You may know that I drove 500 miles to Sacramento from San Diego to testify against a number of DEI bills (many reparations-themed) at the California Legislature earlier this week. Like many others who joined me, we had to take days off from our full-time work. Thanks to Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Andrew Quinio and other friends, we made a strong showing of opposition against racial discrimination.

Today, I am happy to report some wins from my thousand-mile trip:

1.SB 21, an equity-based state workforce development bill targeting “Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians" and “transgender” individuals, has been completely rewritten following CFER’s official opposition submitted on March 3, 2025. During yesterday’s hearing at the Senate Local Government Committee in which I spoke on the bill, Sen. Durazo confirmed that the new SB 21 would not engage in any government preferences. Instead, it is now a housing assistance proposal.

While this is the first time (in CFER’s five-year journey of monitoring state legislation) that a bill is thoroughly gutted with every single word changed, it would have not been accomplished without CFER’s proactive monitoring and opposition.

2.ACA 7 (Prop. 209 partial repeal) and SB 515 (race-based employment data reporting), two major reparations bills, did not receive strong support compared to our opposition. Notably, even one Democratic lawmaker at the Asm. Higher Education Committee abstained from voting on ACA 7, after we testified against it, questioning the proposal’s constitutionality. If we continue to apply pressure, there is a good chance that we can head off this renewed attempt to assault Prop. 209!

3.While AB 57 (home purchase preferences for slavery descendants) and AB 7 (college admissions preferences for slave descendants) were approved by the Asm. Judiciary Committee and the Asm. Higher Education Committee, respectively, we succeeded in tipping the other side’s hand and exposing these bills’ racial intent and unconstitutional race-based nature. Without our active participation, they wouldn’t have been sufficiently pressured to make these mistakes.

At the Judiciary Committee hearing in which PLF and CFER both testified against AB 57, bill author Asm. McKinnor had a slip up, explicitly mentioning “African Americans” again in her closing comments before immediately changing the term to “U.S. descendants of slavery.” Prior to our testimony, she had insisted that her bill does not use a race proxy. She even felt the need to lecture us to go the African American museum in D.C. and get educated.

After our testimony, committee chair Asm. Kalra disparaged us, saying “as immigrants, the moment we (Asian Americans) stepped on the soil here in California, we had advantages over descendants of African slavery.” In the same ironic breath, Kalra then lamented on the “generational harms” and “systemic bias” done against “our Black sisters and brothers.”

The theatrical trickery was on full display during the Higher Education Committee hearing on AB 7. AB 7 author Asm. Bryan made a false analogy, comparing her proposed admissions preferences for slavery descendants to legacy admissions, which do not exist in California’s public higher education system. Committee member and ACA 7 author Asm. Corey Jackson responded to our opposition with an insult: “some people who have come to this country in different ways unfortunately believe that they’re on the same standing as us.” Another committee member Asm. Sharp-Collins chimed in: “It’s about equity over equality.” Their divisive rhetoric inflamed the public with supporters of the bill demeaning our side as “racist.” If reparations are never about race, but lineage, why would our opposition be classified as “racist”?

California’s out-of-touch legislative process is not happenstance. For years, a special interest lobby consisting of teachers’ unions, woke academics, teacher-activists and far-left NGOs has hijacked the legislative process, skewing it more and more leftward. This lobby cartel went all in to support AB 7 and AB 57 this week, with the former receiving over 100 in supportive public comments. Grievance and racial studies professors from UCLA, San Francisco State University, and West Los Angeles College brought in their students and affiliated student association representatives for a 15-second public comment each. You wonder why these college students were taking such an active part in state politics. We will investigate further and report back.

Reclaiming equality and merit in California is an uphill battle. But I hope you are encouraged by these small victories. In a similarly positive spirit, I am also happy to report to you that the University of California Academic Senate overwhelmingly rejected (12-to-29 with 12 abstentions) the “Area H” ethnic studies requirement proposal yesterday! CFER is proud to have contributed to this victory with our action alert and official letter.

I firmly believe that CFER’s proactive work is adding value to and helping all Californians defend equality and merit, while exposing radical leftists’ insanity. However, we can’t do it without your financial support. We now have close to $25,000 deficit at the end of April, probably due to the recent downturn in the stock market. As a volunteer and donor to CFER myself, I want to kindly ask you for a donation to support CFER’s work!