A state bill to bolster California’s civil rights protections by banning caste discrimination cleared a major obstacle Wednesday, passing through the Assembly Judiciary Committee by a 9-0 vote after some language changes.
The bill already passed in the state Senate in May with a near-unanimous 34-1 vote, originally adding “caste” as a distinct protected category to the state’s anti-discrimination laws. That language received polarizing feedback at a similar Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in April, drawing hundreds of members of the public in one of the largest crowds of the current legislative session.
Supporters say Senate Bill 403 will give people experiencing caste-based discrimination the clarity they need to file investigations and benefit from the state’s anti-discrimination laws. They point to the growing South Asian American population in the state of California, and a need for protections in various sectors like the tech industry and housing.
Cheers among supporters largely broke out at the Capitol once news of the decision broke. In a statement, the bill’s author, state Sen. Aisha Wahab, D-Hayward, celebrated the decision.
“This bill is about workers’ rights, women’s rights, and civil rights,” she said in the statement. “This bill is about ensuring the American Dream is accessible to all those who pursue it.”
Bill amendments are ‘a political consideration’
The bill , as passed and amended by the committee, wouldn’t go as far as to set caste as its own category, but lists it under the “ancestry” category, alongside heritage, parentage, lineal descent or “any inherited social status.”
Wahab previously amended the bill to remove some background information describing the caste system in South Asia; but in an interview prior to the hearing, she said she remains committed to seeing the word caste included in the bill, despite some objections.
The hearing also featured two speakers from parties in support of and in opposition to the bill.
Speakers in support included litigation attorney Tarina Mand, chair of the South Asian Bar Association of North America’s racial justice taskforce; and Tanuja Gupta, a law student and former senior manager at Google who reported experiencing retaliation for attempting to shed light on the issues of caste in Google’s workplaces.
Among the many advocacy organizations leading the fight for the bill is Equality Labs, a Dalit civil rights organization. The word Dalit refers to those historically at the bottom of the South Asian caste hierarchy, a term of empowerment for those derogatorily deemed “untouchable.”
Dozens of supporters from across the state, decked out in blue T-shirts, also made their way to the Capitol for the hearing. Many expressed support for retaining the bill’s original language, designating “caste” as a separate, protected category in the state’s civil rights laws, but were happy with the final outcome nonetheless.
“It was a political consideration,” said Thenmozhi Soundararajan, executive director of Equality Labs, rather than one backed by legal experts like the Caste Equity Legal Task Force, who have argued for a clear “protected category” status.
The changes echo requests made by Assemblymembers Evan Low, D-Campbell, and Alex Lee, D-San Jose, to the committee’s chair in a June 20 letter to pause consideration of the bill for a study on caste discrimination or make language changes much like the passed amendments. The amended bill does include the word “caste,” a term critics have continued to ask lawmakers to remove.
“It is no longer tolerable for people to deny that caste exists,” Soundararajan said. “I think we are going to get a remedy to discrimination.”
The bill is discriminatory, some opponents say
While some Hindu American groups are in support, two of the bill’s main critics are the Hindu American Foundation and Coalition of Hindus of North America. They argue that the bill will place a target on some Indian and Hindu Americans, labeling them “oppressors” and singling them out in state law given the caste system’s association with the country and religion.
“It is used to target only Hindu Americans and Indians,” said Pushpita Prasad, a board member of the coalition. She worries about what peers will think when they hear the word caste, and says “they associate it with caste and Hinduism.”
Along with dozens of opponents lining up to testify against the bill were two speakers: Satnam Singh, a Yuba City resident speaking in opposition to the bill from his perspective as a Sikh American; and Samir Kalra, managing director of the Hindu American Foundation.
“If the goal is actually to address all forms of social status discrimination, then clarifying ancestry with a facially neutral inherited social status instead of caste is the constitutional path forward,” Kalra said at the hearing.
The Hindu American Foundation and other critics say the word caste should be completely removed from the bill in order to be “facially neutral,” and not target one community in a discriminatory manner. Opponents plan to continue lobbying against the bill in its current form.
But the lawmakers largely put aside concerns about potential legal challenges critics have cited about the bill, electing to leave that up to the court system. Some pushed back on the division the bill has ignited.
“I’ve heard from both sides that regardless what happens, there will have to be at some point some commitment to healing,” said Assemblymember Ash Kalra, D-San Jose, at the hearing, who later went on to cast a vote in support of the bill as amended.
Kalra, raised Hindu and the only South Asian American on the committee, said he took the issue personally and understands the strong feelings, but “ultimately, there are certain things,” that need to be passed to “protect everyone.”
Assemblymember Eloise Gómez Reyes, D-Colton, spoke directly to some opponents’ concerns that the bill would bring more visibility to the caste system and encourage division.
While she empathized with their concerns, she disagreed that the caste system and its effects haven’t spilled over into the United States. “It appeared as though, especially from those in the opposition, that it has come to our country,” she said.
Of all the committee members, two: Assemblymember Diane Dixon, D-Newport Beach and Vice Chair Bill Essayli, R-Riverside, did not cast votes. The bill now heads to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
____
