments

[TheLogistician]

01:10 PM on 10/20/2011

There are many complexities associated with affirmative action programs and policies. However, one issue which we continually ignore, as is the case with most government related programs and initiatives, is whether it is effective in addressing past wrongs. Think about this: How many beneficiaries of affirmative action programs have actually shared their good fortune with other members of their particular ethnic group, as opposed to using their increased opportunities and wealth to distance themselves from the masses of minority citizens? http://tinyurl.com/3gw6lkp

[LitSpeaks]

08:53 PM on 10/11/2011

The problem is that people turn AA into just a black-white issue and ti's much more complicated. Students are more often excluded from college due to their socioeconomic status. Because blacks and Hispanics are overrepresented in lower socioeconomic classes, people only look at race. There is a difference, believe it or not, between middle class (does this still exist?) blacks and poor blacks. If you haven't completed a college app, taken SAT's, or filled out FAFSA, then you can't imagine how overwhelming just applying to college can be for students who can only get help at school. And they have to stand in line. In this sense, college entrance requirements should be adjusted to welcome the poor. For students with college educated parents, college usually starts before kindergarden does. And that is often, not always, connected to class.

[Nate35]

03:18 PM on 10/10/2011

Take family income into account instead. That will pass the means-ends test in any court and it will benefit minorities disproportionately without making ugly assumptions based on race.

[BigWillyG]

06:24 PM on 10/10/2011

You took the words out of my mouth.

[corwin]

06:54 PM on 10/10/2011

Diffidently, I have to inform you the black,and to a large part Hispanic students currently-and for the last 10 -20 years-admitted under AA are far above the median in income.(Why wouldn't they be? They're offspring of folks admitted under AA 25 years ago. ) If you take family income into ccount,you'll just bring in a higher proportion of Asian immigrants
It's not that hard. I'm surprised you didn't think of it yourself

[PirateJohn]

11:14 PM on 10/10/2011

Absolutely right. A lot of people have defended AA on the basis that there is a large disparity of incomes between races. They are, of course, correct in stating so, but the effect of AA is that middle and upper-class minorities get tremendous advantage over poverty-level whites.

[Consequence]

02:00 PM on 10/10/2011

Martin Luther King would approve of what Brown did in this case.


Or did you forget he wanted men judged not on the color of their skin, "but the content of their character."

[mothergrace]

12:24 PM on 10/10/2011

I think a lot of people are missing the point of this veto.

It wasn't because Brown is against affirmative action per se, which does have some place to redress obvious wrongs, but rather that a law such as this would be in legal trouble as it was designed to upset an initiative. Why bother with a law that would most likely be turned over after a lengthy court process?

Any changes need to be made in a different way to avoid this process.

[MrStat1]

03:28 PM on 10/10/2011

Changes to initiatives must be done by a vote of the people. This law would have immediately been challenged in court as a violation of prop 209.

[mothergrace]

05:22 PM on 10/10/2011

Yes, that is what I meant, although Prop 209 could also be challenged in court too as another way to change it.

[tainteddr34ms]

12:04 AM on 10/11/2011

In California, the legislature can make changes to passed initiatives as long as the initiative wasn't done as a constitutional amendment. Brown has a long history of supporting the will of the voters even when he disagrees. He enthusiastically defended and implemented prop 13 even though he campaigned against it as an example.

[realpragmatist]

11:41 AM on 10/10/2011

So the "diversity bake sale" at Cal was effective after all.
See students, even if you are in the minority in protesting, if you believe in something, you have use creative, non-violent ways to garner attention, let your views known and enforce supportive legislation.

[Ray Russelburg]

09:54 AM on 10/11/2011

Sure it was effective. Effective at being a racist bake sale. I wonder just how much they sold. Bet it wasn't much.

Non-violent? That could have turned violent VERY QUICKLY.

Don't fight racial descrimination by descriminating agains race yourself. I very much doubt that bake sale had anything much to do with the bill being vetoed.

[Ray Russelburg]

11:09 AM on 10/10/2011

Good thing he vetoed it. Now for the people that did that sale. If they actually charged those rates based on race, I foresee a racial descrimination lawsuit on the horizon. The end does not justify the means....

[PirateJohn]

11:17 PM on 10/10/2011

In a previous article on HuffPo, one of the protestors, or vendors or whatever, said that if a white or Asian student demanded the lower prices, they were given it. But, seriously, who haggles at a bake sale?

[Ray Russelburg]

09:50 AM on 10/11/2011

I wouldn't. In fact I wouldn't even buy anything from them for that. That is racial descimination at it's worst.

[JLau]

04:27 PM on 10/11/2011

The bake sale was definitely racist. But that was the point. It was meant to draw attention to the issue at hand. And do you really think a bake sale could very quickly turn violent?

[Desolati0n]

07:45 AM on 10/10/2011

I'm very pleased with his choice to veto the bill, you shouldn't be accepted over someone else because of the color of your skin or your gender, you should be accepted because you are more qualified than someone else.

[dudervision]

12:47 PM on 10/10/2011

On the one hand, this is the ideal. The problem is that children who grow in wealthier communities in families where there is money to pay for tutoring get a real advantage. Those schools have programs with lots of extracurricular activities and AP classes (which schools like Cal look for). Those who grow up in lower income areas go to schools that often are inferior (sometimes dramatically) and often both parents (if they have 2) must work and don't have the money to pay for extra help. It's a real problem, especially in a day of cutting school budgets (which affects those poorer districts more than the rich) and the bad economy (which has a more dramatic effect on lower income families as they don't have reserves to call back on). IF we could provide a solid K-12 education to all kids, then YES, merit only based admission would be ideal. BUT, as long as there are these inequalities, we must take more into account than just a student's performance in school. This is why if we really want to give every student an opportunity, we MUST fund K-12 education FULLY.

[Desolati0n]

07:45 AM on 10/11/2011

My girlfriend was presented with problems where she was going to a school with no AP classes, but she then transferred to my school which is about 40 minutes away, and she drives here every single day, she makes the effort to go to a better school environment, almost everyone has that opportunity. I doubt in their entire district there is just one school, and that one school doesn't have AP classes.

[Desolati0n]

07:50 AM on 10/11/2011

Not to mention, white people have those problems too. So if I am white and my best friend is black and I was born in Detroit and him in Beverly Hills, him living the good life, but he gets in because he's black and we took all of the same classes, and I worked harder than him to get my education, I would be pretty pissed.

[Danny Luong]

03:19 AM on 10/10/2011

yes, ILLEGAL can vote through people who take advantage of them (like landlord, restaurant, construction, food industry, fake ID industry...). Also most LEGAL Hispanic will vote for candidate that supports illegal aliens since they have a very strong sense of heritage over the law of our land. Don't be naive about Oh! But Illegals cannot vote.

[SoCalifTeacher]

10:43 AM on 10/10/2011

More and more Latino citizens should realize how their own children are being cheated out of a future. Cesar Chavez was against illegal aliens because they depressed wages. Latino politicians would like Latino voters to think that it is better for Latino citizens to support them and the causes of illegal aliens. Yet, monies that might go to support their children in school goes to providing extra services for illegals. $12 billion in California goes to illegal aliens. Legal Latinos still have to have health insurance, car insurance, and pay taxes like everyone else. In the end, they are being cheated like everyone else.

[Fred Taylor]

09:27 PM on 10/09/2011

Somebody needs to tell those self-congratulatory white kids that there are more Asians enrolled in the UC system than causcasians. Proposition 209 actually INCREASED Asian enrollment, and SB185 would have hurt Asians more than whites. At least get the pricing structure correct.

[corwin]

06:50 AM on 10/10/2011

Somebody needs to tell you the point isn't the racial breakdown. It's that some groups are given preferential privilege. (It's not that hard. I'm surprised you didn't get it.)

[Fred Taylor]

05:27 PM on 10/11/2011

These white kids are suggesting that the repeal of 209 would give Asians preferential treatment over them. The numbers since 209 has passed do not bear this out. The Asian kids would have the most to lose should 209 be repealed, but you don't see them putting themselves above whites in a racist "price list".

[wca16]

12:51 PM on 10/10/2011

Probably because they were more qualified.

[Fred Taylor]

05:57 PM on 10/11/2011

Yes, they were, but these signs are suggesting that they weren't. When the current Asian enrollment at a typical UC school is over 45% and pushing 50%, what might have some misinformed (and possibly racist) white kids done had they incorrectly thought that the potential passing of SB185 would have FURTHER increased Asian enrollment, when, in fact, it would have done the exact opposite?

You can make a point about the (un)fairness of affirmative action without suggesting that any particular group is going to benefit or be hurt by it.

[Thanks4Watching]

09:18 PM on 10/09/2011

Good for them. Admittance into schools should be based entirely on merit and ability, neither of which has anything to do with race, ethnicity, or cultural background.

The bottom line is, school prepares students to join the work force. And being told "Congratulations! You're in because of your amazing SAT scores and GPA!" is SO much more rewarding than being told "Congratulations! You're in because we need to fill a quota or we'll be called racist!".

I'm not a racist at all. I just feel that bills like this do the exact opposite of what they were intended; they don't eliminate discrimination at all, but merely perpetuate it in the opposite direction. Minorities are just as capable of intelligence, brilliance, and ingenuity as anyone else. The playing field should be even for everyone, regardless of ethnicity.

[bgofca]

02:06 AM on 10/10/2011

in case you didn't realize it, the 96 law, which prohibited race as a consideration, actually allowed many more asian kids to be admitted into berkeley since a larger percentage of asian families put so much into education.

[RadicalAmerica]

03:43 AM on 10/10/2011

And if they put more effort into it, they should be rewarded with educated children.

[superdestroyer]

07:24 AM on 10/10/2011

At least the white kids know that the Asian kids got in on merit instead of on a quota. The Asian kids had higher SAT scores to get into the UC system.. Before Prop 209, being black was the equivalent of getting an additional 200 on the SAT test.

Prop 209 put an in to blatant racism and ended the violation of the civil rights of all Californians.

[Moravecglobal]

07:35 PM on 10/09/2011

Need for transparency at University of California Berkeley has never been so clear. Chancellor Robert J Birgeneau ($500,000 salary) displaces qualified for public university education at Cal. instate Californians for a $50,600 payment and a foreign passport.

UC Berkeley, ranked # 70 Forbes, is not increasing enrollment. Birgeneau accepts $50,600 FOREIGN students at the expense of qualified Californians.

UC Regent Chairwoman Lansing and President Yudof agree to discriminate against instate Californians for foreigners. Birgeneau, Yudof, Lansing need to answer to Californians.

Opinions make a difference; email UC Board of Regents [e-mail]

[NamithaSF]

07:31 PM on 10/09/2011

Good call, Jerry. Admissions should be blind to all factors except academic performance and aptitude.

[ms.understood]

12:44 PM on 10/09/2011

he can veto this bill, which was meant to benefit citizens, but signs the dream act, which benefits illegals. he's just as incompetent as you know who!

[indamiddle]

02:17 PM on 10/09/2011

He needs to get illegals the vote...Its just a first step and since the money is coming from private sources to educate the illegals, nothiong can and should be done unless they deport all illegals and make them go through the same processes my grandparents did. We know THAT will never happen. They want Cuba here.

[ms.understood]

07:50 PM on 10/09/2011

that's just it. how can illegals vote? i don't mind anyone coming here to be honest, i just want them to do it the right way. and i also don't want my tax dollars paying for people who broke the law to begin with to get here, and vets return from war and can't get a decent trip to the hospital or a place to live. this country is very backwards in its thinking. no other country in the world is doing this. but all country's are looking at us and laughing because we are nearly bankrupt and paying for non-citizens and that's something they will never do.

[sunlightb4signing]

11:34 AM on 10/09/2011

Politician/Hack and ADMITTED liar, Brown, doing the bidding of the Federal Government, and shamelessly pandering for illegal votes in the next election cycle at the cost of US/California citizens. This is outrageous, and reckless beyond words. The insane and corrupt are running the asylum. They're not even trying to hide it anymore, because they now have the Patriot Act as a means to silence any voice of legitimate opposition.

Latino's should be outraged as well, that they are being used as pawns as a means to divide and conquer.