Monday, November 23, 1998
Misinterpretation of UC policy ignores student merit
RIGHTS: Affirmative action helps privileged maintain their power
by paying lip-service to diversity
By Thomas Soteros-McNamara
It appears that Undergraduate Student Association Council (USAC)
president Stacy Lee and her accomplice, General Representative Mike
de la Rocha, have extrapolated a ludicrous argument from innocent
facts once again. Aside from their obvious political influence, I
find it hard to understand why they were published.
It is without doubt that we have unlimited wants and limited
resources. This is the reason for the study of economics. Being an
organization made up of humans, the UC system is subject to this
dynamic, and it is our role as the beneficiaries of this public
system of education – still first in the world – to accept
imperfection. We should always strive to improve the quality of
life in society, but rash resolutions should not supercede the
precise logic of study.
As students, this should be second nature.
Lee and de la Rocha completely misinterpreted UC Regent Ward
Connerly. He often represents the most extreme view of the
association and his views are only moderately conservative. It must
be noted that governor-elect Gray Davis is also a Regent and in
that capacity possesses as much influence as Connerly.
The complaints the authors make do not have a centralized target
– rather it is a sporadic critique of some minor problems and
irrelevant fact-finding.
Affirmative action is the act of a racist person disguising
their ideology as "giving". Affirmative action is about the balance
of power. As long as it remains in our society, its architects can
manufacture social stratification in the name of social planning.
Effectively, equal-opportunity measures turn young men and women
into pawns, manipulated by the privileged so that they can appear
to appease public opinion while in reality reasserting their own
control.
I think that an equal rights clause in the Constitution would be
appropriate, but minority special interest has become greedy;
instead of taking half, they want it all.
Lee and de la Rocha’s assault on Carnesale is slightly
undeserved. The two want him hung from a tree like a Nazi war
criminal. Remember, not everything is always available. I find the
Chancellor to be struggling hard in our favor, but he runs into the
same bureaucracy and barricades we encounter.
He, too, is only human.
But the most contradictory part of their collective argument
involves the admission statistics of my class. We are by definition
the most talented, best-credentialed recruits to this fine
University of California at Los Angeles. Keep in mind that
admission this year was more competitive than ever before, and the
admittees bettered the largest number of applicants in the history
of higher education. Interestingly, there was a drop in minority
application, which social planners gasped at. But overall,
estimates in applications fell far short. So, either you believe
that with Proposition 209 in place we began our campaign to enslave
minorities, or that minorities have received the wrong message.
Black, Latino, female? Don’t worry about studying, the
University of California wants you. We need X amount of your type,
and we’ll do anything to appear open-minded. Grade Point Average
(GPA) too low? No problem, we have remedial studies. Learning
disorder? We can give you a tutor. Feeling oppressed? The UC system
loves you, and wants you to buy that love at any price. This is
what they must have been thinking.
Asians and Caucasians thought: Hooray! I have a fighting chance!
At last, my hard work and determination matters more than the color
of my skin. Forget that Asians seem to do best on the SAT – this
year, that is irrelevant. Forget that Caucasian children have the
most money spent per-capita on their education in California – the
Regents want the best.
Surprisingly, university policy was neither of these realities.
Instead it was like this. Hmm, minority admits are down and the
pool is dreadful. Oh well, we can take this guy, even if he is
borderline. We shouldn’t have so many Asians, but they did the best
as a group. Wow, it was never this difficult with affirmative
action.
Alas, diversity is the religion of higher education. In its name
we can commit acts of dubious legality, poor planning, and casual
cruelty. Most people of the 20th century frown upon the fanaticism
of the past. Would it shock us to think that our descendants may
conclude the same of this? I hope not. I, unlike Lee and de la
Rocha, hold faith that the Regents and University of California
will preserve the grandest example of public education’s success
(unheard of two centuries ago) for our posterity and use the most
reasonable means to achieve that end.
Comments, feedback, problems?
© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]