In a message dated 96-11-07 14:06:11 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Myra Strober) writes: >ubj: Affirmative Action in public employment and education is dead >Date: 96-11-07 14:06:11 EST >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Myra Strober) >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >As you may have heard, Prop. 209, the so-called California Civil Rights >Initiative, passed with an uncomfortable margin on Tuesday. The ACLU and >the Now Legal Defense Fund have already filed suit to challenge the >constitutionality of the initiative, which in effect ends affirmative action >in public education, public employment and public contracting. > >Some of you may not know the full implications of this initiative. In at >least one respect, the implications may be even more dire for women than for >minority men. There is a very scary clause (31 c) in that initiative that >could be extremely detrimental for women's employment. > >The initiative adds the following to California's constitution: > >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. > >Here's the scary clause: Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as >prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably >necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education or >public contracting. > >As you know, the U.S. Supreme Court gave the bona fide occupational >qualification in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act a very narrow >interpretation. NOBODY KNOWS HOW THE CALIFORNIA COURT WILL INTERPRET CLAUSE >31B. If the Court gives employers wide berth with regard to bona fide >occupational qualifications based on sex, it truly will undue 30 years of >progress for women in the employment arena. > >Other states have been waiting to see the fate of Prop. 209 and will now be >introducing similar legislation. In addition, there is a bill like this in >the wings in Congress. WATCH OUT. Everything feminists have fought for in >terms of improving girls' educational opportunities and women's employment >is now in potential jeopardy. > >In California, it is not clear to me that white women understood section >31C, or even knew that it was in the initiative. (It was only in the fine >print in the ballot pamphlet and not in the summary that appeared on the >ballot itself). Hopefully some of you in other states will have time (and >warning) to mobilize against such similar legislation or initiatives and >educate the electorate. > >Tuesday was a very sad day in California. > >Myra Strober >School of Education >Stanford University >Stanford, CA 94305 >415-723-0387 >fax: 415-493-6367 >email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I would just add a couple of points to Myra's message, which, I unfortunately agree with. 1. I think that this vote will serve as a legitimizing symbol to a growing backlash against affirmative action, particularly against women in nontraditional careers (whatever the hell nontraditional means). 2. I believe that the business community will increasingly not comply with affirmative action laws on the books, and complainants will find beleaguered public agencies less and less able to deal with monitoring compliance. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] p.s. one reason pomoism is important is because it at least attempts to combat real world problems like this one, --------------------- Forwarded message: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Myra Strober) Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 96-11-07 14:06:11 EST As you may have heard, Prop. 209, the so-called California Civil Rights Initiative, passed with an uncomfortable margin on Tuesday. The ACLU and the Now Legal Defense Fund have already filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of the initiative, which in effect ends affirmative action in public education, public employment and public contracting. Some of you may not know the full implications of this initiative. In at least one respect, the implications may be even more dire for women than for minority men. There is a very scary clause (31 c) in that initiative that could be extremely detrimental for women's employment. The initiative adds the following to California's constitution: 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. Here's the scary clause: Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education or public contracting. As you know, the U.S. Supreme Court gave the bona fide occupational qualification in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act a very narrow interpretation. NOBODY KNOWS HOW THE CALIFORNIA COURT WILL INTERPRET CLAUSE 31B. If the Court gives employers wide berth with regard to bona fide occupational qualifications based on sex, it truly will undue 30 years of progress for women in the employment arena. Other states have been waiting to see the fate of Prop. 209 and will now be introducing similar legislation. In addition, there is a bill like this in the wings in Congress. WATCH OUT. Everything feminists have fought for in terms of improving girls' educational opportunities and women's employment is now in potential jeopardy. In California, it is not clear to me that white women understood section 31C, or even knew that it was in the initiative. (It was only in the fine print in the ballot pamphlet and not in the summary that appeared on the ballot itself). Hopefully some of you in other states will have time (and warning) to mobilize against such similar legislation or initiatives and educate the electorate. Tuesday was a very sad day in California. Myra Strober School of Education Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 415-723-0387 fax: 415-493-6367 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE FOR JOURNALISTS AND RESEARCHERS: Please ask for written permission from all direct participants before quoting any material posted on FEMECON-L.
