On October 16, the Chinese American Citizens Alliance of Greater New York (CACAGNY) gathered at City Hall in Manhattan to protest Proposal 1, the contentious Equal Rights Amendment in New York’s upcoming ballot for the constitutional amendments set for this November. Their concern revolves around the language of the proposal, which they believe could mislead and potentially threaten the existence of Specialized High Schools in New York City due to the high number of Asian students.
CACAGNY President Huihua Chen expressed that while Proposal 1 appears to advocate for abortion rights and equality, Section B of the proposal states that any actions claiming to reverse prior discriminatory practices will be protected under the law. Given the existing discourse around the perceived overrepresentation of Asian students in top high schools, Chen worries that this section could be used to accuse these schools of discriminating against non-Asian groups, thus leading to unfair treatment of Asian students.
The proposal is divided into two sections: Part A prohibits discrimination based on objective conditions, including race, color, ethnicity, and nationality. Part B, however, states that “no objective condition listed in this section shall be interpreted as depriving anyone of their civil rights.” William A. Jacobson, a law professor and attorney at Cornell University, attended the event and labeled Section B as the “poison hidden in the ballot,” suggesting that any rights protected in Section A could be rendered invalid if any action is alleged to discriminate against other groups. He asserts, “As long as your stated goal is to reverse discrimination, then your discriminatory action may be seen as a right conferred by the Constitution.”
Also present were Gerard Kassar, chair of the New York State Conservative Party, State Senator George Borrello, and State Senate Minority Leader Rob Ortt. Ortt pointed out that even if the proposal fails, protections for abortion rights in New York will remain intact. However, should the proposal pass, it could allow “transgender individuals who are biologically male to participate in women’s sporting events.”
According to a report by The New York Times, the amendment emerged in response to the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, triggering supporters to seek enhanced protections for abortion rights against potential restrictions by local politicians. The report also acknowledged that both advocates and opponents of the proposal share concerns about its overly broad language, which could lead to a misinterpretation of the original intent.
