Image 01 Image 03

California restricts support of students traveling to Tennessee

California restricts support of students traveling to Tennessee

Kansas, Mississippi, and North Carolina are also targets of the Golden State social justice travel ban.

Just a few short weeks ago, the 9th Circuit Court in San Fransisco refused to overturn a lower court decision that halted the implementation of President Trump’s Executive Order that would temporarily halt immigration from seven countries until “extreme vetting” procedures had been established.

One of the reasons the judges cited was the hardships the travel restriction would cause and applied 5th Amendment protections to non-citizens. Here’s is a snippet from Professor Jacobson’s review as a reminder.

The 9th Circuit failed to distinguish between people even the government concedes have some due process rights and as to whom it would not apply the Executive Order (e.g., permanent residents, those lawfully in the U.S. on a visa) and strangers abroad who may not even have applied for a visa. By failing, indeed refusing, to distinguish among those very different categories, the 9th Circuit effectively extends constitutional due process protections even to people who have not yet even applied for a visa.

Yet, the state of California is happily imposing travel restrictions on its own citizens in the name of political correctness. A new Golden State statute prohibits state agencies (including state universities) from funding travel to a number of states that have laws that allegedly discriminate against the LGBT community, but now students looking to attend conferences in those states have to pay their own way or not go at all.

On January first of this year, Assembly Bill 1887 went into effect, which reads in part:

…. “[T]he Board of Regents of the University of California … shall not … Approve a request for state-funded or state-sponsored travel to a state that, after June 26, 2015, has enacted a law that voids or repeals, or has the effect of voiding or repealing, existing state or local protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The states that have been targeted for the travel ban are:

  • Kansas
  • Mississippi
  • North Carolina
  • Tennessee

Now, the effect of that ban is being felt by California’s students:

UC Davis senior Acacia Keith was excited to present her research on the anti-abortion movement at what would have been her first national conference this spring.

The Council on Undergraduate Research conference, which showcases work by more than 3,000 undergraduates, is considered a premier opportunity to make an academic mark and network for jobs and graduate programs. UC Davis was going to pay for Keith to travel there.

But there’s a problem. The conference is being held this year at the University of Memphis in Tennessee. A new California law bans state-funded travel to states that discriminate against the LGBT community. And the California attorney general has listed Tennessee as one of them, along with Kansas, North Carolina and Mississippi.

At least 18 students at UC Davis, UC Santa Barbara and Cal State Long Beach planned to attend the Memphis conference with their trips paid by the state schools. More than 100 Californians were selected for the April gathering, but Elizabeth Ambos, the council’s executive director, could not say how many attended public universities that are subject to the law.

The California Golden Bears, the UC Berkeley college basketball team, had to nix a series it was planning with the University of Kansas.

Cal has ended talks with the Kansas Jayhawks about a potential future home-and-home series because of an anti-discrimination law passed in California in 2015, according to a report.

According to the Lawrence World-Journal, the law, which took effect Jan. 1, does not allow public colleges or universities to visit teams in other states that have laws that allow discrimination against the LGBT community. Kansas has a “religious freedom” law that allows student groups to be discriminatory in their membership practices based on those groups’ beliefs, the World-Journal reported.

“Cal said they couldn’t do it,” Kansas athletics spokesman Jim Marchiony told the World-Journal of the proposed series with the Golden Bears.

These incidents won’t be the last social justice travel bans that will impact students at California’s public institutions.

Too bad our California students, many of whom pay a considerable amount of tuition to attend those insitutions, don’t enjoy protections on the type of travel they can do in the quest for a quality education.

Perhaps some savvy lawyer can bring this issue to the attention of the 9th Circuit Court? Its decision on this matter would be…fascinating.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



Gee, what would they say if other states refused to support their citizens from visiting Emporer Moonbeam’s kingdom by the sea? Probably something along the line of “You’re intolerant of California-ists!!!”

    DaveGinOly in reply to SeniorD. | February 24, 2017 at 6:55 pm

    Conservatives should organize a boycott of several leftist states. Maybe the NRA could be the motive force. The target states would be CA, NY, MA, and NJ (at least). Because there are several, and it would be impractical to effectively boycott them all at once, I propose a rotation in which one, maybe two states a year are boycotted (as thoroughly as possible) by conservatives. California has certainly earned the first spot in the rotation, maybe NY and NJ could be put in the rotation together (because they’re contiguous it would make it easy to avoid visiting the area entirely). Some cities could also be considered as secondary boycott targets each year.

I was listening to a sports station 1300 am , it’s either in San Antonio or Austin, anyway, the San Antonio Spurs revenue is down 43% and they can’t put a finger on it. They thought it may be the lack of Duncan this year.
Well I think it’s because their coach has made numerous anti Trump remarks. I for one stopped watching them on TV because of it.
San Francisco 49ers suffered greatly because of Kap and his anti American stance. People are waking up.
I love football, but I can live without it.
Not really on subject I know.
California is going to find itself marginalized, the rest of the nation will go on with business as usual. They think because of their size they can force their opinion on everyone else. They haven’t got over, despite all the illegals voting , it wasn’t enough to put Hillary over.
The NFL and NBA think they can cower States into transgender bathrooms and any other issue they deem they have a right to beat the nation over the head with. Well the Gov of Texas pretty much told them where to go. How dare they, not even elected to anything and trying to blackmail States. Well there is a new sherriff in town .

    DaveGinOly in reply to gonzotx. | February 24, 2017 at 6:59 pm

    When Tom Brady retires, I’m probably done with the NFL. Nearly walked away this year, but I have a lady fried who likes to watch the games with me. I’ll have to prepare her for my own eventual retirement from (watching) the sport.

What do we have to do to keep those lunatics out of Texas? Isn’t threatening to not let men into the girls restroom enough? We have to try harder!

I’m sure California has also banned travel to middle eastern countries especially for their anti gay stances also.
I’d go so far as to guess they could also ban electronic parts from countries with human rights violations if they really tried.

Quite obviously, the answer to this is a Temporary Restraining Order placed by one of the states in the banned zone to enjoin (right word?) any attempt by the State of California to interfere in the free exchange of commerce across state lines. Perhaps fines of up to $100,000 per day for every day they attempt to keep this obviously discriminatory law in place, and a few choice words from Federal Judges would clear this up.

Just kidding. It’s not like a Federal court in Kansas would suspend a suspect law all the way over in… Oh, like the 9th did for the immigration order?

The Constitution is a contract with two parties: the People and our Posterity. Despite the Supreme Court’s extralegal disenfranchisement of the second party, the Constitution has not, in fact, changed. Perhaps California can be held in contempt of the Constitution for violating citizens’ rights.

And I always thought it was unconstitutional for one state to wage war against another. A boycott is the functional equivalent of a blockade, which is an act of war.

    DaveGinOly in reply to gospace. | February 24, 2017 at 7:09 pm

    There’s a fundamental difference between a boycott and a blockade that, I think, invalidates your conclusion. In a boycott, the boycotter refuses to do business with the boycotted. In a blockade, the blockader prevents others from doing business with the blockaded. The former is a voluntary act, the latter is a use of force or the threat of force that causes others to involuntarily (under duress) avoid commerce with the blockaded party.

Did they include a carve-out for NCAA student athletes? Can there be no more UCLA Bruin-UNC Tarheel basketball games, for example? Did they even think of that?

Whatever happens, most of us in NC are grateful for their attempt to stay the F out of NC.

    Sufferfortribe in reply to Henry Hawkins. | February 24, 2017 at 6:22 pm

    I was thinking along the same lines, but more in regards to a possible college football national championship. But that’s only if someone like USC actually gets good again.

    “Whatever happens, most of us in NC are grateful for their attempt to stay the F out of NC.”

    Ditto. Might be the only decent thing done in that corrupt state, keeping them away.

I cannot remember the case law, but as I remember it, one of the “privileges and immunities” appertaining to U.S. citizenship under the constitution is the right to travel among the states. Under th 14th Amendment, Section 1, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…”

If my memory serves, and travel among and between the states is such a privilege, an argument might be made that this California statute violate the 14th Amendment, as well, of course, as the Article IV, Section 2, of the constitution, which states:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

The 14th is referrring to this clause.

Also, I believe an argument could be made under Article I, Section 10 of the Constituion that California lacks authority to place conditions upon commerce without the permission of Congress. It states:

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspections Law…

Just thinking out loud, so to speak.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Close The Fed. | February 24, 2017 at 7:04 pm

    I would think this premise would falter on the fact that CA is not prohibiting its citizens nor its students from traveling to any place, it’s just not funding said travel. I think it would be within the purview of any state to determine how it spends its funds in its support of students or any other group of citizens.

      sequester in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 25, 2017 at 5:28 am

      One can further argue, that by attempting to impose its policy via denial of funds, California is violating the “full faith and credit clause” of Article IV.

      It is a political issue and the decision hinges on the political biases of the judges.

Too many people from California have moved to Texas, primarily Austin, and they have brought their left wing agenda with them.

Subotai Bahadur | February 24, 2017 at 7:36 pm

The Government of the wanna-be sovereign state of California, en-route to being the Peoples’ Democrat Republic of Alta California, has the right to determine where they will spend their money.

So do the states blacklisted by California. I could see a three part mandate passed by the blacklisted legislatures and others that may choose to join in:

1) No graduate from any college funded by the State of California will be hired by the government of [insert state name] until and unless there are NO candidates for the position available from the other 49 states.

2) No state government funds of [insert state name] shall be used to purchase any goods originating in the State of California, nor shall any such state funds be used to purchase services of any kind from a company based in California.

3) No California state, local, or special district bonds or other financial obligations shall be purchased by any fiduciary body operated in whole or in part by the state of [insert state name].

Turnabout being fair play.

Mind you, it will take about 5 pages of lawyer talk for each section. It is what legislatures do.

This is actually a good thing. Let them have their travel ban, and let it be upheld in court. Then the President enacts the same ban — no travel from countries that don’t respect LGBT rights. Boom — instant muslim ban.

It’s going get worse before it gets better.

A minority of people is trying to enslave the rest of us.

Imagine if we didn’t control the military right now?

Californians ruin whatever and wherever they go. They cannot even keep their lights on by themselves without help from neighboring states despite being rich as Croesus and possessing the finest natural resources in the nation outside Alaska.

They are spoiled and not serious people who don’t deserve to run a head shop much less a state.