The Effects of Proposition 209 on California

Charles L. Geshekter is emeritus professor of history at California State University, Chico, California 95929-0735. This address was originally presented at “Race and Gender Preferences at the Crossroads,” a conference organized by the California Association of Scholars and co-sponsored by the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) and the Center for Equal Opportunity, held January 19, 2008, at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. A longer version of the original article is available from the ACRI, P.O. Box 188350, Sacramento, CA 95818. The author is grateful to Roger Clegg, Sharon Browne, Jay Bergman, John Ellis, and Ward Connerly for their cogent suggestions and valuable criticisms of earlier drafts.

David Randall is Director of Research at the National Association of Scholars. He has updated Charles Geshekter’s 2008 article for 2020.

Please contact Dr. Randall ([email protected]) with any queries about this article.

---

California’s state legislature just passed Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 5 (ACA-5), which will allow California’s voters on Election Day in November 2020 to repeal Proposition 209, which “prohibits the state from discriminating against, or granting 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.” Such a repeal would be disastrous for Californians. Proposition 209 has enhanced California’s good civic reputation since 1996, as an institutional support of the American principle of equal opportunity for all individual American citizens. It has also worked well: all Californian citizens have done well under Proposition 209, especially in higher education and public contracting.

Prof. Charles Geshekter’s 2008 article, “The Effects of Proposition 209 on California: Higher Education, Public Employment, and Contracting,” superbly demonstrated how well Proposition 209 had functioned until then. It remains in heavy demand to this day, especially now in 2020, as Californians debate whether or not to repeal Proposition 209. However, Prof. Geshekter’s article does not include more current data. The National Association of Scholars has therefore updated Prof. Geshekter’s article. This version adds new data, and includes small rewordings of the original text, to fit the revised data.

The data since 2008 continues to demonstrate how well Proposition 209 has worked for all Californians. We urge all Californians to vote against ACA-5, and preserve Proposition 209. Prof. Geshekter’s updated article shows in detail why they should.

---

Introduction

In 1996, Californians overwhelmingly approved Proposition 209 that prohibited all state agencies from using anyone’s race, ethnicity, or gender to discriminate against them or give them preference in university admissions, public employment, or competition for a state contract.

Those who opposed Proposition 209 predicted that ending racial or gender favoritism would result in sharp declines in black and Hispanic college enrollments, setbacks for women in public employment, reduced funds for cancer detection centers and domestic violence shelters, or other alarmingly negative effects.

This article compares such dire predictions with documentary evidence provided by the State Personnel Board, the Department of Finance, the University of California (UC), and California State University (CSU). It relies on data concerning admissions, retention, and graduation of undergraduates from the CSU system and the UC and reviews faculty hiring patterns within both systems. Other tables compare the numbers of white, black, Hispanic, males and females employed in a variety of California state agencies in 1997, after Proposition 209 was approved, nine years later in 2006, and then in 2009/2010, 2014, and 2018.

These statistics document the progress made towards social justice under Proposition 209 and may encourage voters in other states who want to assure that preferential treatment (regardless of whatever else it may euphemistically be called) becomes a thing of the past in the operation of their respective state governments.

These data offer many uncomfortable truths to defenders of racial preferences and gender double standards whose unscrupulous attacks on voter initiatives are likely to persist, regardless of the facts from California. Defenders of double standards and group preferences insinuate that American voters in 2020 cannot understand the simple, straightforward language of the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. So immersed in the doubletalk of diversity and obsessed with achieving proportional representation in all walks of life, diversity crusaders ignore or dismiss any good news, repeating their tiresome mantra that without racial preferences or gender double standards a chilly climate for diversity will envelop the workplace and campuses.

This article demonstrates the dishonesty of such claims. The UC and CSU systems continue to accelerate higher education success for all students by promoting educational practices that support everyone’s academic achievement. The CSU and UC data show that blacks, Hispanics, and other underrepresented groups have suffered no harm, but have steadily increased in the statistically significant areas of high school graduates and university baccalaureate holders across the state.

Despite the constant refrain about needing an “even playing field,” the fact is that getting admitted to a university or starting an academic career or landing a construction contract is not some game. When playing “the diversity game,” the defenders of racial preferences or gender double standards prefer to play by no rules. They ignore the fact that disparities in any social category are not proof of discrimination, and that social scientists and geneticists have long recognized that variations within any group are far greater than any variations between such groups.

Proposition 209 in no way hindered the progress of minorities and women in public employment. Predictions about a future deterioration of labor market positions for women and minorities proved utterly unfounded.

In the construction industry, the end of racial preferences and gender set-asides resulted in a decline in the number of certified female- and minority-led businesses that had previously relied on favoritism (Women’s Business Enterprises [WBE] and Minority Business Enterprises [MBE]). This was not a surprising development. Meticulous investigations by the Discrimination Research Center, led by researchers who opposed Proposition 209, confirmed that many of the firms that went out of business after 1997 were not competitive to begin with, a fact that the successful women and ethnic minority business owners seemed easily to grasp when interviewed. By banning quotas and double standards in awarding state construction contracts, the implementation of Proposition 209 saved California millions of dollars (as demonstrated in studies by economist Justin Marion cited below).

The available evidence offers no support for ominous predictions made by opponents of Proposition 209 that the measure would “turn back the clock” on women’s progress or undermine equal opportunities for ethnic minorities.¹ A study from Michigan nonetheless claimed in 2005 that Proposition 209 had “eroded access to services, education, job training and other opportunities for women.² Defenders of gender preferences and set-asides, such as One United Michigan, warned that ending such policies would, in Michigan as in California, “hurt women and girls.” But nothing of the sort ever happened in California.³

The hiring and promotion of women as faculty at the CSU and UC systems continued to increase. Women enrolled and graduated in greater numbers than men at the UC and CSU, and majored in a broad cross-section of fields including natural sciences, computer science, mathematics, and technology studies.

While none of this data may ever convince those who still staunchly oppose Proposition 209, it does rebut their predictions that initiatives like Proposition 209 jeopardize women and ethnic minorities. Shanta Driver, the national spokesperson for By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) alleged in 2007 that “the initiatives had a ‘devastating impact’ on ‘under-represented’ groups.”⁴

One searches in vain for such evidence. Allegations like Driver’s rely on abusive terms like “resegregation” or outright fabrications to allege that damage is caused by eliminating racial and gender preferences. Such unsubstantiated claims often receive the uncritical attention of the media that treat them as “moral statistics” requiring no verification. This report corrects these erroneous impressions by reviewing actual statistical information available on California.

University of California Baccalaureates

Disparities in student academic performances in secondary schools are due, of course, to a variety of bitterly debated factors regarding learning conditions. These include stable home environments, nature of parental supervision, socio-economic status, and the quality of neighborhood schools in terms of qualified teachers and counselors, properly equipped facilities, textbooks, and advanced course availability. In addition, ethnic and racial communities vary in their income levels, the importance that each attaches to educational achievement, the presence of books in the home, the amount of television a child is allowed to watch, and a household’s familiarity with higher education.⁵

Contrary to relentlessly negative predictions, the numbers of black and Hispanic undergraduates that were newly enrolled system-wide at the University of California rose steadily from 1998 to 2006. The elimination of ethnic preferences and the prohibition against racial double standards in admissions led to a redistribution of students among the ten-campus system, with fewer only at the most competitive flagship campuses of Berkeley and UCLA.

While there was a significant drop in the numbers of black and Hispanic students at Berkeley and UCLA between 1999 and 2006, Table 1 indicates the greater success that ethnic minorities had in actually completing a baccalaureate degree when they attended a UC campus that offered an apparently better match for their academic backgrounds and preparation.

Table 1⁶
University of California Bachelors Degrees: Ethnicity and Campus, 1999-2006*

UC System	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	Change, '99-'06
Asian	10,485	10,578	10,962	12,035	12,686	13,744	14,076	14,383	37%
Black	1,139	1,034	1,023	1,,025	1,056	1,086	1,158	1,170	3%
Hispanic	3,984	3,899	4,099	4,223	4,582	5,981	5,258	5,287	33%
White	12,922	13,116	13,631	14,389	14,649	15,120	15,073	15,127	17%
All	31,949							40,962	28%
UC Berkely	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	Change, '99-'06
Asian	2,303	2,213	2,269	2,533	2,596	2,667	2,613	2,533	10%
Black	286	275	258	196	245	226	219	219	-23%
Hispanic	670	616	585	535	580	623	701	636	-5%
White	1,985	1,761	1,906	1,988	2,043	2,026	1,995	2,075	4%
All	6,102							6,446	6%
UC Davis	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	Change, '99-'06
Asian	1,575	1,498	1,500	1,665	1,763	1,934	1,127	1,270	44%
Black	130	135	114	143	145	133	138	142	8%
Hispanic	443	394	429	422	536	562	531	577	23%
White	2,027	2,035	2,121	2,293	2,468	2,459	2,488	2,396	18%
All	4,642							5,894	27%
UC Irvine	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	Change, '99-'06
Asian	1,675	1,799	1,799	1,980	2,253	2,494	2,461	2,418	44%
Black	65	63	62	84	76	86	126	115	43%
Hispanic	367	337	367	432	389	543	593	531	31%
White	770	727	812	983	1,050	1,286	1,267	1,286	67%
All	3,181							5,021	57%
UCLA	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	Change, '99-'06
Asian	2,202	2,211	2,427	2,392	2,492	2,560	2,496	2,529	14%
Black	355	299	267	243	240	236	226	197	-44%
Hispanic	1,002	915	274	914	935	1,051	1,057	1,072	7%
White	2,197	2,326	2,490	2,492	2,465	2,530	2,408	2,401	9%
All	6,195							6,958	12%
UC Riverside	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	Change, '99-'06
Asian	611	747	792	942	1,084	1,178	1,276	1,338	118%
Black	87	83	109	117	152	177	198	218	60%
Hispanic	367	389	464	531	621	668	751	737	50%
White	552	578	566	644	720	714	694	706	27%
All	1,762							3,317	88%
UC San Diego	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	Change, '99-'06
Asian	1,265	1,278	1,288	1,500	1,443	1,867	2,070	1,952	54%
Black	65	58	57	64	50	59	58	69	6%
Hispanic	319	392	274	407	387	452	464	513	61%
White	1,474	1,567	1,661	1,688	1,657	1,867	1,883	1,831	24%
All	3,530							5,061	43%
UC Santa Barbara	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	Change, '99-'06
Asian	591	546	537	596	626	613	696	738	24%
Black	89	77	104	111	94	100	124	124	40%
Hispanic	495	534	573	617	638	695	738	747	51%
White	2,467	2,642	2,651	2,716	2,579	2,587	2,598	2,604	5%
All	4,058							4,823	19%
UC Santa Cruz	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	Change, '99-'06
Asian	229	281	345	420	421	428	536	587	156%
Black	60	43	52	66	54	69	69	84	40%
Hispanic	314	318	325	333	296	286	422	460	46%
White	1,410	1,475	1,417	1,577	1,658	1,644	1,740	1,812	28%
All	2,385							3,388	42%

Between 2007 and 2018, the numbers of black, Hispanic, and Asian students boomed at all UC campuses—and black and Hispanic students at Berkeley and UCLA more than made up their temporary decline in numbers between 1999 and 2006. Whites were the only ethnic group in California whose numbers declined in the UC system during these years.

Table 2⁷
University of California Bachelor’s Degrees: Ethnicity and Campus, 2007-2018

UC System	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	Change, '07-'18
Asian/Pacific Islander	15320	15587	16802	17842	18125	18224	18328	18597	18638	19178	19265	19403	27%
African American	1152	1251	1291	1386	1618	1659	1634	1609	1828	1888	1997	2061	79%
Hispanic/Latino	5681	5842	6144	6897	7648	8477	8667	9656	10546	11417	11865	12692	123%
White	15268	15280	15752	15946	16116	15759	14435	14113	13591	13956	13839	13584	-11%
All	42464	42838	45110	47153	49100	49117	48249	49416	50860	53911	55537	57203	35%
UC Berkeley	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	Change, '07-'18
Asian/Pacific Islander	2828	3007	2877	3035	2925	2969	2907	2889	2948	2983	2956	3347	18%
African American	185	213	239	265	247	236	231	233	254	255	277	271	46%
Hispanic/Latino	732	750	780	856	838	925	930	955	990	991	1129	1236	69%
White	2258	2367	2310	2306	2277	2447	2195	2190	1970	2183	2231	2209	-2%
All	6960	7249	7092	7466	7526	7775	7565	7647	7457	7906	8213	8727	25%
UC Davis	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	Change, '07-'18
Asian/Pacific Islander	2267	2251	2461	2579	2602	2761	2624	2966	2983	2967	2885	2665	18%
African American	129	154	141	169	187	212	191	193	229	264	238	274	112%
Hispanic/Latino	577	597	704	736	852	992	1016	1149	1246	1343	1425	1548	168%
White	2199	2175	2345	2312	2402	2452	2264	2195	2361	2287	2281	2059	-6%
All	5785	5762	6369	6511	6738	7015	6765	7120	7560	7855	8137	7993	38%
UC Irvine	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	Change, '07-'18
Asian/Pacific Islander	2490	2746	3094	3285	3225	3067	3120	3218	3068	2998	2932	3040	22%
African American	94	105	148	107	156	132	143	158	199	205	192	223	137%
Hispanic/Latino	592	683	676	820	911	950	937	1235	1531	1685	1790	2048	246%
White	1422	1504	1492	1508	1478	1294	1270	1284	1077	1171	1159	1217	-14%
All	5209	5265	5962	6298	6378	5963	5997	6414	6570	7148	7265	8063	55%
UCLA	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	Change, '07-'18
Asian/Pacific Islander	2539	2586	2939	2891	2758	2658	2744	2836	2708	2777	2778	2712	7%
African American	239	236	216	241	267	320	263	278	285	317	384	390	63%
Hispanic/Latino	1094	1068	1033	1105	1111	1200	1188	1385	1520	1694	1710	1686	54%
White	2514	2678	2692	2709	2606	2550	2364	2482	2283	2429	2379	2391	-5%
All	7137	7392	7797	7764	7591	7499	7515	8222	8266	8665	8686	8599	20%
UC Riverside	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	Change, '07-'18
Asian/Pacific Islander	1537	1223	1220	1381	1579	1729	1792	1685	1629	1750	1823	1725	12%
African American	220	189	230	261	311	342	339	271	281	261	264	272	24%
Hispanic/Latino	793	752	796	945	1125	1321	1450	1617	1561	1544	1604	1649	108%
White	663	611	675	632	717	757	730	721	618	629	675	548	-17%
All	3544	3055	3190	3464	4040	4402	4576	4587	4392	4480	4685	4520	28%
UC San Diego	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	Change, '07-'18
Asian/Pacific Islander	2189	2303	2633	2952	3069	2926	2919	2502	2678	3065	2995	2946	35%
African American	54	84	67	89	119	110	121	98	114	153	158	157	191%
Hispanic/Latino	504	584	618	724	744	843	849	850	923	1040	1098	1079	114%
White	1760	1650	1734	1735	1704	1677	1494	1362	1456	1626	1516	1573	-11%
All	5328	5323	5857	6336	6526	6344	6148	5600	6203	7207	7356	7609	43%
UC Santa Barbara	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	Change, '07-'18
Asian/Pacific Islander	835	786	785	842	848	983	954	1197	1278	1309	1366	1436	72%
African American	146	175	172	128	173	163	160	167	227	201	216	245	68%
Hispanic/Latino	862	881	927	967	1163	1180	1093	1111	1188	1267	1354	1482	72%
White	2550	2442	2595	2803	2671	2486	2266	2034	2024	2038	1943	1970	-23%
All	4977	4881	5005	5212	5358	5222	4871	4873	5235	5373	5606	5882	18%
UC Santa Cruz	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	Change, '07-'18
Asian/Pacific Islander	613	589	657	749	918	851	929	958	1007	982	1166	1189	94%
African American	83	76	63	106	113	99	106	112	138	138	s	156	88%
Hispanic/Latino	509	462	522	611	713	794	827	966	1139	1264	1160	1280	151%
White	1879	1767	1824	1845	2090	1891	1648	1671	1589	1409	1497	1434	-24%
All	3450	3271	3488	3701	4301	4038	3762	3896	4016	3982	4270	4395	27%

In 1999, black students earned a total of 1,139 bachelor’s degrees from the UC. In 2006, that number had increased 3% to 1,170. By 2018, black students earned a total of 2061 bachelor’s degrees from the UC, an increase of 81% since 1999.

In 1999, Hispanic students earned a total of 3,984 bachelor’s degrees from the UC. In 2006, that number had increased by 33%, for a total of 5,287 degrees. By 2018, Hispanic students earned a total of 12692 bachelor’s degrees from the UC, an increase of 219% since 1999.

In 1999, a total of 10,485 Asians earned bachelor’s degrees; in 2006 that number had increased 37% to 19403. By 2018, Asian students earned a total of 19403 bachelor’s degrees from the UC, an increase of 85% since 1999.

In 1999, a total of 12,922 Whites earned bachelor’s degrees; in 2006 that number had increased 17% to 15127. By 2018, White students earned a total of 13584 bachelor’s degrees from the UC, a decrease of 11% since 2007, and a net increase of 5% since 1999.

Since 1998, the number of underrepresented students applying, being accepted, enrolling, and eventually graduating from the UC have all steadily increased. To some extent, these increases are consistent with demographic changes among California high school graduates. Between 1996 and 2005, students from underrepresented groups grew from 38.7% to 44.8% of the state’s graduating public high school seniors, while by 2016-2017 students from underrepresented groups made up 56.9% of the state’s graduating public high school seniors.⁸

In 2011, blacks and Hispanics together constituted 25.2% of the 53,297 UC freshmen and transfers; in 2019, they represented 29.5% of the 66,807 new enrollees. Asians were 35.7% of new enrollees in 2011; in 2019 they were 32.6%.⁹ In other words, in 2011 and 2019 non-white ethnic minorities constituted more than 60% of all freshmen and transfers at the University of California. When a September 2007 report issued by the UC Undergraduate Work Team of the Study Group on University Diversity constantly advocated the need for a “solution to UC’s diversity ‘problem,’” one wondered what that “problem” actually was.¹⁰ The thirteen years since that report’s publication continue to demonstrate that UC has no diversity “problem.”

Table 3¹¹
The University of California System Freshmen Admitted and Enrolled:
1998, 2006, 2011, 2015, 2019

African American	1998	2006	2011	2015	2019
Freshman Admits	1,368	2,326	3,059	3,369	4,406
Transfer Admits	312	624	800	918	1363
Freshmen Enrolled	739	1,072	1,342	1,466	1,778
Transfer Enrolled	219	415	569	668	960
Total New Enrollees**	958	1487	1911	2134	2738
Increase '98-'19					185%
Chicano/Latino	1998	2006	2011	2015	2019
Freshman Admits	5,503	11,196	16,696	19,340	26,247
Transfer Admits	1562	2885	4390	5057	7554
Freshmen Enrolled	2948	5,481	8,389	9,992	11,695
Transfer Enrolled	1132	1949	3135	3642	5265
Total New Enrollees**	4080	7430	11524	13634	16960
Increase '98-'19					315%
Asian	1998	2006	2011	2015	2019
Freshman Admits	10,427	17,035	25,439	27,976	32,826
Transfer Admits	2,378	3,708	6261	5823	7195
Freshmen Enrolled	6,979	11,334	14,188	14,502	16,362
Transfer Enrolled	1,794	2,776	4847	4474	5440
Total New Enrollees**	8773	14110	19035	18976	21802
Increase '98-'19					148%
White	1998	2006	2011	2015	2019
Freshman Admits	15,201	22,471	22,952	22,134	22,469
Transfer Admits	4,932	7,268	8050	6708	7737
Freshmen Enrolled	8,257	10,687	9,274	8,719	8,867
Transfer Enrolled	3,674	5,218	6050	5109	5711
Total New Enrollees**	11931	15905	15324	13828	14578
Increase '98-'19					22%

**This figure does not include continuing undergraduates

Table 4¹²
Community College Transfer Admissions and New Enrollments, UC, by Ethnic Group:
1998, 2006, 2011, 2015, 2019

1998	2006	2011	2015	2019	Increase, '98-'19
Black & Hispanic	5,038	8,917	13435	15768	19698	291%
Asian	8,773	14,110	19035	18976	21802	149%
White	11,931	15,906	15324	13828	14578	22%
Total	25,742	38,933	47794	48572	56078	117%

As for gender, in Fall 2019, 54% of all UC undergraduates were women and 45% were men.¹³

A persistent goal of the UC is to have underrepresented ethnic minorities (blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans) eventually enroll in numbers that “reflect” or “encompass” or are “approximately proportionate” to their share of the state’s graduating high school seniors.¹⁴ Whether those students arrive prepared for intellectual challenges and how soon, if ever, they actually graduate seems less important than increasing their admission numbers. But while lowering admissions standards does no one any favors, UC remains committed to an array of efforts to “repair the K–12 pipeline,” also known as the “hemorrhaging K–12 pipeline.”¹⁵

Faculty at the University of California, 1996–2019

This section summarizes faculty hiring trends at the UC over the past 24 years. The official criteria for appointment are stipulated in the Academic Personnel Manual (APM). Every department is bound to judge promise or accomplishment in both teaching and research according to these published criteria. The APM explicitly reminds committees to take exceptional care never to relax its high standards, warning that “superior intellectual attainment, as evidenced both in teaching and in research or other creative achievements, is an indispensable qualification for appointment” (emphasis in original).¹⁶

As indicated in Table 5, in 1997–98, the UC appointed 364 new faculty members, of whom 249 (68%) were men and 115 (32%) were women. Between 1999 and 2002 that number for women dipped slightly to around 30%. From 2002 to 2006, however, the annual percentage of all appointments that were women remained consistently at 35%. During those same years, the annual percentage of non-tenured appointments that were women remained at 40%.

Table 5¹⁷
UC New Faculty Appointments, 1996-2006, by Sex

	1996/1997	1997/1998	1998/1999	1999/2000	2000/2001	2001/2002	2002/2003	2003/2004	2004/2005	2005/2006	All Years
Men	276	249	264	277	320	338	330	376	351	285	3066
Women	100	115	98	92	140	154	189	215	191	157	1451
Men	73%	68%	73%	75%	70%	69%	64%	64%	65%	64%	68%
Women	27%	32%	27%	25%	30%	31%	36%	36%	35%	36%	32%

The UC webpage containing equivalent data after 2006 was not available to the public at the time this updated article was written.

As indicated in Table 6, the UC steadily increased the numbers of females among its tenured and tenure-track faculty positions by over 30% from 1996 to 2002 without apparently resorting to any programs that violated Proposition 209.

Table 6¹⁸
UC Full Time Faculty, 1996-2006, by Sex

	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	Increase, 96-06
Men	5397	5507	5659	5743	5698	5946	6032	6125	6163	6150	6140	13%
Women	1619	1699	1753	1769	1812	1920	2009	2136	2281	2308	2379	47%
Men	77%	76%	76%	76%	75%	75%	74%	73%	72%	72%	72%
Women	23%	24%	24%	24%	25%	25%	26%	27%	28%	28%	28%

The same steady increase in the proportion of women among the faculty as a whole, and within the smaller subset of Ladder-rank and Equivalent faculty, has continued between 2009 and 2019.

Table 7¹⁹
UC Faculty, 2009-2019, by Sex

	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
Men	62.4%	63.8%	63.2%	62.8%	62.1%	61.4%	61.0%	60.0%	59.1%	5830.0%	57.5%
Women	35.8%	36.2%	36.8%	37.2%	37.9%	38.6%	39.0%	40.0%	40.9%	41.7%	42.3%

Table 8²⁰
UC Faculty, Ladder-rank and Equivalent, 2009-2019, by Sex

	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
Men	70.8%	70.5%	70.1%	69.8%	69.2%	68.6%	68.1%	67.3%	66.5%	65.9%	65.1%
Women	29.2%	29.5%	29.9%	30.2%	30.8%	31.4%	31.9%	32.7%	33.5%	34.1%	34.9%

The same applies to ethnic minorities, as shown in Tables 9-11. Between 1996 and 2006 the percentage of full-time faculty who were ethnic minorities grew from 17.5% to 22% of the total faculty, refuting the misleading claim that “the diversity of the UC faculty has remained flat.”²¹ In 1996, over 82% of the entire UC faculty was listed as “white.” Ten years later, that percentage had declined to 78%. Chicano/Latino faculty grew from 313 in 1996 to 438 in 2006, a 40% increase.

Table 9²²
UC Full Time Faculty, 1996-2006, by Ethnicity

	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	Increase, 96-06
American Indian	21	25	24	21	25	31	29	31	35	38	35	66%
African American	186	184	183	176	184	193	183	195	207	211	205	10%
Chicano/Latino	313	318	332	331	347	366	371	382	416	424	438	40%
Asian	709	756	775	819	825	909	967	1038	1107	1136	1188	67%
White	5787	5923	6098	6165	6129	6367	6491	6615	6679	6649	6653	15%

The same steady increase in the proportion of faculty from ethnic minorities continued between 2009 and 2019. 

Table 10²³
UC Faculty, 2009-2019, by Ethnicity

	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
American Indian	0.4%	0.4%	0.5%	0.4%	0.4%	0.4%	0.5%	0.4%	0.4%	0.4%	0.3%
Black/African/African American	2.0%	2.0%	2.1%	2.1%	2.1%	2.1%	2.2%	2.4%	2.4%	2.4%	2.7%
Hispanic/Latino	5.1%	5.2%	5.3%	5.5%	5.6%	5.8%	6.1%	6.4%	6.5%	6.5%	6.7%
Asian	16.9%	17.1%	17.8%	18.3%	18.8%	19.1%	19.4%	19.9%	20.4%	20.6%	21.4%
White	72.1%	71.3%	71.3%	70.3%	69.0%	68.1%	67.2%	65.7%	64.6%	62.8%	62.3%
Two or More Races	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.2%	0.0%	0.4%	0.5%	0.5%	0.7%	0.8%
Unknown	3.1%	3.5%	3.3%	3.0%	3.4%	3.5%	3.7%	4.3%	4.7%	6.0%	5.2%

Table 11²⁴
UC Faculty, Ladder-rank and Equivalent, 2009-2019, by Ethnicity

	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
American Indian	0.4%	0.4%	0.4%	0.4%	0.5%	0.5%	0.5%	0.5%	0.5%	0.5%	0.5%
Black/African/African American	2.1%	2.1%	2.2%	2.2%	2.1%	2.2%	2.3%	2.5%	2.5%	2.5%	2.8%
Hispanic/Latino	5.3%	5.3%	5.5%	5.8%	6.0%	6.1%	6.3%	6.7%	6.8%	7.0%	7.2%
Asian	14.2%	14.3%	14.8%	15.2%	15.7%	15.9%	15.9%	16.3%	16.8%	17.1%	17.9%
White	75.8%	75.1%	74.6%	74.2%	72.9%	72.1%	71.3%	69.9%	68.6%	67.3%	66.8%
Two or More Races	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.3%	0.4%	0.4%	0.5%	0.6%	0.7%
Unknown	1.8%	2.3%	2.0%	1.9%	2.2%	2.4%	2.8%	3.2%	3.6%	4.5%	3.4%

The UC continues to fill faculty openings with a broad range of talented women and ethnic minority candidates who, the available evidence confirms, obtain university employment apparently without resort to policies that violate Proposition 209.

California State University System Baccalaureates

Opponents of Proposition 209 frequently dwelled on the comparably small overall admissions numbers of blacks and Hispanics at UCLA and Berkeley—the two most competitive campuses of the entire UC system—but ignored the fact that the CSU is also a crucial part of California’s accessible public university system.²⁵ The undergraduate enrollment figures for the CSU system between 1995 and 2018 provide instructive data on admissions, retention, and graduation numbers by race, gender, and ethnicity.

As shown in Table 12, the number of ethnic minorities admitted and enrolled has increased steadily between 1998 and 2018.

Table 12²⁶
California State University System Freshmen Admitted and Enrolled:
1998, 2006, 2011, 2015, 2018

African American	1998	2006	2011	2015	2018
Freshman Admits	3,950	6,804	5,849	6,304	6,943
Transfer Admits	2703	4764	4072	4213	4102
Freshmen Enrolled	2264	3,817	2,968	2,840	2,777
Transfer Enrolled	2105	2929	2290	2457	2318
Total New Enrollees**	4369	6746	5258	5297	5095
Increase '98-'18					16%
Mexican American/Other Latino	1998	2006	2011	2015	2018
Freshman Admits	13,446	26,021	44,422	61,681	74,620
Transfer Admits	10361	18960	24835	34417	42442
Freshmen Enrolled	7574	13,727	21,791	29,306	31,756
Transfer Enrolled	8201	12722	15519	21824	26633
Total New Enrollees**	15775	26449	37310	51130	58389
Increase '98-'18					270%
Asian	1998	2006	2011	2015	2018
Freshman Admits	9,044	15,906	17,270	20,368	25,669
Transfer Admits	7,486	10,162	10615	10673	11086
Freshmen Enrolled	4,642	6,137	7,016	7,497	7,783
Transfer Enrolled	5,989	6,688	6293	6607	6455
Total New Enrollees**	10631	12825	13309	14104	14238
Increase '98-'18					34%
White	1998	2006	2011	2015	2018
Freshman Admits	22,535	36,559	36,023	35,713	39,117
Transfer Admits	22,685	28,655	25834	23728	23778
Freshmen Enrolled	12,137	18,391	15,900	14,282	13,597
Transfer Enrolled	18,375	20,276	16726	15515	14677
Total New Enrollees**	30512	38667	32626	29797	28274
Increase '98-'18					-7%

**This figure does not include continuing undergraduates.

As shown in Table 13, over the twelve years between 1995-96 and 2006-07, bachelor’s degrees annually awarded to black undergraduates in the CSU system increased 42%, from 2,419 in 1995–96 to 3,440 in 2006–07. The degrees awarded to Hispanic students dramatically jumped 95%, from 7,425 in 1995–96 to 14,483 in 2006–07. For the CSU system as a whole, the number of all baccalaureate degrees grew 34% between 1995–96 and 2006–07, from 52,730 to 70,887. In fact, ethnic minorities accounted for 34% of all degree earners in 1995–96, and by 2006–07 they earned 42% of all CSU baccalaureate degrees, a 23% jump in twelve years.

Table 13²⁷
Undergraduate Degrees Awarded by the California State University System,
1995-96 to 2006-07

	Total CSU Degrees	Black	Hispanic*	Asian	White	Filipino	Unknown
1995-96	52730	2419	7425	6665	26875	1771	5202
	100%	4.5%	14.0%	12.6%	50.9%	3.3%	9.9%
2000-01	56983	2717	10346	7417	24217	2356	6917
	100%	4.8%	18.1%	13.0%	42.5%	4.1%	12.1%
2005-06	69350	3317	13877	8701	27387	2837	9482
	100%	4.8%	20.1%	12.5%	39.5%	4.1%	13.7%
2006-07	70887	3440	14483	8910	28039	2745	9404
	100%	4.9%	20.4%	12.6%	39.6%	3.9%	13.9%
Increase, ’95-’96-’06-’07	34.4%	42.0%	95.0%	33.6%	4.3%	55.0%	80.0%

*CSU tabulations list separate figures for “Mexican-American” and “Other Hispanic.” This table combines those two categories into one, “Hispanic.”

As shown in Table 14, ethnic minorities continued to receive ever larger proportions of CSU baccalaureate degrees between 2006-07 and 2018-19.

Table 14²⁸
Undergraduate Degrees Awarded by the California State University System,
2006-07 to 2018-19

	Total CSU Degrees	Black	Hispanic*	Asian	White	Filipino	Unknown
2006-07	70887	3440	14483	8910	28039	2745	9404
	100%	4.9%	20.4%	12.6%	39.6%	3.9%	13.9%
2010-11	76509	3381	17706	9484	29422	3148	9342
	100%	4.4%	23.1%	12.4%	38.5%	4.1%	12.2%
2014-15	83185	3460	26637	10780	28380	3535	6418
	100%	4.2%	32.0%	13.0%	34.1%	4.2%	7.7%
2018-19	102333	3858	41,728	13042	27293	4536	5674
	100%	3.8%	40.8	12.7%	26.7%	4.4%	5.5%
Increase, ’06-’07-’18-’19	44.4%	12.2%	188.1%	46.4%	-2.7%	65.2%	-39.7%

*CSU tabulations list separate figures for “Mexican-American” and “Other Latino.” This table combines those two categories into one, “Hispanic.”

When considered in conjunction with the data on the UC over the same period, these statistics refute exaggerations that Proposition 209 would reduce the number of black or Hispanic students enrolled in or graduating from California’s four-year public university system. A slight redistribution of students certainly resulted from the prohibition of racial or ethnic double standards in university admissions, but the overall result was a steady increase in minority graduation rates in both the UC and the CSU systems.

California State University Faculty

The employment of women and ethnic minorities as faculty steadily increased in the CSU system. The annual percentage of new CSU faculty hires that are female has grown from 31% in 1985 to 42% in 2003 to almost 50% in 2006.²⁹ The annual increases for African American faculty members also continued, growing from 3% in 2000 to 4.5% in 2003 to almost 5% in 2006. There has been no deterioration in the faculty positions of African Americans or women as predicted by opponents of Proposition 209.

From 1998 to 2005, the percentage of full-time tenured faculty at CSU who were ethnic minorities rose from 21% to 26.5%. Correspondingly, the number of new tenure-track hires from underrepresented minority groups steadily increased almost every year from 1998 to 2008, as indicated in Table 15.

Table 15³⁰
California State University System,
Faculty Recruitment Surveys, New Tenure Track Hires, 1998-2008

	1998 & 1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008
Appointments	1159	704	845	950	817	393	720	882	852	672
White	72.9%	71.8%	69.8%	63.5%	62.2%	59.5%	58.9%	58.1%	61.0%	59.5%
African American	4.2%	3.0%	4.4%	3.8%	4.5%	3.8%	4.0%	4.8%	--	--
Hispanic	8.6%	9.8%	10.5%	8.5%	8.1%	10.2%	7.6%	6.9%	--	--
Asian	13.8%	14.7%	15.0%	15.4%	14.3%	18.3%	15.6%	18.3%	--	--
White Males	35.0%	37.0%	36.9%	36.0%	33.8%	28.5%	30.8%	30.0%	31.2%	30.2%
Minority Males	14.0%	15.0%	14.8%	16.0%	14.3%	17.0%	13.6%	13.7%	15.4%	16.4%
White Females	38.0%	35.0%	30.1%	27.0%	28.4%	31.0%	28.1%	28.1%	29.8%	29.3%
Minority Females	13.0%	13.0%	15.4%	12.0%	14.2%	16.0%	14.3%	16.6%	15.3%	16.1%
Unknown	0.0%	0.0%	2.8%	8.2%	9.0%	7.4%	13.2%	11.6%	8.3%	8.0%

CSU continued to hire substantial proportions of ethnic minorities each year between 2009 and 2015. 

Table 16³¹
California State University,
Detailed Race and Ethnicity of New Tenure-Track Hires, Fall 2009 through Fall 2015

	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015
Appointments	359	108	453	382	470	742	849
American Indian/Alaska Native	0.6%	2.8%	1.3%	1.3%	1.3%	1.2%	0.7%
Asian	24.0%	21.3%	21.2%	18.8%	22.1%	18.5%	20.5%
African American	3.4%	5.6%	3.8%	3.9%	4.9%	4.6%	4.2%
Hispanic	8.9%	6.5%	9.7%	6.8%	8.5%	8.5%	11.1%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander	0.0%	0.0%	0.7%	0.3%	0.0%	0.4%	0.1
White	53.2%	50.0%	54.7%	61.3%	57.9%	56.5%	56.3%
Two or More Races	1.1%	0.0%	2.6%	0.8%	1.9%	1.5%	1.9%
Other Unknown	8.9%	13.9%	6.0%	6.8%	3.4%	8.9%	5.2%

Table 17³²
California State University System, Full-Time Tenured Faculty, by Ethnicity, 1998-2005

	1998 & 1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005
White	79.0%	78.1%	77.2%	76.7%	75.7%	74.6%	73.5%
African American	3.7%	3.8%	4.0%	4.0%	4.0%	3.9%	4.0%
Hispanic	5.8%	6.1%	6.4%	6.7%	7.0%	7.4%	7.6%
Asian	11.0%	11.4%	11.8%	12.0%	12.6%	12.7%	13.2%

Table 18³³
California State University System, Tenure-Track Faculty, by Race/Ethnicity,
2005, 2010, 2015

	2005	2010	2015
American Indian or Alaska Native	0.6%	0.6%	0.7%
Asian	13.4%	15.8%	18.0%
Black/African American	3.9%	4.1%	3.6%
Hispanic/Latino	7.9%	8.5%	9.0%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander	0.2%	0.1%	0.1%
White	71.9%	67.3%	63.0%
Two or More Races	n/a	0.5%	0.7%
Other/Unknown	2.2%	3.0%	4.8%

Table 19³⁴
California State University System, Tenured Faculty, by Race/Ethnicity, 2014 and 2019

	2014	%	2019	%
Total	7207		6944
American Indian or Alaska Native	39	0.5%	36	0.5%
Asian	1203	16.7%	1402	20.2%
Black/African American	257	3.6%	241	3.5%
Hispanic/Latino	639	8.9%	641	9.2%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander	10	0.1%	8	0.1%
White	4762	66.1%	4289	61.8%
Two or More Races	50	0.7%	62	0.9%
Other/Unknown	220	3.1%	265	3.8%

While the CSU system generally seems to remain in compliance with Proposition 209, one still encounters suspicious language, such as the following from 2007 and 2008 faculty search announcements at CSU, Chico: “As a University that educates students of various ethnic and cultural backgrounds, we value a diverse faculty and staff. The campus welcomes applicants who are knowledgeable about and interested in working within a cross-cultural learning environment.”³⁵

Like the UC, the CSU system continues to fill faculty openings with a broad range of talented women and ethnic minority candidates who apparently obtain university employment without resort to policies that violate Proposition 209. The dreadful predictions propagated by many academics and university administrators in Michigan who opposed Proposal 2 in 2006 have never materialized in either of California’s four-year public higher education systems. However, efforts to avoid or neutralize the measure may continue; no official from either system has ever publicly avowed to uphold the letter and spirit of Proposition 209 and punish any employee or committee members who violated it.³⁶

The Effects of Proposition 209 on Construction Contracting

Prior to the passage of Proposition 209, a California statute mandated that general contractors demonstrate a good faith effort to subcontract at least 5% of their work on public contracts to women business enterprises (WBE), 15% to minority business enterprises (MBE), and 3% to disabled veteran-owned businesses.³⁷

Moreover, bids submitted by MBEs and WBEs were granted a 10% reduction when measured against bids from companies owned by white men. Prime contractors who bid on certain types of contracts were required to demonstrate that they had hired a certain percentage of MBE and WBE subcontractors to work on the project or show that they made good faith efforts to meet that quota.

Since the passage of Proposition 209, the California Supreme Court has struck down attempts by municipalities to consider race or gender in their procurement programs.³⁸ With race or gender preferences no longer in effect, the number of MBEs and WBEs certified to bid on public contracts declinedin the decade after Proposition 2009 passed. The number of MBEs declined from 3269 to 1005 and the number of WBEs declined from 2096 to 763.³⁹ Opponents of Proposition 209 insist that this amounts to “unfair access” and is due to continued discrimination within the construction industry—casually termed a “good old boys network”—and that only the use of gender-conscious or race-attentive measures will provide a remedy.

However, no one has demonstrated that racial, ethnic, or gender discrimination has actually occurred against MBEs or WBEs. A simple disparity does not prove discrimination, and no “group” is ever likely to own any particular kind of business in the same proportion as its share of the state’s population. Moreover, “it may be that companies owned by a particular racial group in a particular market do not have the specific expertise or capability of doing the actual work sought. And even if there are, there may not be a problem if these companies are, for non-discriminatory reasons, not submitting bids in the first place.”⁴⁰

There is abundant evidence to support this sensible conclusion. Two of the best compilations of anecdotal material, statistical data, and personal interviews on the effects of Proposition 209 on public contracting derive from compelling studies made by the Discrimination Research Center at UC Berkeley and its successor, the Thelton E. Henderson Center for Social Justice, ironically strong opponents of Proposition 209.⁴¹

Throughout the two studies, interviewees from contracting firms still in existence cited their bids, not the race or gender of the company’s owners, as the main reason for their selection. In summarizing these two reports, one must bear in mind that the “underrepresentation of firms owned by this or that ethnic group traceable only to society generally…cannot as a legal matter justify the use of racial preferences, as the Supreme Court has consistently ruled….[W]hat must be shown is that minority- and female-owned firms are either not submitting bids because of discrimination, or that their bids are not being accepted because of discrimination.”⁴²

Neither study in California found evidence that companies had been excluded from bidding because of the bidder’s race or gender or due to any unrealistic or irrational requirements. In its reliance on statistical data, focus group responses, and interviews the two reports strongly suggest that it was not discrimination that posed the main obstacles to minority-owned businesses, but more technical barriers such as bonding requirements, insurance, and financing, along with business acumen.

Of the 3269 MBEs certified in 1996, 1005 remained in operation ten years later. In its survey of these surviving companies, the Discrimination Research Center report, entitled Free to Compete? Measuring the Impact of Proposition 209 on Minority Business Enterprises, documents that few “respondents participated in any lending programs, mentorship opportunities, or technical assistance, regardless of whether or not the opportunities were affiliated with the CalTrans DBE Program.”⁴³ Some participants acknowledged that “private industry was more inclined to work with firms that have the ability to work regionally or nationally, which is beyond the capacity of many MBEs” (35).

This makes efficient business sense and is not evidence of racial discrimination.

Free to Compete? contains candid admissions from participants who “noted that DBE programs incorporated a significant amount of ‘hand holding,’ which did not encourage MBE owners to learn the business aspects of their industry…[and] participants agreed that they should be evaluated not by whether they are people of color, but rather, on the merit of their skill, work, and reputation” (35–36, emphasis added).

According to owners of surviving firms, “a lack of business savvy on the part of many MBEs contributed to their failure” (36), a likely result if race-consciousness counted more for success than business acumen. When asked which survival strategies were most effective, the respondents advised that “firms owned by people of color need to utilize basic business development practices to invest in their own companies,” that their “owners must be persistent” and “seek every opportunity to demonstrate their ability to perform well and commit themselves to developing relationships with individual companies and public agencies” (37)—sensible values and indisputable entrepreneurial habits, regardless of one’s gender or race.

The final pages of Free to Compete? contain profiles of two successful businessmen: Miguel Galarza (a Hispanic man) and Robert Wilson (a black man). Galarza admitted that he was “uncomfortable with the business model of relying on the DBE program to provide contracts that would sustain his business.” He also “understood that the federal DBE program was designed to open the door for MBEs and that they should serve as training wheels, not permanent fixtures to sustain the life of a business enterprise” (38). Galarza emphasized that sound business principles such as “leave the profit in the company instead of using it as a personal profit,” “learn accounting and always pay your taxes on time,” and “bid as a primary contractor” all became part of his organizational mantra (39).

By 2006, Galarza’s company employed thirty people and earned over $7 million in revenue. The report concludes that for Galarza, “the impact of Proposition 209 was more visible among those who would have been his competitors—those who, in their reliance on the race-conscious DBE program, may not have been able to survive in an industry run on personal relationships” (39, emphasis added).

On the other hand, Robert Wilson admits his company initially declined for a few years, but by 2004 he reversed its slide by “moving from industrial electric projects to residential projects” (41). According to the report, Wilson “attributes the survival of his business to his belief in God, his knowledge of the trade, his ability to be flexible, and his ability to live with minimal resources” (41). Wilson makes no mention of his race.

Free to Compete? concludes that Wilson learned “as a result of Proposition 209, that ‘business has no color.’ From his experience of success, loss, and rebuilding, [he] has identified stumbling blocks and shown a way to break down the financial barriers that keep MBEs from succeeding as public contractors, and established himself as a survivor, in more ways than one” (41).

Free to Compete? indicates that double standards had been used in the construction industry and shows that the firms that continued to thrive and grow over the past ten years shared several things in common. Its central finding was that many of the firms that went out of business were simply under-financed and poorly run. The purported presence of racial or gender discrimination was never shown to be the basis for weaker performance.

In the case of WBEs in the construction industry, A Vision Fulfilled? The Impact of Proposition 209 on Equal Opportunity for Women Business Enterprises, a report produced by the Thelton E. Henderson Center for Social Justice at the UC Berkeley School of Law, showed that for most women in business, limited experience in borrowing, difficulties in demonstrating overall creditworthiness, lower rates of homeownership, and poor capital resources were the key factors that limited their access to financial resources.

Owners of successful WBEs attributed their longevity to maintaining connections with civic, professional, and social organizations or networks that involved potential clients or contracts, and shifting their focus from public agencies to private sector or nonprofit organizations. The surviving companies were led by women who possessed the same tenacity, consistency, and shrewd business sense shown by men and who spent time and money to respond only to “Request for Proposals” “that perfectly match their expertise and that are received in a timely fashion.”⁴⁴ There was no evidence that any contractor’s low bid was rejected because a woman or an ethnic minority member submitted it.

According to Sharon Browne, the lead attorney in the Hi-Voltage Wire Works case,⁴⁵ “Proposition 209 presents zero tolerance for programs that discriminate against or grant preference on the basis of race in its public contracting program.”⁴⁶ Nevertheless, to this day, opponents of Proposition 209 disdain its terminology and refer euphemistically to preferential practices as “race- and gender-conscious equal opportunity programs.”

A study by political scientist George La Noue shows how the California Supreme Court’s Hi-Voltage decision interpreted Proposition 209 “to bar flatly racial preferences, no matter what compelling interest a jurisdiction asserted. Disparity studies are no longer much of a factor in California as related to state funded contracts.”⁴⁷

Nonetheless, in August 2007, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) submitted a new request to the federal government that it be allowed to institute a 13.5% participation goal for minority- and women-owned businesses in contracting as a response to what Caltrans termed a “discriminatory pattern in past contracting.”⁴⁸

Research by economist Justin Marion of UC Santa Cruz suggests that such affirmative action programs were not cost-effective. In the wake of Proposition 209, Marion found that “the winning bid on state-funded contracts fell by between 3.1 and 5.6 percent relative to similar federal-aid contracts.”⁴⁹

In 1996, Caltrans awarded $1.4 billion in contracts, of which $50 million (3.5%) went to women-owned businesses. Six years later, in 2002, Caltrans awarded $3.4 billion in contracts; women-owned businesses received $117 million (3.4%). Data are not available from 2002 through 2006.

As Roger Clegg has stated succinctly, twelve years after the passage of Proposition 209 “Caltrans should strive both to avoid using the preferences banned by the state constitution and to comply with federal law…[and] should be going out of its way to avoid the use of preferences based on race, ethnicity and sex—not out of its way to find excuses for them.”⁵⁰

The Effects of Proposition 209 on Statewide California Public Employment

The public employed labor force in California is the largest and most diverse in the United States. There are two broad categories of state employees: those who work for one of the over 150 agencies and departments; and those who work in the two public higher education institutions, the UC and the CSU systems.

Statistics obtained from the State Personnel Board (SPB) indicate the total number of employees in each of the 86 departments with over 50 employees, broken down by gender and race over the past ten years. This report further highlights the departments with more than 3000 employees.

In 2006, California had the third-lowest number of full-time equivalent state employees relative to population: 105 state employees for every 10,000 residents, whereas the national average was 142 state employees per 10,000 residents. Tables 20, 21, and 22 lists the number of employees in the largest state agencies, comparing a breakdown by race and gender for 1997, 2002, 2006, 2009/2010, 2014, and 2018, as well as by race and gender for several of the largest categories of public employment.

Table 20⁵¹
California Public Employment Figures, by Gender and Race,
Selected Larger Departments: 1997, 2002, 2006, 2009/2010, 2014, 2018

Statewide Total	Total	Male	Female	White	Black	Hispanic
1997	190676	52%	48%	57%	11%	18%
2002	218208	52%	48%	53%	11%	19%
2006	209818	53%	47%	50%	11%	21%
2010	216893	53%	47%	48%	11%	22%
2014	210559	54%	46%	46%	10%	23%
2018	216910	54%	46%	43%	10%	25%
Compensation Insurance Fund	Total	Male	Female	White	Black	Hispanic
1997	5991	30%	70%	46%	11%	18%
2002	8174	30%	70%	42%	10%	20%
2006	9449	32%	68%	40%	10%	20%
2009/2010	4279	33%	67%	41%	9%	18%
2014	4096	34%	66%	40%	9%	20%
2018	4182	35%	65%	38%	9%	21%
Consumer Affairs	Total	Male	Female	White	Black	Hispanic
1997	4708	45%	55%	68%	7%	12%
2002	4738	36%	64%	63%	10%	15%
2006	3720	38%	62%	60%	12%	16%
2009/2010	3569	39%	61%	58%	12%	17%
2014	3950	40%	60%	52%	13%	19%
2018	3498	42%	58%	49%	12%	21%
Corrections and Rehabilitation	Total	Male	Female	White	Black	Hispanic
1997	40916	67%	33%	55%	15%	22%
2002	45951	67%	33%	53%	13%	26%
2006	49919	66%	34%	49%	13%	28%
2009/2010	60426	63%	37%	46%	12%	30%
2014	53602	63%	37%	43%	12%	33%
2018	59298	62%	38%	38%	10%	36%
Developmental Services	Total	Male	Female	White	Black	Hispanic
1997	7689	36%	64%	54%	10%	15%
2002	9767	35%	65%	44%	11%	18%
2006	8285	37%	63%	40%	11%	19%
2009/2010	6180	39%	61%	40%	10%	24%
2014	4005	39%	61%	38%	7%	24%
2018	2560	42%	58%	36%	7%	34%
Employment Development	Total	Male	Female	White	Black	Hispanic
2009/2010	9912	36%	64%	33%	16%	28%
2014	7777	34%	66%	29%	16%	29%
2018	7119	36%	64%	26%	15%	30%
Equalization	Total	Male	Female	White	Black	Hispanic
2009/2010	3859	38%	62%	42%	10%	20%
2014	4647	40%	60%	39%	10%	22%
Forestry and Fire Protection	Total	Male	Female	White	Black	Hispanic
1997	5511	80%	20%	75%	3%	14%
2002	5921	82%	18%	75%	3%	14%
2006	6003	83%	17%	75%	2%	15%
2009/2010	7435	85%	15%	76%	2%	15%
2014	6905	87%	13%	76%	2%	16%
2018	5957	85%	15%	73%	2%	16%
Franchise Tax Board	Total	Male	Female	White	Black	Hispanic
1997	5696	31%	69%	52%	13%	19%
2002	7005	33%	67%	47%	14%	19%
2006	6602	34%	66%	44%	15%	19%
2009/2010	6316	36%	64%	42%	14%	19%
2014	6273	37%	63%	40%	13%	19%
2018	6164	40%	60%	37%	11%	20%
General Services	Total	Male	Female	White	Black	Hispanic
2009/2010	4137	63%	37%	43%	16%	21%
2014	3438	62%	38%	40%	16%	23%
2018	3441	62%	38%	37%	16%	23%
Health Care Services	Total	Male	Female	White	Black	Hispanic
2009/2010	2648	34%	66%	42%	11%	16%
2014	3389	36%	64%	39%	11%	17%
2018	3416	38%	62%	37%	10%	16%
Highway Patrol	Total	Male	Female	White	Black	Hispanic
1997	9756	75%	25%	72%	6%	16%
2002	10195	75%	25%	68%	6%	18%
2006	9734	76%	24%	66%	6%	20%
2009/2010	10928	77%	23%	65%	5%	22%
2014	10490	78%	22%	64%	5%	23%
2018	10504	78%	22%	60%	5%	26%
Justice	Total	Male	Female	White	Black	Hispanic
2009/2010	4546	39%	61%	53%	9%	18%
2014	4168	39%	61%	51%	9%	18%
2018	4494	40%	60%	48%	8%	19%
Mental Health	Total	Male	Female	White	Black	Hispanic
1997	7270	43%	57%	57%	14%	13%
2002	8397	41%	59%	48%	15%	15%
2006	9422	42%	58%	43%	15%	17%
2009/2010	10,891	41%	59%	41%	14%	18%
Motor Vehicles	Total	Male	Female	White	Black	Hispanic
1997	8435	25%	75%	40%	19%	26%
2002	9238	25%	75%	35%	19%	29%
2006	8582	27%	73%	31%	20%	31%
2009/2010	8659	28%	72%	29%	19%	33%
2014	9182	30%	70%	27%	20%	35%
2018	9251	30%	70%	24%	18%	37%
Parks and Recreation	Total	Male	Female	White	Black	Hispanic
2009/2010	5153	59%	41%	77%	2%	14%
2014	4877	59%	41%	76%	2%	14%
2018	5266	61%	39%	73%	2%	15%
Public Health	Total	Male	Female	White	Black	Hispanic
2009/2010	3493	33%	67%	50%	12%	14%
2014	3316	32%	68%	45%	13%	14%
2018	3723	32%	68%	40%	12%	16%
Social Services	Total	Male	Female	White	Black	Hispanic
2009/2010	3821	26%	74%	39%	16%	19%
2014	3858	28%	72%	36%	15%	20%
2018	4217	29%	71%	36%	15%	21%
State Hospitals	Total	Male	Female	White	Black	Hispanic
2014	11494	43%	57%	36%	15%	20%
2018	10583	45%	55%	33%	15%	23%
Transportation	Total	Male	Female	White	Black	Hispanic
1997	16902	75%	25%	60%	8%	15%
2002	23405	74%	26%	53%	8%	15%
2006	21419	74%	26%	50%	8%	16%
2009/2010	21412	74%	26%	49%	8%	17%
2014	19618	75%	25%	47%	8%	18%
2018	20503	75%	25%	42%	8%	20%

Table 21⁵²
State-Wide Public Employees Labor Force,
Selected Major Occupational Categories, 1997 and 2006

	Total		Women		Black		White		Hispanic
	1997	2006	1997	2006	1997	2006	1997	2006	1997	2006
Education & Library	3009	2627	36.0%	44.0%	10.2%	8.9%	71.7%	69.9%	11.3%	3.5%
Fiscal, Management & Staff Services	34163	42982	57.0%	64.0%	8.7%	9.9%	60.8%	51.7%	13.2%	6.6%
Mechanical & Construction Trades	18173	14273	12.7%	11.0%	7.2%	8.0%	65.8%	61.3%	19.6%	22.3%
Medical and Allied Services	13888	16358	61.0%	64.0%	11.6%	12.7%	55.2%	40.7%	11.9%	14.3%
Office and Allied Services	39304	33683	85.0%	82.0%	15.5%	16.5%	48.2%	39.8%	21.6%	25.0%
Total Statewide Civil Servants	191425	210591	47.2%	47.2%	11.5%	11.1%	57.5%	50.5%	17.7%	20.9%

Table 22⁵³
California Public Employment Figures,
1997, 2002, 2006, 2009/2010, 2014, 2018, by Gender and Race

Statewide Total	Total	Male	Female	White	Black	Hispanic
1997	190676	52%	48%	57%	11%	18%
2002	218208	52%	48%	53%	11%	19%
2006	209818	53%	47%	50%	11%	21%
2010	216893	53%	47%	48%	11%	22%
2014	210559	54%	46%	46%	10%	23%
2018	216910	54%	46%	43%	10%	25%

Between 1997 and 2006, the size of the California public employees workforce fluctuated in a manner that reflected the overall economic status of the state: from 1997 to 2002, the public workforce grew by 14%; from 2002 to 2006, it contracted by 4%; and with further ups and downs, it increased by a net of 14% between 1997 and 2018, an absolute increase of 26,234. Yet over this 19-year period, whites declined from 57% to 43% of California public employees, blacks declined from 11% to 10%, and Hispanics increased from 18% to 25%. Over this 19-year period, the percentage of public employees who were men inched up 2%, from 52% to 54%.

In every examined state agency, the percentage of white employees declined between 1997 and 2018, sometimes severely. In the Department of Consumer Affairs, for instance, the number of white employees declined from 68% in 1997 to 49% in 2018. A similar decrease occurred in the Franchise Tax Board, where employment of white workers dropped from 52% in 1997 to 37% by 2018. At the Departments of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Motor Vehicles, and Transportation, which together employed 41% of all California public employees in 2018, the number of white employees dropped by 17%, 16%, and 18%, respectively.

For California’s public workforce as a whole, the number of white employees dropped from 57% to 43% between 1997 and 2018.

The gender increases among the state’s public employees slightly favored men, 52% to 54%.

Among the state’s largest agencies, women’s employment at Corrections and Rehabilitation rose from 33% to 38%, fell at Highway patrol from 25% to 22%, rose at Consumer Affairs from 55% to 58%, fell at Motor Vehicles from 75% to 70%, fell at the Franchise Tax Board from 69% to 60%, and at Transportation remained stable at 25%

It appears that these disparities are due to personal choice, assorted risk elements, or physically demanding job requirements, since discrimination or preferences in the workplace based on gender (unless approved as a bona fide criteria for employment) are prohibited.

California Highway Patrol

The California Highway Patrol (CHP) provides several reasons for persistent patterns in the gender distribution in that agency. Aside from non-uniform clerical positions from which people can shift to other state agencies, there are seven categories within which uniformed personnel are classified: cadet, officer, sergeant, lieutenant, captain, assistant chief, and chief. Each category has its own clearly stipulated requirements for inclusion and promotion.

The entry-level CHP position is “cadet.” The age range for cadets is between twenty-one and thirty-five, and applicants must hold a high school diploma. After passing a series of written, physical, and driving tests, all cadets must complete a rigorous twenty-seven-week paramilitary-style training regimen. Even from that entry level, the annual dropout rate is consistently 33%. In discussions with CHP officers, they cited three obstacles that make it difficult to attract more female cadets: 1) the rigors of a live-in academy mean that some women would be separated from their children; 2) cadets are almost always obliged to relocate after graduation from the academy; and 3) the mental and physical demands of the paramilitary training still seem to discourage more women than men.

A review of CHP hiring and promotion figures under Proposition 209 indicates that the overall number of employees increased modestly: 9,756 in 1997 and 10,504 in 2018. The number of employees who were men increased by 3% to constitute 78% of the CHP workforce. The number of Hispanic CHP employees increased from 16% to 26%, while the number of blacks decreased from 6% to 5%, and the number of whites declined from 72% to 60%.

Conclusion

The data in this article confirm that Proposition 209 did not diminish educational or employment opportunities in California, as ethnic minorities and women have continued to make steady progress in both areas. Despite the temporary declines in enrollments that were noticeable only at the state’s two most elite public universities, the overall population of underrepresented minority students rose steadily as more entered and more graduated from the institutions for which they were fully qualified.

This article highlights the actual numbers of undergraduate degrees awarded rather than simple statistics on admitted freshmen, although there were noticeably significant jumps in ethnic minority enrollments at UC Riverside and UC Santa Barbara. The combined number of blacks and Hispanics who annually earned a bachelor’s degree at the UC rose from 5,123 in 1999 to 14,753 in 2018, a 188% increase in 19 years. Both the UC and CSU systems have expanded their race-neutral outreach efforts to help prepare for college low-income students from school districts with low university participation rates, partnering with those schools to enable them to develop a more academically sound curriculum.

Ending racial preferences and gender double standards in California has produced none of the social traumas that Proposition 209 opponents swore would occur. No campus ever became remotely “lily white” or “resegregated,” to use the divisive racist terms reflexively deployed by these adversaries. Instead, differences in university academic performances narrowed considerably, as there were fewer mismatches between students’ levels of preparation to succeed in college and the institutions in which they enrolled, and from which they eventually graduated.

As shown in table 23, from 1999 to 2018, the number of black students who earned baccalaureate degrees from the UC and from the CSU systems increased from 3,856 to 5919, a 54% jump in 19 years. Over that same 19-year period, the number of Hispanic students who earned a baccalaureate degree from both systems combined grew from 14,330 to 54,420, a 280% increase.

Table 23⁵⁴
Bachelor’s Degrees Earned by Blacks and Hispanics:
California Public Institutions, 1999, 2006, 2014, 2018

Black Baccalaureate Degrees	1999	2006	2014	2018	Increase, '99-'18
University of California System	1139	1170	1609	2061	81%
California State University System	2717	3440	3460	3858	42%
Califonia Public Universities Total	3856	4610	5069	5919	54%
Hispanic Baccalaureate Degrees	1999	2006	2014	2018	Increase, '99-'18
University of California System	3984	5287	9656	12692	219%
California State University System	10346	14483	26637	41728	303%
Califonia Public Universities Total	14330	19770	36293	54420	280%
Black and Hispanic Baccalaureate Degrees	1999	2006	2014	2018	Increase, '99-'18
University of California System	5123	6457	11265	14753	188%
California State University System	13063	17923	30097	45586	249%
Califonia Public Universities Total	18186	24380	41362	60339	232%

The evidence from public contracting, especially transportation construction, suggests that weaker, less competitive firms that were previously dependent on racial quotas or gender set-asides predictably failed when such designations were no longer legally available. Those contractor and subcontractor businesses headed by women or ethnic minorities that thrived and expanded did so because they were run by people who had the qualities necessary for success in the business world: patience, hard work, ingenuity, innovativeness, education, and the ability to delay gratification. That put them in a position to enjoy the financial rewards that came with those decidedly middle-class values.

They were judged as individuals by their own character and merits, not by the color of their skin, their gender, or stereotypes. As Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker put it, “Equality is not the empirical claim that all groups of humans are interchangeable; it is the moral principle that individuals should not be judged or constrained by the average properties of their group.”⁵⁵

Over the past twenty-four years, public employees have been hired through improved recruitment and screening, given better training, and evaluated fairly and equitably on the job. As race and gender continue to recede as qualifications for employment in California, one hopes that the defenders of double standards will retreat from their antagonism to Proposition 209.

Gender differences that persist among college majors or in occupational concentrations anywhere in America primarily reflect individual differences in career choices, not discriminatory barriers to women’s advancement. In 2005–06, women earned 66% of all doctorates in both education and the health sciences, and 59% of those in the social sciences. Men earned 80% of the doctorates in engineering and 70% of all doctorates in the physical sciences. In 2006 nationwide, the proportion of students in graduate schools who were members of a racial or ethnic minority was 28%, up from 26% in 2005.⁵⁶

In the years since Proposition 209 was enacted, the gaps in California public employment rates between men and women, and between whites, blacks, and Hispanics have continued to narrow. Racial favoritism and gender preferences are not the reasons for the redistribution of public employment jobs, as the magnitude and nature of those shifts remain small.

This is good news indeed. California under Proposition 209 has been a success story. It’s a shame that the “diversity industry” remains stubbornly unable to join the celebration.

---

¹ The end of racial or gender preferences prompted several major municipalities (including Los Angeles, San Jose, and Sacramento) and at least one state agency (Caltrans) to petition the federal government either to violate Proposition 209 or to reinstitute preferential treatment through participation goals that would designate a specific percentage of minority and women subcontractors or employees.

---

Image: Justefrain, Public Domain