Talk:1996 California Proposition 209

message: Is this law still in effect?  The UC graduate programs still prominently state that they give preference to individuals of minority racial groups.--Nectarflowed 03:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, although the UC system is trying to wiggle its way out of it. --Falcorian | Talk 23:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Affirmative action is still allowed in some circumstances, given the need to carry out the 14th Amendment mandate granting minority groups equal protection of the laws.  It's hard to reconcile this old initiative and the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Grutter.  I have a feeling Prop 209 proponents don't want to test their luck. Huangdi 11:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Supreme Court merely upheld that it is not against the U.S. Constitution to use Affirmative Action in college admissions. This does not imply that it isn't against the California Constitution, which it is. Giving preference based on race is clearly illegal within the state of California. (Not to mention that the Supreme Court would almost certainly side with California's constitution if the issue came before it, particularly as Sandra Day O'Connor has been replaced with Samuel Alito. In fact, Grutter v. Bollinger was a 5-4 decision that could now likely be 4-5 if voted on again.) And don't forget the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative is the newest legislation related to this issue and seems to be a carbon copy of Proposition 209. Uris 13:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old comments

message: Perhaps it would make sense to put the support section first before the opposition section... generally that's how a debate is framed, the supporter makes an argument for a policy (in this case for CCRI) and then the opposition has a rebuttal.  I think by beginning with opposition the article lacks proper neutrality. --Nuncio | Talk 00:49, 28 February 2006 (PST)
:Sounds fine, swaping now. --Falcorian (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: makes sense to me.  -- Minik 00:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support Section Before Opposition Section 

message: I can't believe that wikipedia has not included the text of 209.
All you have is an abstract discission.
Why is this?
:Well, the text would go on Wikisource for one. But they may not have it, in which case it should probably be added. --Falcorian (talk) 05:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added some text, as well as the link to the full text. --JianLi 00:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the text of 209? 

message: The "Stanford is more diverse" sentence has been removed and there doesn't seem to be more discussion after this. Would it be fine to remove the NPOV-section tag now? IgorSF 10:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absent further discussion, I'm removing the tag. IgorSF 08:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say, I'm quite tempted to remove your addition, 136.152.133.140.  First of all, I don't agree with the implication that the inverse relationship between graduation rates and admission or enrollment rates indicates the failure of Prop 209—far from it.  But more immediately, my concern is that, as written, your edit appears (to me) to be nonsensical.  The only way that it could make sense is if the assertion is that in 1996 African-Americans constituted 59.6% of the incoming freshman class.  This, I seriously doubt.  If not that, then what does the phrase mean, "From 1996 to 1998 African-American enrollment rates dropped from 59.6% to 20.3%"?  Do you mean that there was a 59.6% decrease in overall black enrollment?  Or do you mean a range, and if so, why does it not assume the more traditional phrasing, '20.3 to 59.6'?  I'm really confused here, and will delete it without further clarification and documentation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unschool (talk • contribs) 05:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Whoops, sorry about that.  Just an oversight.  I never intentionally leave unsigned comments.  Thanks for catching that for me! Unschool 05:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: * Hmmmmmm.  I find it interesting that my unsigned comment was pointed out, but the preceding one, to which I was responding, was not pointed out.  Is there bias amongst the "signature police"? Unschool 05:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: I would like to inquire why the title of this article, as it currently stands, is "California Proposition 209 (1996)" and not "California Proposition 209." Seeing as there is no other article with the same name and the latter is currently a redirect page for this article as is, I would recommend that we rename this page "California Proposition 209" and get rid of the redirect. This would make it easier for users to find the article, and would also simplify the title. What does everyone else think? ~ Homologeo 19:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have already noticed this, but I thought I'd just let you know that, seeing no responses or opposition to my suggestion, I have moved the article page so that it now has the more succinct title proposed above. ~ Homologeo 00:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title of Article

message: In the intro, there are "facts" presented in favor of and opposed to Prop. 209.  I notice that all those in favor of Prop. 209 lead to a [citation needed], while the one opposed to it leads to an actual source.  How long does one wait for a source to be provided before something that has no citation is simply deleted?  If these "facts" are allowed to stay indefinitely, I'd say the article is biased.  72.129.0.10 (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources in the Intro

message: Should the article include content, with references from reliable sources, that state that overturning Prop 209 would decrease Asian American admissions to UCs and CSUs?
*National Review Online
*Wall Street Journal
*International Business Times
--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effect on Asian Americans 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:California Proposition 187 (1994) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 23:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: David Duke shouldn't be in the support list on this page. This page should list the prominent supporters. David Duke's only association is being invited in a debate and accepted it. He's not a major supporter in the 209 campaign.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhaolin57 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Duke in Support List