The proposed constitutional amendment in California known as Assembly Constitutional Amendment 7 is a direct assault on equal protection in education. It would repeal the sacrosanct protections of Proposition 209, allowing racial preferences and considerations in public K-12 education while preserving the ban only for public employment, higher education admissions and enrollment, and public contracting.
If passed, it would legally permit race to be used as a factor in decisions about gifted and talented programs, financial aid distribution, charter school admissions, teacher training and hiring, classroom instruction methods, and countless other areas of public schooling—all with the explicit blessing of state law.
Racial discrimination of this kind is never progress. It’s a step backward into the kind of racial engineering that divides rather than unites. California’s constitution and more specifically Prop. 209—passed in 1996 by 54.5% and reaffirmed in 2020 by 57.2%—explicitly prohibit racial preferences in all aspects of public education. Yet zealous advocates ignore the law in their rush to “level the playing field,” treating racial preferences as moral imperatives that override democracy and equal rights.
Legal filings endeavor to defend California’s constitutional guarantee of equal protection. Occasionally, discriminating entities are forced to stop when challenged in court. But it can take years for supporters of equal rights to build an effective case in court. From identifying the offending program, to persuading potential plaintiffs, to connecting individual victims and legal counsel, strenuous efforts are put forth to hold public entities accountable.
Look at the recent examples:
In the Fresno Unified School District, “African American Academic Acceleration (A4)” office poured $12 million into race-specific programs in 2024 alone, until a 2025 lawsuit from the Californians for Equal Rights Foundation forced a restructure—renamed to dodge federal funding risks and legal exposure.
The decades-old “Predominantly Hispanic, Black, Asian, or other Non-Anglo (PHBAO)” program, instituted by the Los Angeles Unified School District, prioritizes resources on class-size reduction and parent conferences for schools with over 70% non-white students. The program is being challenged in federal court.
San Francisco rolled out California’s first reparations fund, which pledges to issue one-time lump-sum payments of $5 million to each qualifying Black adult. The fund will also hand out government benefits in various educational areas such as curriculum formation, teacher pipelines, financial assistance and so on to only “Black San Franciscans.” The city is now being sued.
Sadly, these efforts would face an even far more difficult battle, if ACA 7 comes to fruition.
No sensible lawmaker, on either side of the political aisle, should entertain such a blatant attempt to racialize public education. That was probably the reason why the California Assembly Appropriations Committee had postponed ACA 7 and turn it into a two-year bill in May 2025. Normally, two-year bills become inactive and die. But, on January 22, 2026, the Appropriations Committee made an unusual move to unsuspend ACA 7 and voted 11-to-4 in favor. As a result, the State Assembly, with a Democratic supermajority of 60 out of 80 members, is poised to approve ACA 7 and pass it onto the State Senate, which will then need a two-thirds vote to place the repeal on the November 2026 ballot.
Related Articles
Trump should step back from the brink with Iran Krista Hollinger: ‘There is no war on women?’ That’s wishful thinking. Erick Erickson: GOP ignores Trump’s deepening unpopularity at its own peril Why two Republicans advancing in the race for governor is a long shot ICE tyranny is what democracy looks like Now, more than ever, our elected state representatives must be reminded that not even six years ago, Proposition 16 – the total repeal of Prop. 209, was overwhelmingly rejected by 9.65 million California voters. Coming from divergent political persuasions and diverse backgrounds, the broad base proves that reviving government-endorsed racial discrimination is not only substantively problematic, but also politically unpopular. That is why they are trying to pass this bill under our noses. But Democratic state senators and assembly members, who represent a large proportion of the 57.2% electorate that supported Prop. 209, need to understand this overarching political reality and turn away from ACA 7.If this amendment were to pass, advocates for racial preferences would not stop here. They have been cheating Prop. 209 and have proven themselves to be unethical players, as one can reasonably deduce from recent lawsuits. This move is merely one in a sequence and, based on their record, what other conclusion can we come to other than they seek the complete reversal of Prop 209? This is why ACA 7 must be stopped just as we halted Prop. 16 in 2020.
Don’t divide us.
Wenyuan Wu is executive director of the Californians for Equal Rights Foundation. Eli Steele is a filmmaker and author. His upcoming film is the documentary “White Guilt.” (hyperlink www.whiteguiltfilm.com)
Hence then, the article about aca 7 injects race in public schools with a government blessing was published today ( ) and is available on The Orange County Register ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( ACA 7 injects race in public schools with a government blessing )
Also on site :
- Rooster Runs Wild: Director Zach Braff Breaks Down Greg's Night Out In Episode 4 — And Working With John C. McGinley Across Two Shows
- Iranian academic describes US-Israeli attacks on Iran’s universities
- Meet the ex-Google CMO who quit with a seven-figure package by 28—he says getting promoted was easy because he just ‘disregarded all the rules’