THEY WANT US TO KEEP VOTING UNTIL WE GET IT RIGHT:  Yesterday afternoon, the California Assembly passed ACA7.  For those of you who haven’t been following my posts, ACA7 is the latest attempt to destroy Prop 209–the 1996 initiative that prohibited the State of California from engaging in preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.

Three years ago, with Prop 16, our esteemed legislature tried to get voters to repeal Prop 209.  They failed in that effort big time.  Now the Assembly wants voters to adopt an “exception” that will swallow the rule.  If the California Senate concurs (32 Dems, 8 Reps), the issue will go on the ballot.

I was struck by the “argument” put forth by Assemblyman Corey Jackson in favor of ACA7:  ” [T]here is no room for respectfully disagreeing on this issue.  There is no room for decorum when it comes to the very existence and atonement of my people.”

QUELLE SURPRISE:  The Los Angeles Times reports that a poll finds 59% of California voters oppose cash reparations for the African American descendants of slaves.  Only 28% support the idea.

Prediction:  The “nonprofit” organizations that have been arguing for reparations will soon ask that reparations be paid through them instead.

THANK YOU, FIRE:  My cute little university won’t let Matt Walsh of “What is a Woman?” fame speak on campus.  According to FIRE’s letter to University of San Diego president James Harris, USD’s College Republicans sought to bring in Walsh as a speaker, but were told by the Director of Student Activities and Involvement that Walsh’s views are “transphobic,” “offensive,” and would make USD students feel “unsafe,” “not comfortable,” and “offended and hurt.”  Later, the Vice President for Student Life confirmed that USD would not allow Walsh to speak on campus, stating that “all guest speakers … [must] engage in perspectives in a manner consistent with USD’s mission and core values” and that Walsh was “very disrespectful” and “grossly offensive.”

FIRE points out that USD claims to be a school that protects free speech. But this is hardly USD’s first offense against free expression.  Over the last three or four years, there have been quite a few.  This isn’t even the first one this summer.  It’s a shame.  This used to be a university.

IF YOU’RE IN MISSISSIPPI NEXT WEEK:  On Thursday, September 14, David Bernstein, Peter Kirsanow, and I will be joining Chris Green at Ole Miss for a Constitution Day discussion of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions on issues of equality.

This is a presentation of the Declaration of Independence Center for the Study of American Freedom.  I hope you’ll join us if you’re in the area.

This will be my first trip to Mississippi.  I’m looking forward to it.

IF YOU’RE A TWITTER* USER AND ARE SO INCLINED, PLEASE “LIKE” AND RETWEET THIS:  I’ll be sending targeted “quote tweets” to California legislators after this underlying tweet starts getting a decent number of “hearts” and retweets.    Yes, I wish we lived in a day that Twitter was not the most effective way of getting a state legislator’s attention.  But … well … times being what they are  …

*X.  I’m quite fond of the illustrious Mr. Musk, but I wish the name were still Twitter.

By the way, the underlying WSJ editorial is great.

Red Alert—The Cal Legislature’s ACA7 purports to create an “exception” to Prop 209, but in fact it guts it.

The voters already rejected this kind of race discrimination in 2020 with Prop 16. Don’t make us do it again.https://t.co/nLMt6HHhET

— Gail Heriot (@GailHeriot) August 31, 2023

PLEASE HELP US OUT:  In 2020, the California legislature attempted to strip the state constitution of these words:  “The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”  Yes, that’s right … our esteemed legislators didn’t like those words.  They wanted to be able to discriminate.

The words had been put there in 1996 by Proposition 209 (a campaign I co-chaired).  At the time it was a big deal.  It made news around the world.

I also co-chaired the opposition to the repeal effort—known as Proposition 16—in 2020.  And miracles of miracles, with the help of Instapundit readers, we won.  The pro-16 forces outspent us something like 17 to 1, but we nevertheless defeated the repeal.  And it wasn’t close.  We beat the pants off ‘em.

But they just won’t stop … which ought to show you something.  While Proposition 209 hasn’t ended all state-sponsored race and sex discrimination in California, it ended a whole lot of it.  That’s why progressive legislators want to get rid of it.  It’s in their way.

Their new plan—ACA 7—will put on the ballot what purports to be a mere “exception” to Proposition 209.  But the exception will swallow the rule.  The governor will be able to authorize discrimination if there is “research” showing that such discrimination will “increase[e] the life expectancy of, improv[e] educational outcomes for, or lift[] out of  poverty  specific  groups  based  on  race … sex, [etc.]”

Anyone who understands a thing or two about “research” knows that you can find “research” that finds the moon is made of green cheese.  But the “research” won’t even need to be fraudulent.  If you pass a law that says only people from the “right races” can get state jobs or contracts, that will indeed “lift” them “out of poverty.”  But it will do so by unfairly driving those of other races into poverty.

In essence, if ACA 7 is passed by the legislature and passes at election time, the State of California will be able to violate Proposition 209 whenever the governor d*mn well pleases.  And that will happen a lot.

Fortunately, this thing hasn’t made it out of the legislature—not yet anyway.  And with luck it never will.  Moreover, this seems like a rock stupid way for the progressive movement to use its time and energy.  First, it will further alienate Asian American voters, who used to be a reliable Democratic constituency.  As a result of Proposition 16 and Democratic indifference to crime, they no longer are.  Second, the repeal effort is likely to lose at election time (though it will cost conservatives (and me!) a lot of time and resources to make that happen).  Third, given the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (2023), the whole enterprise is likely to be futile.  Every time the California governor purports to authorize an “exception” to Proposition 209’s prohibition on racial preferences, it is likely to be struck down by the courts.

So here’s the ask:  Please help us direct as much noise as we can toward these legislators.  They need to know that we’re quite prepared to oppose this thing. The Assembly Appropriations Committee is meeting on Friday.  We need to make sure as many members as possible hear from opponents as often as possible.  You can email these members here.  One sentence will do–“I oppose ACA 7” or “I can’t believe you’re trying to destroy Proposition 209 again.”

Tomorrow, I will post some tweets (Xs?) directed at specific legislators that I hope those of you who have twitter accounts will retweet (re-X?).  I don’t care if the only follower you have is a dog named Fred who lives in Bulgaria, it will still help.  And it’s easy.

No, I don’t need any money.   And I won’t ever if we can head this fool thing off now.

GO, ALICE!  I GUESS HE’S NOT EIGHTEEN ANYMORE: “Alice Cooper Call Transgender Healthcare for Kids a ‘Fad’; Condemns the ‘Whole Woke Thing.'”  Who would have ever thought that Alice Cooper would become the voice of reason?

RACE AND SCHOOL DISCIPLINE:  The Federalist Society is sponsoring a panel discussion on race and school discipline— a favorite topic of mine—on Thursday.  I’ll be watching.  Maybe you’ll be interested too.

I’VE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR YEARS:  A Ninth Circuit federal judge (in dissent) has finally gone on record agreeing with me that a portion of the federal hate crimes statute is unconstitutional.  I tried to get the Supreme Court to take the issue three times (and failed all three times).

Congress claims to have the authority to prohibit “hate crimes” pursuant to the Thirteenth Amendment (which prohibits slavery).  That’s quite a stretch.  Slavery?  Really?  Maybe the Supreme Court will take the case now.

“SOUND OF FREEDOM” OR “SOUND OF FABRICATION”?:  Red-Pilled America podcast–hosted by Patrick Courrielche and Adryana Cortez–is pointing out that maybe, just maybe, the movie “Sound of Freedom” is not quite on the up and up.  When they looked at the court records, they found many contradictions–too many–between the real story and movie.

You might want to read my sex trafficking Commissioner Statement from a few years ago.  There are many different problems, all of which tend to get called “human trafficking,” e.g., labor trafficking, prostitution by consenting adults, prostitution by teenagers who are under the age of consent but who nevertheless sought out the opportunity, sex slavery of adults, and sexual slavery of children.  Unfortunately, they tend to get conflated.  The reality is that each of these problems is different.  Each has its own solutions.  The last of these, sexual slavery, whether of adults or children, is extremely serious.  But there is a lot less of it than we are sometimes led to believe.

ONE OF MY FAVORITE QUOTES EVER:  “There is little reason to believe that this socialism will mean the advent of the civilization of which orthodox socialists dream. It is much more likely to present fascist features. That would be a strange answer to Marx’s prayer. But history sometimes indulges in jokes of questionable taste.”  Joseph Alois Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (1942).

DISPARATE IMPACT STRIKES AGAIN:  The ACLU thinks the law requires landlords to rent to people with a history of being evicted.  (For background on how we got into the ridiculous situation we’re in, see my article on how disparate impact makes almost everything presumptively illegal.)

MY HERO:

Some people brag about their fat paycheck, their cool car, their hot girlfriend or boyfriend, or their beautiful family. I brag that Thomas Sowell sends me things in the mail. At 93, he is still writing. May he still be writing when I’m 93. pic.twitter.com/JD7PBs95Vj

— Gail Heriot (@GailHeriot) July 26, 2023

In case you’re jealous, it may comfort you to know that I drive a middle-aged Honda Civic.

THESE FOLKS NEVER GIVE UP:  With this letter the American Civil Rights Project and Californians for Equal Rights Foundation have registered our adamant opposition to the California Legislature’s ACA7.  If passed, ACA7 will put ANOTHER effort to repeal Proposition 209 on the ballot.  We clobbered them in 2020.  We’re quite prepared to do it again if necessary.

This time it would be disguised as a mere “exception” to 209.  But the “exception” would swallow the rule.  California voters aren’t that stupid.

“RACISM UNDERLIES DISPARITIES IN MATERNAL MORTALITY IN AMERICAS, SAYS UN”:  No, it doesn’t, says Gail.

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE:  “Hispanic-Serving Institutions and Emerging Constitutional Issues.”  As far as I can see, the constitutional issue is pretty easy as these things go:  The program is unconstitutional; it encourages illegal discrimination in admissions; and it needs to be terminated.  The article (written by Alex Heideman, one of my former special assistants) provides some useful background.

MY NEW PIECE AT CITY JOURNAL:  “Closing the Credentials Gap:  The Affirmative Action Ruling Represents Real Progress.”

NOW THAT WE’RE IN THE POST-SFFA WORLD:  If you want to get an understanding of where the pressures to engage in race-preferential admissions come from, this article is a good start.  The task now is to start peeling those pressures away.  I’m working on it.

LARRY PURDY ON FOOTNOTE 4 OF THE SFFA DECISION:  Why should our nation’s service academies be exempt from the Supreme Court’s affirmative action decision?

“PRESIDENTIAL SIGNATURE REQUIREMENTS AS A TOOL FOR ENFORCING DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY“:  This has been a pet peeve of mine for a while.  Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 require that regulations issued pursuant to those statutes be signed by the President.  I believe those laws mean what they say.  This was a very deliberate effort by Congress to insure accountability.  Yet a number of regulations issued under those statutes have NOT been signed by the President. Now Alison Somin has written about the issue.  Good for her.

OF RACISTS AND WHITE SUPREMACISTS:  The word “racist” got used up a few years ago.  It had been used so often to apply to things that obviously weren’t racist that it lost its sting.  “White supremacist” took its place, but it’s headed in the same direction.

According to this article in the Nation, if Asian Americans stand up for their rights, they are allies of white supremacists. Shame on the Nation for publishing such garbage.https://t.co/zq1XBOcIUM

— Gail Heriot (@GailHeriot) July 8, 2023

Oh well.

WHOOPI GOLDBERG IS CONFUSED:  She apparently said that the Supreme Court’s decision in the Harvard case would “lead to no women in colleges.”  The truth is a little closer to the opposite.  These days a very large number of (non-STEM oriented) colleges and universities put a thumb on the scale against women and in favor of men, on the ground that women are already a majority on their campuses.  In some cases, it’s legal under Title IX and in other cases it’s not.  If anything, the Court’s decision could, by analogy, benefit women.  But who cares about the facts if your goal is to get people riled up?

PHILADELPHIA SHOOTING SUSPECT ISN’T TRANS, OFFICIALS SAY:  On the other hand, the neighbors told the New York Post that he’d been dressing as a woman for years.

SUMMER READING:  Now that the Supreme Court has ruled, I hereby declare my anthology to be a law & policy classic.

It’s cheap too.

THIS IS PROBABLY GOOD:  California’s effort to ban the federal government’s use of private immigration detention facilities failed.  My own experience with inspecting immigration detention facilities was that the private ones were better.  But the prison guard unions don’t like them.