California Prop 16 (reinstating affirmative action) fails

Incidentally, the Asian parents you are talking about came back to get a change:

In 1999, both parties agreed to a settlement which modified the 1983 Consent Decree to create a new “diversity index” system which substituted race as a factor for admissions with a variety of factors such as socioeconomic background, mother’s educational level, academic achievement, language spoken at home, and English Learner Status.

Thing is that one should not forget that the original change came to be thanks to a lawsuit from the NAACP, as usual what you forget is that even more Black and Hispanic families did not like what was there before, the CAA just realized that denying justice to those groups was not really helpful to Asians in the long run, and the index those parents (that even if they were a majority they were wrong) got a compromise that was shown later to be a joke.

Expiration of the Consent Decree

Critics of the diversity index created by Ho v. San Francisco Unified School District point out that many schools, including Lowell, have become even less racially diverse since it was enacted.

On November 15, 2005, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied a request to extend the Consent Decree, which was set to expire on December 31, 2005 after it had been extended once before to December 31, 2002. The ruling claimed “since the settlement of the Ho litigation [resulting in the institution of the “diversity index”], the consent decree has proven to be ineffective, if not counterproductive, in achieving diversity in San Francisco public schools” by making schools more racially segregated.[6]

As the court said, “The public response to the proposed extension of the consent decree was overwhelmingly negative.”

So yeah, your opinion was based on incomplete information.

The fact that other people agree with you, or your perception of their opinions agrees with whatever opinion you believe you are expressing, does not constitute:

*Evidence or facts in support of your position
*Whatever you believe “history” to be
*“Ignorance” on the part of those who do not agree with you

It seems that a very large number of your arguments are based on not understanding this and posting lots and lots of links to other people who share your opinions without actually bringing any new arguments or evidence to bear, then accusing everyone else of being “ignorant” and not acknowledging “history” when they continue not to agree with your still-unsupported contentions.

I’m not listening to anybody the way you seem to be implying. I’m not the one that can’t present their own arguments and has to resort to serially linking the opinions of others.

Lots of folks think woke left are idiots and detrimental to a liberal society.

If you can get out of the woke left echo chamber,

WTF are you talking about? You don’t seem to know what you are talking about. You can’t just click on a few wikipedia links and think you understand things if you aren’t reading for comprehension.

Your position was (i think) that the CAA represents asians in some way. I show you a link saying that the CAA actually supports discrimination against asians and you go off on a very difficult to follow tangent… again. This was a very simple exercise in showing you that the CAA doesn’t represent asians. I’m not sure why you took off on this tangent that only proves my point further.
It is clear you are ignorant of what the consent decree is when you act like the rejection of the consent decree somehow proves any point you have to make.

You seem ignorant of the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the consent decree.
You seem ignorant of the purpose of the consent decree.
You seem ignorant of why the consent decree was modified.
You seem ignorant of why the consent decree was not extended.
You seem ignorant of what it means that the public was opposed to extending the consent decree.

You are getting hoisted by your own petard.

Following links on wikipedia is not really enough if you don’t read for comprehension. Do you know why there was a consent decree? Because your post indicates that you think that asians wanted the consent decree and the “public” rejected it…

The CAA is the only group of asians in this scenario that was fighting for the consent decree.

Well if that is so, I was wrong about when the support by the CAA came, however it shows that they were against quotas as pointed before, still the end result was that schools became more desegregated, hence the judges decision that the consent decree of 1999 was not a good one.

On the whole it turned out that you missed the follow up. It strains logic that most Asian parents did not oppose the changes brought by the NAACP lawsuit. The end result was that most parents did not agree with the settlement of the 90s. Are you here then in favor of the original consent decree from 1983? The same one that Judges in 2005 when ending the consent decree from 1999 did agree that the decree from 1983 was successful on increasing diversity in schools?

Modnote: This is for both GIGObuster & damuriajashi and anyone else.
You’re both making this personal and pushing the border of attacking the poster. No warnings as you’re both addressing the posts as your doing this and the insults are mostly passive and more general but inclusive of each other. But enough.

So to all, no more carefully worded swipes at other posts please. Remember Attack the Post and not the Poster.

Please read the links more carefully.

I think you are wrong about more than what you think you are wrong about.
I think you are still misunderstanding the chain of events and the facts.

Please read my post more carefully.

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying.

The reason I linked the wiki article about the CAA is because you seemed to think that the CAA what some some sort of authority or represented asians. You kind of kept throwing them in my face. The link was to demonstrate that at least on this issue they do not represent asians and their support for anti-asian discrimination puts them at odds with most asians. They are mostly useful tools as the asian face of the woke racism against asians.

Do you STILL think the CAA represents asians and our opinions on things?

I’m not sure what you are referring to.

I’ll take it to ATMB

As I said I was wrong about what they supported on the San Francisco schools diversity issue, I was not wrong about them not supporting quotas, but as shown before they are in favor of being fair to other groups. I think you are not getting that my original reason to pointing at them is because they have been successful in other issues, not that they are perfect in everything they did in 50 years.

They were pointed because you have dismissed many others already that are more involved with the issue. In the end the fallacy you are repeating is that if all or “most” Asians believe that they should in the end look to benefit more and be less fair to Hispanics or Blacks, it must be a good thing. It is the old fashion fallacious argument of popularity applied just to Asians.

The point I made with the CAA was that there are other more educated or experts in sociology and other related fields Asians that disagree with the issue from the OP. That groups like the CAA were wrong in some issues does not mean that an organization that has defended affirmative action for more than 50 years has no support whatsoever.

Referring to those Asians as “woke” and dismissing them just like that, is just a right wing method to dismiss more involved or intellectual people.

I can assure you that those of us who think “woke” is an insult are not using it to mean “too intellectual.”

The wiki article I linked to states otherwise. The wiki article states that CAA supported racial quotas that capped asian admissions to Lowell, this resulted in higher admissions standards for asians than others. CAA’s support for caps on asians at lowell was contrary to the sentiment hald by asians generally.

It’s not an opinion, it is a reporting of facts. Do you have evidence that the wiki article is incorrect?

In what way are asians trying to be less fair to hispanics and blacks?

In what way are the CAA more intellectual? It seems like they are more emotional than intellectual.

And the right wing are not the only folks who are sick of the woke left. It’s not meant as an insult any more than you use the term right wing as an insult. Except on this board people misapply the term to mean anything to the right of Bernie Sanders.

I was not pointing at the CAA specifically there. But to other more academic cites that you dismissed as “woke” too.

I actually did read the decision from the courts from 2005, the timeline they presented was that the idea in 1999 was to end the apparent quotas based on race, the thing the CAA supported was a compromise to end quotas and set up an index not based on race, but the main issue was about the lack of diversity in the SF schools; the end result though was more segregation and then the compromise that came from 1999 was ended by the court.

Yes, I think they are woke. They put considerations of race ahead of considerations of fairness or equity.

I think you are incorrect. CAA supported the continued use of racial quotas contrary to the general opinion of most asians. The eventual compromise was not what CAA supported to begin with. That is not the side they lined up on.

Early on you accused me of just looking at Wikipedia articles, I granted that I misread one thing, but reading the court’s verdict puts in doubt what you declared about the CAA. And it looks like you repeated the Wikipedia article as if that was just enough, I don’t think so.


Notwithstanding this success [that the schools did reach diversity], some members of the San Francisco community were not pleased with the results of the 1983 consent decree, particularly the requirement that student assignment to schools adhere to a certain racial/ethnic distribution.

That is why I think the 1999 decree came as a result of trying to end the apparent quotas that the schools were using in SF.

The central feature of the settlement in 1999 was that the Ho plaintiffs could succeed with their declaration that "the race based plan of the schools being used was not constitutional, IOW using quotas was the problem. The success of the 1980’s settlement that allowed to increase diversity could end, but it is clear that in 1999 the settlement was made by using an index that did not use race as a compromise. If the Wikipedia cite you pointed out was correct, then many Asian parents then just noted how inadequate they thought that settlement was, but it was the remaining way to remove the apparent quotas and avoid getting even less if they lost the case.

Sadly, the result was more segregation and the reason why Judges decided the settlement reached in 1999 to deal with the apparent quotas was a bad one as it also ended diversity.

In short, since the settlement of the Ho litigation, the consent decree has proven to be ineffective, if not counterproductive, in achieving diversity in San Francisco public schools. De jure segregation has never been proven, much less vestiges thereof. As the decree has come to be used, the Court must pretend to supervise decisions better left in the hands of education professionals subject to the rough and tumble of local politics and government.

I read the same link from the same wiki article as you. Would you care to point out where it says that the CAA did not try to protect quotas?

Yes, but the CAA was not the ones trying to end the quotas. Ho was a 5 year long litigation. The CAA was on the side of quotas up until the courts basically told them that they would lose, then they supported the proposal tp a modification to the consent decree. They mirrored the amicus brief submitted by the NAACP in favor of quotas.

You can’t change history. The CAA supported a an anti-asian quota that most asians objected to. They sided with the NAACP over asian kids.

Again, your quote does not give context. In the end what the effort in 1999 was to end quotas. With the index clearly what was left as an attempt to stop the apparent quotas.

As the quotes showed, the end result anyhow was to end the apparent quotas, it also took away diversity.

The lawsuit started in 1994. The CAA and the NAACP lined up against the plaintiffs. It wasn’t until 1999 when the courts indicated that the consent decree was probably unconstitutional as it stood that they reached an agreement to modify the consent decree. Up until then the CAA were supporting anti-asian quotas.

Yes the end of quotas was fought by the CAA. They wanted to preserve quotas.

And frankly, if neglect a child’s education for 10 years and then try to fix it the year before they enter high school, you are going to get this result frequently. We can discuss how to fix education but until you recognize that the way to fix education isn’t just to artificially increase the number of blacks students at more selective schools, we cannot fix the root problems.

And even after you recognize how bad racial discrimination is, you will probably not agree with my prescription for fixing things.

Things is that I expected then to support that with cites, AFAIK, the ones supporting the 1999 settlement were also conservative Asians supporting the settlement as ending quotas.

Instead, the parents found a sympathetic hearing from Asian conservatives, especially the Chinese American Democratic Club—a group which, interestingly, also works to increase minority affirmative action in government contracts. The Asian American Legal Foundation was formed in part to support the parents’ lawsuit, which was filed in 1994. Ward Connerly trumpeted the plight of the Lowell plaintiffs as he stumped for anti-affirmative action Proposition 209 in 1996.

In February, lawyers for the parents and the NAACP unveiled an eleventh-hour settlement which overturned the sixteen-year-old consent decree and ended San Francisco’s use of racial considerations in student assignment. When the settlement was announced, Amy Chang of the Legal Foundation crowed, “The era of racial bean-counting is over.” Roland Quan of the Chinese American Democratic Club was even more triumphal. “This is a solution,” he said, with little apparent irony, “for the 21st Century.”