Did "Say NO to SCA5" Get It Right?

"Say NO to SCA5" is a website that, well, encourages people to Say No to SCA5.  But is what they are writing correct or complete?  (http://www.saynosca5.com/ )

Here's what appears on their website under the header "About SCA-5": 

"To understand SCA 5, we have to remember what Prop. 209 is. In November 1996, Proposition 209 (also known as the California Civil Rights Initiative) amended the state constitution to prohibit state government institutions 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.' In the 18 years that Prop 209 has been in effect, California has become the most diversified state in the US. Also, we fully support comprehensive measures having since been introduced to help students from disadvantaged families obtain higher education.
Now SCA 5 seeks to REMOVE any mentioning of 'public education' in Prop. 209. This will unfairly roll back the clock to discriminate a student simply based on her/his race. If it succeeds, what will be next in its supporters’ minds to be removed between other two areas (public employment and public contracting) in Prop. 209?
The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution clearly states that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws. The SCA 5 is racist and in violation of the US Constitution."  

Let's start with the first paragraph.
  "To understand SCA 5, we have to remember what Prop. 209 is."
  I absolutely agree - we do have to remember what Prop 209 is.  Prior to Proposition 209, the state of California was permitted to utilize affirmative action programs to remedy and redress ongoing discrimination against women and minorities.  The passage of Proposition 209 ended affirmative action in California.  Not surprisingly, minorities overwhelmingly opposed Proposition 209 (this is from polling data compiled by The Los Angeles Times as posted by "The American Civil Rights Institute", an organization that favors Prop 209 (http://www.acri.org/209votedemographics.html ):

      % of All Voters                Voter Type              Yes              No  

           74 %                            White                    63%            37%
            7 %                             Black                    26%            74%
           10%                             Latino                   24%            76%
            5%                              Asian                    39%            61%

   We should also remember that Proposition 209 was introduced a mere two years after the passage of Proposition 187, which was passed by voters two years earlier in 1994.  Proposition 187, entitled "Save Our State", was an initiative to establish a state-run citizenship screening service and to prohibit illegal aliens from using public education, health care, and other social services.  Opponents of Proposition 187 decried it as an attack on immigrants, primarily those of Hispanic and Asian descent.  This was not the political climate when landmark civil rights legislation equivalent to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was being championed in California (and yes, opponents of SCA-5 are trying to rewrite history to suggest that Proposition 209 was civil rights legislation that even Martin Luther King would be proud of - http://no2sca5.org/).  

   "In November 1996, Proposition 209 (also known as the California Civil Rights Initiative) amended the state constitution to prohibit state government institutions 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."
   I agree that is the language of Proposition 209 and I agree that that was the title ("California Civil Rights Initiative") that was given to it. 

  "In the 18 years that Prop 209 has been in effect, California has become the most diversified state in the US."
  I agree with this too.  

  "Also, we fully support comprehensive measures having since been introduced to help students from disadvantaged families obtain higher education."
   When you say "we", who are you?  And what "comprehensive measures" are you referring to? 

  "Now SCA 5 seeks to REMOVE any mentioning of 'public education' in Prop. 209. This will unfairly roll back the clock to discriminate a student simply based on her/his race. If it succeeds, what will be next in its supporters’ minds to be removed between other two areas (public employment and public contracting) in Prop. 209?"
  SCA-5 does remove the words "public education" from Proposition 209.  But the contention that it will "unfairly roll back the clock" depends on your point of view - are you looking at it from a post-Prop 209 world or a pre-Prop 209 world?  If you preferred a pre-Prop 209 world, then you would not consider it an unfair rolling back of the clock, but rather a return to the future.  And to conclude you can "discriminate against a student simply based on her/his race" is simply not correct - please review the post "Psssst, is this Constitutional?"  Although, not discussed in the "Psssst, is this Constitutional" discussion, public employment and public contracting have been given a very different treatment by the United States Supreme Court, which is far beyond the purview of this blog to discuss (needless to say, that part is not going to be changed).

  "The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution clearly states that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws. The SCA 5 is racist and in violation of the US Constitution."
  That's what the 14th Amendment says.  However, what's equally important is understanding what that means legally.  As discussed in my post "Psssst, is this Constitutional?", SCA-5 does not violate the US Constitution. 
  Is SCA-5 racist?  Anyone can call anyone else racist.  Name calling or labeling isn't an argument.