Plan misguided attempt to improve diversity

EDITORIAL BOARD Christine Byrd  Editor in
Chief

Michael Litschi
 Managing Editor

Jonah Lalas
 Viewpoint Editor

Barbara Ortutay
 News Editor

Amy Golod
 Staff Representative

Timothy Kudo
 Staff Representative

Brian O’Camb
 Staff Representative

  Unsigned editorials represent a majority opinion of
the Daily Bruin Editorial Board. All other columns, letters and
artwork represent the opinions of their authors.   All
submitted material must bear the author’s name, address, telephone
number, registration number, or affiliation with UCLA. Names will
not be withheld except in extreme cases.   The Bruin
complies with the Communication Board’s policy prohibiting the
publication of articles that perpetuate derogatory cultural or
ethnic stereotypes.   When multiple authors submit
material, some names may be kept on file rather than published with
the material. The Bruin reserves the right to edit submitted
material and to determine its placement in the paper. All
submissions become the property of The Bruin. The Communications
Board has a media grievance procedure for resolving complaints
against any of its publications. For a copy of the complete
procedure, contact the Publications office at 118 Kerckhoff Hall.
Daily Bruin 118 Kerckhoff Hall 308 Westwood Plaza Los Angeles, CA
90024 (310)825-9898

Since the implementation of SP-1 in 1995, the number of
underrepresented minorities entering UCLA has dropped dramatically.
Diversity in the classroom and on Bruin Walk today does not
adequately reflect the diversity of the state this university
serves.

The hands of diversity and outreach are tied behind the
university’s back due to SP-1, the measure which outlawed the
use of race as a factor for admissions; and Proposition 209, the
law approved by voters which banned affirmative action. But UC
President Richard Atkinson has proposed a plan he claims may help
increase minority enrollment for UC campuses.

At first glance, this plan seems like a positive legal step
toward making the UC more diverse. But working within legal limits
does not imply efficiency.

Spearheaded by President Atkinson, the proposal looks more like
a public relations effort to appear inclusive in light of the
dwindling number of underrepresented students rather than a real
solution to the lack of diversity.

Under the proposal, 12.5 percent of students in each high school
are guaranteed admission into the university as long as they
complete certain requirements at a community college. University
officials have long been aware that for many community college
students, the idea of attending a large university seems out of
reach. Atkinson argues that this plan would not only boost the
number of community college transfer students, but may also allow
more underrepresented minorities access to the UC.

Currently, admission is guaranteed to students ranked in the top
4 percent of their high schools. Of that pool, 12 percent are
underrepresented minorities. Officials say that the new plan would
increase the number of eligible minority students ““ 34 to 36
percent of the new group of students slated for transfer admission
would be minorities.

Despite its seemingly beneficial effects, several problems exist
with the new proposal.

First, there is no guarantee that the number of minority
students who choose to attend the university will increase by much,
especially at the most competitive campuses ““ namely UCLA and
UC Berkeley.

Moreover, we are concerned about the quality of student
performance. Under Atkinson’s proposal, the 12.5 percent of
eligible students will consist of 64 to 66 percent non-minority
students ““ students who are white and Asian.

These students would not have been eligible for admission under
the current 4 percent plan. Thus, campuses may find themselves with
an increase of less-qualified students whose ethnicities are
already overrepresented at UC, which could mean a decrease in the
quality of education in the classroom and the campus at large.

Another problem with the plan is that the more diverse pool of
eligible students would consist of transfers. Though this proposal
may increase the number of minorities among upper-classmen, it
still leaves the entering freshman class and and many
lower-division classrooms largely homogenized.

Still, this program will have a positive impact on low-income
students. After high school, many students may not have the money
to pay for four or five years at a university. The plan gives
low-income students an opportunity to attend community college
while being guaranteed acceptance into a UC school, assuming they
finish their requirements.

Without a doubt, the number of underrepresented students who are
UC-eligible will increase under Atkinson’s proposal.
Regardless, the university should not have to resort to admitting a
large number of students while hoping that underrepresented
minorities will be included.

Who’s to say that more African American, Latino, or Native
American students will be admitted to UCLA under this plan? Where
is a plan that will increase diversity among lower-classmen?

Such weaknesses highlight the fundamental flaws with SP-1 and
Proposition 209. It is unfortunate that the best plan the
university can come up with while remaining within its legal
boundaries sounds more like a public relations move than a real
solution to the problem.

Diversity is an important element of a college education. It
creates a more vigorous learning environment that fosters tolerance
and understanding.

Atkinson stated his desire to boost the number of transfer
students while at the same time suggesting that the plan may
increase the number of minority students on UC campuses.
Unfortunately, this attempt to kill two birds with one stone does
not solve the problem of dwindling diversity at the UC by any
means. The university must do more if it wishes to achieve the
diversity of California’s population.

Otherwise, UCLA will be left in the heart of one of the most
diverse states in the nation, but will remain one of the least
diverse campuses.