ual opportunity for all.Besides the court hearings stemming from reverse discrimination suits, the first bill to ban racial preferences and quotas was passed in California by a 54 to 46 vote. The bill is called the California Civil Rights Initiative which decrees the state of California cannot discriminate (notice the choice of words) against anyone , or grant preferences to any individual or group on the basis of race, gender, or natural origin in public housing, public school admissions; including colleges, or public contracting. (Williams, 1997). A similar bill, in 1995, was brought up by Senate Majority leader Robert J. Dole, and Rep Charles T. Canady. The bill would have banned programs that used goals or timetables to remedy discrimination (Lugg, 1997, p. 3). However, this bill was unsuccessful.Many people believe that bills like these, if passed, will keep black and other minorities from gaining admittance to colleges. However as the table shows below, not much has changed since The California Civil Rights Initiative bill was passed last year.Black Enrollments at University Of California Medical Schools19961997UC- San Diego30UC- Irvine20UC- Los Angeles1010UC- San Francisco1112UC- Davis05Total2627 Source: (Zinsmeister, 1997, p. 18)Efforts, like the bills mentioned before, have become hot on the agendas of many people. According to Lugg (1997), while some anti-discrimination methods are viewed by some as more aggressive yet legitimate methods to increase minority participation others believed such seemingly preferential policies [stifle] competition and [commit] what was to be known as reverse discrimination against non-minorities. (p. 12) Many tend to agree with the others. Here are just a few:Lugg (1997), Is it socially justifiable to providefederal and/or state legislation preferences? (p. 16) Altman & Promis, It is against American principles of justice to sacrifice the rights of individuals for the benefit of some group ...
