Commentary
Progressive California Gov. Hiram Johnson’s initiative system has justified itself again. Look at the political establishment’s response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision ending affirmative action at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, with national application. Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta and others have rejected that decision, contradicting what their own voters indicated, twice, ought to be done.
As Mr. Johnson explained in his 1911 Inaugural Address, “I commend to you the proposition that, after all, the initiative and the referendum depend on our confidence in the people and in their ability to govern. The opponents of direct legislation and the recall, however they may phrase their opposition, in reality believe the people cannot be trusted.”
In 1996, voters passed Proposition 209, which banned affirmative action in state and local education, hiring, and contracting, by 55 percent to 45 percent. In 2020, voters confirmed their earlier choice by an even bigger margin, by rejecting, 57 percent to 43 percent, Proposition 16, which would have repealed Prop. 209. By then—24 years later—the state had become even more diverse. Voters understood that setting up a racial spoils system—which is really what affirmative action is—would be a formula for endless battles.
Contrast that with the reaction to the court decision on Harvard and UNC, which effectively established a national Prop. 209. Gov. Gavin Newsom said, “The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has yet again upended longstanding precedent, changing the law just because they now have the votes to do so, without any care for the costs to society and students around the country.”
Actually, the “precedent” was Grutter v. Bollinger from 2003, in which Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the majority, “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” That would be in 2028, five years from now.
Mr. Newsom continued, “Right-wing activists—including those donning robes—are trying to take us back to the era of book bans and segregated campuses. … Our campus doors remain open for all who want to work hard—and our commitment to diversity, equity, and equal opportunity has never been stronger.”
As others now are recognizing, and I’ve been writing in this space for more than a year, Mr. Newsom obviously is running for president. He’s just using buzzwords to make himself look good to progressive donors.
A Merit System—or Rule by Elites?
Refuting Mr. Newsom’s position is Justice Clarence Thomas, who is black. He filed a concurrent opinion in the Harvard case, Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. He attacked the dissenting opinion of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who also is black.
“As she sees things, we are all inexorably trapped in a fundamentally racist society, with the original sin of slavery and the historical subjugation of Black Americans still determining our lives today,” he wrote. And he said we should not “unquestioningly accede to the view of elite experts and reallocate society’s riches by racial means as necessary to ‘level the playing field.’”
That’s a key point: Do we have a society based on merit, where everyone is treated equally, or one where “elite experts” like Mr. Newsom decide who gets what, based on raw political power?
Then there’s Dr. Martin Luther King’s well-known admonition from his “I Have a Dream” speech in 1963, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” How can we get there if “character” is thrown out in favor of race-based “color of their skin”?
Here’s the response to the court decision by Attorney General Rob Bonta, who enforces the state’s laws: “I am deeply disappointed about the potential impact on ongoing efforts to create inclusive learning environments. Today’s rulings will make it harder to achieve that goal. California has long recognized the value of diversity in institutions of higher learning. While the ruling narrows the scope of permissible consideration of race in admissions, it does not diminish our resolve to pursue policies and practices that ensure equal access and opportunities for all students. I remain committed to working with educational institutions, community leaders, and stakeholders to find innovative solutions that promote diversity, equality, and inclusion.”
Similar to Mr. Newsom, he uses the phrase “diversity, equality, and inclusion,” which also is rule by experts, not a merit-based system. But he mentions “innovative solutions,” which the state actually already long has done in response to Prop. 209.
As even the liberal (and tax-funded) National Public Radio reported, “Admissions offices pivoted to a more holistic approach, looking beyond grades and test scores. Starting in the early 2000s, the UC system implemented a couple of initiatives to increase diversity: The top-performing students graduating most high schools in the state were guaranteed admission to most of the eight UC undergraduate campuses. It also introduced a comprehensive review process to ‘evaluate students’ academic achievements in light of the opportunities available to them—using an array of criteria including a student’s special skills and achievements, special circumstances and location of high school.”
That obviously is going to happen around the country now. Ironically, this is the real way California will be a model for the country. Instead of Mr. Newsom’s ultra-progressive “California Way” he’s touting around the country, this state’s voters have come up with a way to both have a merit-based system and doing what can be done to lift up those needing a break.
Better Approach: K-12 Reform
Finally, neither Mr. Newsom nor Mr. Bonta mentioned the best way to help black and Latino students compete for higher-learning positions: Reform state K-12 schools, whose failure is the true cause of the “achievement gap” such students have with white and Asian students. As I have written a couple of times in The Epoch Times, the state should adopt Arizona-style universal school choice, giving parents a voucher for each student, to be redeemed at any public traditional school, public charter school, or private school.
Another option I wrote about is the “Mississippi Miracle,” in which that state’s reforms catapulted student achievement from the worst in the country to among the best.
But such reforms would mean taking on the powerful California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers, which is the last thing Mr. Newsom would do during his presidential bid, or by Bonta, who is running for governor.
Meanwhile, old Hiram Johnson was right. As Prop. 209 showed, for the essentials we must “depend on our confidence in the people and in their ability to govern.”
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
