The legislative clash unfolding around Congresswoman Young Kim’s proposed “Stop DEI Act” is not happening in isolation—it’s tied directly to a renewed push inside California to revisit policies voters thought were settled decades ago.
Kim’s bill draws a hard line: any school that factors race, sex, ethnicity, color, or national origin into student aid decisions risks losing federal funding. The language is broad but targeted. Institutions that stick to merit-based or need-based aid would not be affected. The focus is on programs that introduce identity as a deciding factor.
That proposal lands at the same moment California lawmakers are advancing ACA 7, a constitutional amendment that would reopen the door to considering race and sex in public education programs. If it clears the State Senate, voters would decide its fate on the November ballot. The measure would partially roll back Proposition 209, the 1996 voter-approved amendment that barred both discrimination and preferential treatment based on race or sex across public education, employment, and contracting.
Kim argues ACA 7 cuts directly against that framework. She has pointed to Prop 209 as a baseline that ensured equal treatment under the law, warning that loosening those restrictions reintroduces unequal standards under a different name. Her position is that taxpayer-funded programs should not sort applicants by identity categories, but instead rely on measurable criteria like academic performance or financial need.
Legal concerns are also part of the debate. William Jacobson, a Cornell law professor, has argued that ACA 7’s attempt to allow race-based considerations in areas outside admissions does not avoid the constitutional issues raised in the Supreme Court’s 2023 rulings on affirmative action. Those decisions focused on college admissions, but the reasoning—centered on equal protection—was not narrowly confined to that setting, according to his analysis.
ACA 7 does maintain existing prohibitions in public employment and contracting, but it creates space within K-12 and higher education programs outside admissions. That distinction is now a central point of contention. Supporters see it as a targeted adjustment; critics view it as a structural shift that undermines the original intent of Prop 209.
Kim’s bill, if passed, would not directly override California law but would introduce a federal funding consequence for institutions that adopt such practices. That creates a potential standoff between state-level policy changes and federal enforcement mechanisms.
This is not the first time California voters have been asked to revisit affirmative action. In 2020, Proposition 16 attempted a broader repeal of Prop 209 and was rejected at the ballot box. ACA 7 represents a narrower approach, but it returns to the same underlying question: whether public institutions should be allowed to consider identity factors in distributing opportunities.
For now, both efforts are moving on parallel tracks—one through Congress, the other through Sacramento—each setting up a decision point that could reshape how public education policies are applied.
