The data in Part II support the 'chilling effect' hypothesis and call into question other recent claims of economists who assert — without the benefit of the data on selective private universities reviewed herein — that Prop , by reducing stigma, brought about a mild "warming effect" in freshmen enrollment yield at UC.
Kidder, W. The Salience of Racial Isolation: African Americans' and Latinos' perceptions of climate and enrollment choices with and without Proposition Misshaping the river: Proposition and lessons for the Fisher case. Journal of College and University Law, 39 , There is no convincing evidence of effects at moderately selective colleges. Hill, A. State affirmative action bans and STEM degree completions.
Economics of Education Review, 57 , Racial diversity in the medical profession: The impact of affirmative action bans on underrepresented student of color matriculation in medical schools. Findings show that affirmative action bans have led to about a decline in the first-time matriculation of medical school students who are underrepresented students of color. The findings suggest that statewide laws banning the consideration of race in postsecondary admissions pose serious obstacles for the medical profession to address the health-care crisis facing the nation.
Journal of Higher Education, 86 2 , Addressing racial health inequities: Understanding the impact of affirmative action bans on applications and admissions in medical schools. Findings suggest that a focus on institutional actors at the admissions stage is an important lever for medical schools seeking to address the nation's racial health disparities. Mickey-Pabello, D. American Journal of Education, , Assessing the "mismatch" hypothesis: Differences in college graduation rates by institutional selectivity.
Using two nationally representative longitudinal surveys and a unique survey of students who were enrolled at selective and highly selective institutions, the authors tested the mismatch hypothesis by implementing a robust methodology that jointly considered enrollment in and graduation from selective institutions as interrelated outcomes.
The findings do not support the 'mismatch' hypothesis for black and Hispanic as well as white and Asian students who attended college during the s and early s. Alon, S. Sociology of Education, 78 4 , We discuss the conditions under which affirmative action for underrepresented minorities URMs could help or harm their educational outcomes. We provide descriptive evidence on the extent of affirmative action in law schools, as well as a critical review of the contentious literature on how affirmative action affects URM law-school student performance.
Our review then discusses affirmative action in undergraduate admissions, focusing on the effects such admissions preferences have on college quality, graduation rates, college major, and earnings. We conclude by examining the evidence on 'percent plans' as a replacement for affirmative action. Affirmative action and the quality-fit trade-off. Journal of Economic Literature, 54 1 , Less prepared minorities at higher ranked campuses had lower persistence rates in science and took longer to graduate.
We estimate a model of students' college major choice where net returns of a science major differ across campuses and student preparation. We find less prepared minority students at top ranked campuses would have higher science graduation rates had they attended lower ranked campuses. Better matching of science students to universities by preparation and providing information about students' prospects in different major-university combinations could increase minority science graduation.
American Economic Review, 3 , Both ability and college quality strongly improve outcomes and earnings. We find little evidence to support the 'mismatch' hypothesis that college quality and ability interact in substantively important ways. All students benefit from attending higher quality colleges. Our estimates imply that resorting students to eliminate mismatch, without changing the capacity of any colleges, would raise expected graduation rates by only 0.
The substantial gains for students who move to higher quality colleges under this reshuffling roughly cancel out the losses of students who move down. Dillon, E. The consequences of academic match between students and colleges. We develop indices of affirmative action at the individual and institutional levels to test the validity of two charges leveled by critics of affirmative action: that it undermines minority performance by placing academically unprepared students into competitive schools without the required skills and abilities the mismatch hypothesis and that it stigmatizes all minorities as academically challenged and intellectually weak to produce added psychological pressure that undermines academic performance the stereotype threat hypothesis.
We find no evidence for the mismatch hypothesis. If anything, individual students with SAT scores below the institutional average do better than other students, other things equal. We do, however, find evidence consistent with the hypothesis of stereotype threat, although the effect is not particularly strong compared with other determinants of academic success. Fischer, M. The effects of affirmative action in higher education.
Social Science Research, 36 2 , Does the "mismatch hypothesis" apply to Hispanic students at selective colleges? According to the mismatch hypothesis, attending a more academically selective institution should lower a student's chances of graduating within six years and also lower her class rank at graduation, holding constant indicators of a student's college academic preparedness and other background characteristics.
Data to test these hypotheses come from a set of selective colleges and universities throughout the United States. Golann, J. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 94 3 , We take advantage of a natural admissions experiment at the University of California to test the effect of being overmatched for students on the mar-gin of admission to elite universities.
Consistent with the mismatch hypothesis, we find that students accumulate more credits when they attend less demanding institutions. However, students do not earn higher grades and are no more or less likely to drop out of schools where they are overmatched and are less likely to drop out than they would have been had they attended less demanding institutions. Kurlaender, M. Mismatch and the paternalistic justification for selective college admissions.
Sociology of Education, 86 4. Mismatch and academic performance at America's selective colleges and universities. Critics of affirmative action argue that this results in lower grades and greater dropout among underrepresented minority groups. We examine the relationship between SAT mismatch and college outcomes for students at selective institutions. We find that mismatch is not associated with graduation from a selective institution, but is associated with lower grades.
The negative relationship between mismatch and grades holds for all racial-ethnic groups, not just blacks and Latinos, and is less predictive of academic performance than is high school grade point average. Thus, although mismatch may lower performance at selective colleges, it does not appear to prevent students who may have benefitted from affirmative action from obtaining important credentials from America's elite educational institutions.
Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section. Californians Against Discrimination and Preferences , also known as Yes on Proposition , led the campaign in support of Proposition Glynn Custred and Thomas Wood co-authored the ballot initiative. Ward Connerly , a member of the University of California Board of Regents, was chairperson of the campaign. Darrell Issa served as a co-chairperson of the campaign.
The following is the official argument in support of Proposition that appeared in the state's voter guide. A generation ago, we did it right.
We passed civil rights laws to prohibit discrimination. But special interests hijacked the civil rights movement. Instead of equality, governments imposed quotas, preferences, and set-asides. Proposition is called the California Civil Rights Initiative because it restates the historic Civil Rights Act and proclaims simply and clearly: "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.
And two wrongs don't make a right! Today, students are being rejected from public universities because of their RACE. Job applicants are turned away because their RACE does not meet some "goal" or "timetable. That's just plain wrong and unjust. Government should not discriminate. It must not give a job, a university admission, or a contract based on race or sex. Government must judge all people equally, without discrimination!
And, remember, Proposition keeps in place all federal and state protections against discrimination! Government cannot work against discrimination if government itself discriminates.
Proposition will stop the terrible programs which are dividing our people and tearing us apart. People naturally feel resentment when the less qualified are preferred. We are all Americans. It's time to bring us together under a single standard of equal treatment under the law.
Discrimination is costly in other ways. Government agencies throughout California spend millions of your tax dollars for costly bureaucracies to administer racial and gender discrimination that masquerade as "affirmative action.
This money could be used for police and fire protection, better education and other programs--for everyone. We are individuals! Not every white person is advantaged.
And not every "minority" is disadvantaged. Real "affirmative action" originally meant no discrimination and sought to provide opportunity. That's why Proposition prohibits discrimination and preferences and allows any program that does not discriminate, or prefer, because of race or sex, to continue. The only honest and effective way to address inequality of opportunity is by making sure that all California children are provided with the tools to compete in our society.
And then let them succeed on a fair, color-blind, race-blind, gender-blind basis. Let's not perpetuate the myth that "minorities" and women cannot compete without special preferences. Let's instead move forward by returning to the fundamentals of our democracy: individual achievement, equal opportunity and zero tolerance for discrimination against--or for--any individual.
Reject preferences by voting YES on Proposition The following were political committees that received cash contributions to support Proposition [7]. The Campaign to Defeat and No on led the campaign in opposition to Proposition The following is the official argument against Proposition that appeared in the state's voter guide. Pete Wilson, a Republican, was the state's governor.
Republicans controlled the California State Assembly. Democrats controlled the California State Senate. In , voters rejected Proposition 54 , which would have prohibited the state from classifying prospective students, contractors, or employees based on race, ethnicity, color, or national origin in public education, contracting, or employment. Ward Connerly , who chaired the campaign behind Proposition , was the chief proponent of Proposition But this initiative It will only hide it.
Between and , voters had decided ballot measures to prohibit the use of affirmative action involving race-based and sex-based preferences in seven states. Six of the ballot measures were approved. In Florida, Idaho, and New Hampshire, legislation or executive orders banned or limited race-based affirmative action as of With Proposition , California became the first state to enact a formal ban on racial preferences, according to the Pew Research Center.
In Arizona and Oklahoma , their respective state legislatures placed constitutional amendments related to affirmative action on the ballot. Voters in Washington rejected a ballot measure, titled Referendum 88 , on November 5, Referendum 88 would have amended Initiative , approved in , to allow affirmative action policies that do not utilize quotas or constitute preferential treatment.
Initiative prohibited the state from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, or contracting. Initiative did not define preferential treatment. Referendum 88 would have defined preferential treatment as actions that use race, sex, or other specified identities as the "sole qualifying factor to select a lesser qualified candidate over a more qualified candidate for a public education, public employment, or public contracting opportunity.
In California, a two-thirds vote is needed in each chamber of the California State Legislature to refer a constitutional amendment to the ballot for voter consideration. As one seat was vacant in the Assembly, 53 votes were needed to pass ACA 5. At least 27 votes were needed in the Senate. With approval in the Assembly and Senate, ACA 5 was placed on the ballot for the general election on November 3, Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in California.
All polls in California are open from a. Pacific Time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote. To vote in California, an individual must be a U. A voter must be at least 18 years of age on Election Day. Conditional voter registration is available beginning 14 days before an election through Election Day. The legislation, which took effect in , authorized automatic voter registration in California for any individuals who visit the Department of Motor Vehicles to acquire or renew a driver's license.
California automatically registers eligible individuals to vote when they complete a driver's license, identification ID card, or change of address transaction through the Department of Motor Vehicles.
California has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website. California allows same-day voter registration. To register to vote in California, you must be a resident of the state. State law does not specify a length of time for which you must have been a resident to be eligible.
California does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration, although individuals who become U. The site Voter Status , run by the California Secretary of State's office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online. California does not require voters to present photo identification. However, some voters may be asked to show a form of identification when voting if they are voting for the first time after registering to vote by mail and did not provide a driver license number, California identification number, or the last four digits of their social security number.
The following list of accepted ID was current as of November As of April , 35 states enforced or were scheduled to begin enforcing voter identification requirements. A total of 21 states required voters to present photo identification at the polls; the remainder accepted other forms of identification. Valid forms of identification differ by state. Commonly accepted forms of ID include driver's licenses, state-issued identification cards, and military identification cards.
What's on my ballot? Elections in How to vote How to run for office Ballot measures. Who represents me? President U. Ballotpedia features , encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of editors, writers, and researchers. Click here to contact our editorial staff, and click here to report an error. Click here to contact us for media inquiries, and please donate here to support our continued expansion.
Share this page Follow Ballotpedia. What's on your ballot? Jump to: navigation , search. State Sen. Steven Bradford D : "I know about discrimination. I live it every day. We live it in this building. Quit lying to yourselves and saying race is not a factor Karen Bass D : "Proposition , deceptively titled the California Civil Rights Initiative, passed by referendum in amidst an orchestrated campaign of dog-whistle politics attacking all attempts to level the playing field for women and people of color.
Before Prop , those efforts at advancing equity had made real progress. Proposition has forced California public institutions to try to address racial inequality without factoring in race, even where allowed by federal law. The diversity of our university and higher education institutions across California, should — and must — represent the rich diversity of our state. They can consider what high school you went to. They can look at virtually everything about you — but not race.
Repealing Prop. These are illegal under a Supreme Court decision and would remain so. We must stand tall together to call out these unacceptable behaviors and not allow ACA 5 to become a wedge that divides us. Shirley Weber D : Asm. Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5 will help improve all of our daily lives by repealing Proposition and eliminating discrimination in state contracts, hiring and education. It has been a hard journey.
And it has caused a lot of losses. After 25 years of quantitative and qualitative data, we see that race-neutral solutions cannot fix problems steeped in race. One way that people can act on their desire to eliminate systemic racism is to vote for Proposition It gives people of color, and women, more power, more money. If you have more money you have more access, more clout in the political system. All of us deserve equal opportunities to thrive with fair wages, good jobs, and quality schools.
Despite living in the most diverse state in the nation, white men are still overrepresented in positions of wealth and power in California. Although women, and especially women of color, are on the front lines of the COVID response, they are not rewarded for their sacrifices. Women should have the same chance of success as men. Today, nearly all public contracts, and the jobs that go with them, go to large companies run by older white men.
The wage disparity is even worse for women of color and single moms. As a result, an elite few are able to hoard wealth instead of investing it back into communities. We know that small businesses are the backbone of our economy. Wealth will be invested back into our communities. YES on Prop. In , we have seen an unprecedented number of Californians take action against systemic racism and voice their support for real change.
At the same time, our shared values are under attack by the Trump administration's policies. By voting YES on Prop. Equal opportunity matters. Yes on Prop. Richard D. Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation in Washington, D. Tom Campbell R : "Nevertheless, if more spaces are to be made for the under-represented, they must come from the over-represented.
Asian Americans are Those numbers are why bringing this issue forward now would inevitably divide Californians racially: Latino Americans and African Americans on one side, Asian Americans on the other. The politics are inescapably racial.
Its overarching goal to undo Proposition , a bill that won the popular vote in and has withstood legal scrutiny over time, is misguided in that ACA-5 proposes instant but wrong solutions to persistent social ills.
Racial preferences are wrong, no matter who they benefit. Steven S.
0コメント