California has introduced legislation, AB-7, encouraging universities to give admissions preferences to the descendants of former slaves.
In its continuing mission to be the wokest state in the union, my home state has now taken performative, virtue-signaling politics to a whole new low.
Perhaps the California Legislature needs a legal refresher:
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the government from discriminating against individuals based solely on their race unless a law meets the strictest constitutional scrutiny.
This protection does not apply only to minorities, but to all people.
Only two years ago, in the Students for Fair Admissions case, the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that this protection is as strong as ever.
And in 1996, California voters approved Proposition 209, which specifically bars colleges from considering race, sex, ethnicity or national origin in admissions.
In other words, AB-7 is clearly opposed by both federal and state law.
But California lawmakers have never let that stand in the way of their request to cure alleged past discrimination with current discrimination.
Perhaps recognizing AB-7’s inherent vulnerability to legal challenge, supporters of the bill have made clear that the language used was specifically chosen to be focused on lineage, and not on race.
According to Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles), who authored the bill and is black, “The story of our country is such that people who look like me and people who do not look like me could be descendants of American chattel slavery.”
See if you can follow the logic (I can’t).
The descendants of former slaves are disadvantaged because of the color of their skin, but the color of their skin also has nothing to do with their disadvantage.
Even Harry Houdini would be impressed with this attempted sleight of hand.
If “lineage” were not a proxy for race (it is, of course), AB-7’s criteria for connection with enslaved ancestors renders the standard nonsensical.
If I am a wealthy and white descendent of someone who before 1900 was enslaved, I can be considered for preferred college admissions no matter the actual circumstances under which I was raised or educated.
Of course, lineage being a proxy for race is the entire point of the legislation.
AB-7 references the specific concept for “chattel slavery,” or owning a person outright. And in American history that regrettably means one thing: black people.
Clearly, the Legislature seeks to do nothing more than feed stereotypes in which we each shed our individual agency in exchange for being categorized in neat racial boxes. Gone are the admonitions to judge individuals based on the content of their character and not their skin color.
If you have black skin, you must automatically be disadvantaged.
Not only is AB-7 unconstitutional and illegal, it is offensive.
Unfortunately, AB-7 has now been approved in both legislative chambers and awaits only the signature of future presidential nominee, current Gov. Gavin Newsom.
The Equal Protection Project will continue to monitor this situation, and if the legislation is approved, will explore ways to fight back.
Reminder: we are a small organization going up against powerful and wealthy government and private institutions devoted to DEI discrimination. Donations are greatly needed and appreciated.
———–
Timothy R. Snowball is a Senior Attorney at the Equal Protection Project.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY