and the state states that quo toes are unconstitutional. we need to bring people together on this issue, to educate our communities that diversity for all helps us all. we simultaneously need to have a conversation about how to deliver on the broader problem on the higher education for our diverse community. as we move forward, we have to work together to build support for what will be a challenging conversation. >> thank you, supervisor breed. >> thank you. i appreciate your comments, president chiu, and supervisor campos. as you know this is extremely important and the problem i have with affirmative action is even the mention of quota.

it's clear -- i outlined that in the resolution and that was upheld in the court system and at that time it was made clear that quota and affirmative action are two different things and i think you're right, we need to bring our communities together and make it clear because this is really challenging. there are universities that are truly what i would not consider diverse. one of the comments mentioned to me by the person who is in charge of the gospel choir at uc davis, they're diverse and mostly african americans but still a very diverse fun experience for all of us and now there's, i think, one african american in the gospel choir at uc davis. that shows us that there's

a real problem in our university systems and it's important that we take a strong stance because san francisco has always led the way with regard of diversity. when we think about our history and the civil rights movement and the doors that african americans has opened for other minorities. the fights we've had with housing and the school district and the consent decree and all of these things have made it better not just for african americans. it has made it better for other minority groups and it has made it better for our city. when we have these discussions around affirmative action and being inclusive, it can't began with a divide and i think clarity around quota need to be made, but we need to make a sharp distinction, that affirmative action and quota

are two different things. he -- i won't go into the explanation and i talked about it last week. this opened up a door for discussion and i appreciate the support from you all today to move forward and send a positive united message to our state legislature that we don't want to see politics play a negative role in this discussion. we want inclusion, we want to make sure our universities are diverse and we have a seat at the desk and we want to move forward and continue the dialogue with our communities throughout san francisco and through the state of california. thank you. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. i think i'm entering this conversation a little late, but i just wanted to support the comments that were made by supervisor breed. many of us

in this room posed proposition 209 when it came to the state ballot, i believe in 1997. i was a college student and i went to a private university here in california and stanford made a statement it will up hold affirmative action. and 50 percent of students at stanford is of color. the following year after the passage of prop 209 what we saw, uc were scary in terms of enrollment of african americans students and i got to he -- i got to experience that personally. there were two african american males in my class. i think that is really a testament to what the elimination of affirmative action has brought not not just at the education level, but through contracting throughout public agencies, and

i think it is really clear that when we talk about affirmative action, it's not about quotas. it's about being able to consider race when you have applicants of equal credentials. if you have applicants of equal credentials you should be able to consider race in the admission because we know that diversity is an important part, actually, an essential part of our educational setting. it has been a real testament today to what we see at our public universities, i think bringing back affirmative action would play an important role to fulfilling the diversity of our state. >> thank you. before we go to supervisor compass. can we get a second. >> seconded by supervisor wiener. supervisor campos. >> he think what i thought was really important about this resolution is that i do think that how we talk about affirmative action

and the context in which we describe the issue important, and that's why i think that we have to be very clear not to buy into the right wing red rhetoric about having to say that the -- that affirmative action isn't quota. there's a question of the state legislation and that has to do with how do you slow down the process so that this doesn't get to the voters as quickly as possible. i think this issue needs to get to the voters as quickly as possible and that's why i think this resolution is important because i think that folks in sacramento need to hear from places like san francisco that the people that we represent are going to be impacted by their action or an action and to the extent that inaction is

what people want, i think, this resolution helps to make sure that's not the outcome. >> thank you. supervisor breed. >> for clarity, i wanted to make a motion to amend the legislation based on the amendments that were distributed first. >> so you've just clarified what your motion was and supervisor wiener has seconded that motion. >> great. that's for the amendment. >> yes. >> thank you. >> okay. >> thank you. colleagues if there are no other comments, can we take the amendments without objection. thank you. and can we do this same house same call? thank you. so this resolution has been adopted. >> as amended. >> madam clerk. next item. >> madam clerk, read -- today's

meeting will be adjourned for the late mrs. jane kennedy. on behalf of the of supervisor campos and kim for the late john jack casey. >> i want to take a moment and thank sfgtv and folks bringing this to you and jesse lar son and with that madam clerk, do we have anymore business. >> that concludes our business for today. >> ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned.