On November 5, New Yorkers will be asked to vote on Proposition 1, the New York Equal Rights Amendment. New Yorkers for Equal Rights, a progressive group supporting the measure, claims that the purpose of the amendment is to codify a right to abortion in the state constitution.
But to state the obvious, abortion is not under threat in liberal New York. And Prop. 1 does not even include the word “abortion” anywhere in its language.
The real purpose of New York’s Equal Rights Amendment is, among other progressive ambitions, to legalize “reverse discrimination”—that is, discrimination against certain racial groups in an effort to help others. In particular, Paragraph B of the amendment states: “Nothing in this section shall invalidate or prevent the adoption of any law, regulation, program, or practice that is designed to prevent or dismantle discrimination on the basis of a characteristic listed in this section.”
The last time that New York officials tried to “dismantle discrimination,” Asian American kids bore the burden.
In June 2018, New York City mayor Bill de Blasio and schools chancellor Richard Carranza announced a plan to change the city’s Discovery program, designed to increase the number of low-income students enrolled at Gotham’s specialized high schools (SHSs). Like many other New York progressives, de Blasio and Carranza took issue with the low number of black and Latino students and, implicitly, with the high number of Asian students enrolled in these institutions. “I just don’t buy into the narrative that any one ethnic group own’s admission to these schools,” said Carranza at the time.
To qualify for admission to a specialized high school under Discovery before 2018, a student had to get a certain score on the Specialized High School Admissions Test; be certified by her middle school as disadvantaged and having high potential; and complete a summer preparatory program. But under the 2018 plan, only students attending middle schools with an “Economic Need Index” of 60 percent or higher would be eligible for admission through the program.
In a lawsuit, the Chinese American Citizens Alliance of Greater New York, represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, projected that students attending 11 of New York City’s 24 majority-Asian middle schools would lose eligibility, compared with just 20 of the 191 majority-black schools and nine of the 243 majority-Latino schools. The new Discovery criteria, which have endured under Mayor Eric Adams, penalize Asian American students in order to help those who are black and Latino. It “operates to limit Discovery not to poor students, but to poor students at particular schools,” the suit explains.
In September, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in CACAGNY’s favor after almost seven years of litigation. The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of New York City and concluded that the de Blasio-Carranza Discovery Program had a discriminatory effect on Asian American students. “Here, it is undisputed that economically disadvantaged Asian-American students from certain middle schools, who would have been eligible for admission to the SHSs under the prior admission policy for the Discovery Program, were rendered ineligible for admission under the new policy because the Economic Need Index . . . at their middle school was too high,” wrote Circuit Judge Joseph Bianco.
Prop. 1 remains dangerous even after the Second Circuit’s ruling. If city officials get more creative in crafting policies that discriminate against certain racial groups in order to help others, the amendment will not protect those harmed, despite its proponents’ claim that it would further “equal rights.” Rather, the measure, if passed, could be used to discriminate against Asian Americans and any other racially unfavored group. All New Yorkers who care about equal rights in the true sense of the term should vote “no” on Prop. 1.
Photo: tap10 / iStock / Getty Images Plus