UCLA, UC Davis, Cal State LA, Cal Poly and the other State colleges and universities are as racist as the Alabama schools in the 1950’s. Our school, like those of the 1950 Alabama are segregated. That is Democrat promoted racism—remember, the Democrats controlled Alabama in 1950 and California in 2024. The Democrat Party is America’s historic racist Party. Democrats DEFENDED slavery, created Jim Crow laws, stopped blacks from voting, getting jobs and going to quality schools.
Now, we have a Democrat wanting to further us into the land of the KKK.
“Why are Democrats segregating blacks, and now agitating for free college as part of proposed reparations in California?
Black college students now have separate graduation, separate admission standards, separate dorms, separate curricula … and now are going to have separate tuition rates in California, if the proposed Assembly Constitutional Amendment 7 by Assemblyman Corey Jackson (D-Riverside) makes it to the ballot.
Notably, “Assemblyman Corey A. Jackson, DSW, MSW, was elected to the California State Assembly in November of 2022,” his official biography states. Note the degrees, and that he is an elected member of the California Legislature. He’s one of the elite. So why is a highly educated black man insulting other blacks in California by telling them they need free college in order to succeed? Why is Assemblyman Dr. Corey Jackson insisting that blacks need preferential treatment on the basis of race in public employment, public education, and public contracting?
Not mentioned in his bio is the fact that Corey Jackson is a member in good standing of the KLAN IN TAN.
California Democrats Setting Race Relations Back 70 Years with ACA 7
Does Assemblyman Dr. Corey Jackson support ‘separate but equal’ in practice”
By Katy Grimes, California Globe, 2/26/24 https://californiaglobe.com/fl/california-democrats-setting-race-relations-back-70-years-with-aca-7/
Why are Democrats segregating blacks, and now agitating for free college as part of proposed reparations in California?
Black college students now have separate graduation, separate admission standards, separate dorms, separate curricula … and now are going to have separate tuition rates in California, if the proposed Assembly Constitutional Amendment 7 by Assemblyman Corey Jackson (D-Riverside) makes it to the ballot.
Notably, “Assemblyman Corey A. Jackson, DSW, MSW, was elected to the California State Assembly in November of 2022,” his official biography states. Note the degrees, and that he is an elected member of the California Legislature. He’s one of the elite. So why is a highly educated black man insulting other blacks in California by telling them they need free college in order to succeed? Why is Assemblyman Dr. Corey Jackson insisting that blacks need preferential treatment on the basis of race in public employment, public education, and public contracting?
Perhaps it has something to do with Assemblyman Dr. Corey Jackson’s advanced degrees – a Master of Social Work degree and a Doctor of Social Work degree. (He calls himself “Assemblyman Dr. Corey Jackson.)
Does Assemblyman Dr. Corey Jackson support “separate but equal” in practice, ignoring that Plessy v. Fergusson (1896) was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Why are California Democrats openly trying to set race relations back 70 years?
In January the Globe spoke with Gail Heriot, Chair woman of the No on ACA 7 campaign and Professor of Law at the University of San Diego. She said the latest attempt to overturn Prop. 209 “is trickier” than previous attempts because “instead of attempting an outright repeal, it creates a procedure under which the governor can make ‘exceptions.’”
“ACA-7 is all about asking voters to pre-approve whatever exceptions to Proposition 209 that Governor Newsom or some unknown future governor decides to make,” said Heriot. “I am confident that if it makes the ballot and voters understand it, they will reject it. The state Senate should stop it before it gets that far.”
At issue is Proposition 209, passed in 1996 by California voters, 54.55% to 45.45%, which banned racial preferences in education and hiring… but it’s not as if the state or higher education actually honored Prop. 209…
Assemblyman Dr. Jackson claims, “Since its passing in 1996, Proposition 209 has served as a barrier toward implementing potential programs to assist vulnerable communities who have intentionally been neglected and left behind for over 400 years. This unjust law has substantially limited the state’s ability to address disparities in business contracting, education, housing, wealth, employment, and healthcare, which are deeply embedded in laws, policies, and institutions that perpetuate racial inequalities.”
Ironically perhaps, Prop. 209 is based on the exact language of the 1964 U.S. Civil Right Act.
Proposition 209 added a section to the California Constitution’s Declaration of Rights which only said that the state cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, and public contracting, and banned the use of affirmative action involving race-based or sex-based preferences in California.
And if Prop. 209 is so “substantially limiting” and “unjust,” how did Assemblyman Dr. Corey Jackson get two advanced degrees and become a member of the California State Assembly?
In the 6/2/23 bill analysis of Jackson’s ACA 7, there is this little disclaimer:
This constitutional amendment might allow California to implement more programs that have been demonstrated to increase the life expectancy of, improve educational outcomes for, or lift out of poverty, specific marginalized populations which would benefit all Californians [emphasis the Globe].
The 6/23/23 Judiciary Committee analysis of ACA 7 acknowledges:
A pending Supreme Court decision may impact the scope of this constitutional amendment. Given the controversial nature of affirmative action, unsurprisingly, the issue is pending before the United States Supreme Court in the combined cases of Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard (Docket No. 20-1199.) and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina (Docket No. 21-707.). The critical legal issue on appeal in both cases is the status of race-conscious admissions in higher education under the United States Constitution.
And on June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court finally declared racial preferences in university admissions unconstitutional, in a 6-3 decision.
SCOTUS Blog reported:
Chief Justice John Roberts explained that college admissions programs can consider race merely to allow an applicant to explain how their race influenced their character in a way that would have a concrete effect on the university. But a student “must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race,” Roberts wrote.
Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion and took the relatively rare step of reading a summary of his opinion from the bench. He pushed back against the idea, advanced by Sotomayor in her (69-page) dissent, that the 14th Amendment “does not impose a blanket ban on race-conscious policies.”
Assemblyman Dr. Corey Jackson is also the author of AB 1078 targeting parents who object to DEI, CRT and graphic sex being taught to their kids, calling them “Christian White Nationalists.”
Jackson also personally attacked and smeared his colleague, Assemblyman Bill Essayli (R-Riverside), as a “white supremacist” for opposing ACA 7.
It appears that Assemblyman Dr. Corey Jackson is the one who has the problem with race, and not parents of school-aged children, not Republicans, not employers, and not most black residents of California.
Here is the background on No on ACA 7:
“No on ACA 7” is a ballot measure committee organized for the purpose of defeating Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 7, a discriminatory and unconstitutional proposal that would erode and effectively repeal the California Constitution, Article I, section 31 (a). The constitutional provision states the following:
“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.”
First codified via the successful passage of Proposition 209, which was approved by 54.55% of California voters in November 1996. In 2020, opponents of Prop. 209 tried to repeal it via Proposition 16, placed on the ballot through the State Legislature. This time, 57.23% of the California electorate, more progressive and diverse than in 1996, voted to keep Prop. 209 in place.
Here is the “NO on ACA7” PETITION – Sign and share the petition.
Gail Heriot recommends California voters contact their state senators to let them know where they stand. Email, call their offices, send a letter, and definitely sign the petition. Here is a link to the list of Senators (scroll to the end).
