Wednesday, November 27, 1996
PROP. 209:
Committee to look at options for serving needs of
underrepresented studentsBy Marisa Lowe
Daily Bruin Contributor
In the aftermath of the passage of Proposition 209, the Academic
Advancement Program (AAP), the nation’s largest and most successful
undergraduate affirmative action program is faced with a serious
dilemma: continue its support to historically underrepresented
minority groups and students of low income while following the
constraints of the new law.
Proposition 209 prohibits the university from granting
preferential treatment to any group or individual on the basis of
race, sex, or ethnicity. The law’s passage requires that
affirmative action programs like AAP either change their criteria
or lose state funding.
Current, AAP eligibility criteria requires students be from
historically underrepresented social groups (i.e. African American,
Latino or Native American), and/or a low-income family.
While economic criteria remain untouched by Proposition 209,
race and gender preferences must be eliminated from the selection
process.
Although these criteria will remain in effect until the end of
this academic year, AAP is already searching for new ways to stay
within the legal boundaries of the new statute.
Starting winter quarter, administrators, faculty and students
will begin devising alternate ways to continue to support those
populations AAP has historically served. First on the agenda is the
election of a new Faculty Advisory Committee.
The committee, composed of faculty and students, will recommend
to AAP Director Adolfo Bermeo alternative criteria for AAP’s future
eligibility. Ultimately, the committee’s goal is to continue to
receive funding and maintain support to communities historically
served, while functioning within the constraints of the law.
"The committee is an articulation of concerns from a group of
faculty and students who have worked with AAP and understand the
structure and culture of the program," said Faculty Advisory
Committee Chairman Ray Rocco.
"Their number one priority is to continue to include students
historically served," Rocco said. However, he is quick to add that
the Faculty Advisory Committee is "not a rubber stamp committee.
Suggestions (will be) supportive and scrutinizing."
There is no room for rubber stamping, especially when the UCLA
administration expects the committee to examine social demographics
from the last 10 years before making suggestions or
recommendations.
So far, preliminary examinations of social demographics look
promising for AAP supporters. New categories for eligibility can be
devised which would, for the most part, include historically
underrepresented groups.
Another possibility includes utilizing a larger quantity of
federal aid, since national legislation supersedes state law.
All suggestions aside, however, no preliminary actions have been
taken by AAP or the UCLA administration.
For many, there is no doubt that the last 25 years of AAP have
been successful.
"AAP students leave UCLA having demonstrated their potential to
succeed, excel and graduate," Bermeo said.
Grade point averages, retention and graduation rates have
significantly increased among AAP participants over the past 10
years, which underscores the program’s success, Bermeo said.
As members of AAP, students have the option to participate in
various academic programs, counseling, tutoring, research
opportunities and computer lab access. However, supporters of AAP
believe that the program is more than just tutoring and
counseling.
"AAP is committed to taking students who have fewer advantages,
and encouraging them to excel," said Vice Provost of UCLA
Undergraduate Education for the College of Letters and Sciences
Judith Smith.
"Most importantly, though, AAP is a home base, a social family
where students can interact and receive the positive feedback of
academic recognition," she added.
But maintaining excellence and a steadfast commitment to
students could be difficult in a post-Proposition 209 environment,
officials said.
"(Law School analysts) have reached the conclusions that the
very statement of or application of a goal to increase or maintain
diversity is itself prohibited by 209," said Chancellor Charles
Young. "Now, that’s a new concept."
For others, the passage of Proposition 209 is a welcome relief.
Supporters of Proposition 209 view the law largely as a way to
include students previously excluded.
"I hope that the passage of Proposition 209 will expand
opportunities, and not cut them down," said James White, a UCLA
mathematics professor. "I want people from all walks of life to be
included, not just the historically underrepresented."
For others, affirmative action programs like AAP hold a greater
contradictory role in the overall philosophy of life.
"You can’t turn around 200 years of history. It’s a very noble
idea, but its just absurd, ridiculous and entirely unrealistic,"
said Sarah Derynck, a second-year English student. "In an
educational setting, programs like AAP try to level the playing
field. That’s great, but that’s not the way reality works, life is
unfair and people need to accept that."
With the redefinition of the program’s eligibility criteria,
only time will decide whether or not AAP will be successful in its
attempt to service communities historically underrepresented.
"We need to be able to educate people who are going to be the
leaders of the groups that form our society … so that we don’t
have a huge disparity between the educated leadership, which is
predominantly white and male, and the population in general,"
Chancellor Young said.
"That’s a recipe for disaster, and I think that Proposition 209
is making the likelihood of that disaster great."
INGA DOROSZ
Chancellor Charles Young fears AAP will suffer at the hands of
Prop. 209.