By Marcelle Richards
Daily Bruin Contributor
Recent affirmative action cases across the nation have fueled
the continuing debate about the issue in California, where
Proposition 209 and dropping rates in underrepresented minority
students have led to a gradual reshaping of university
education.
Proposition 209 forced the revision of more than 30 California
statutes and ended the use of affirmative action in admissions and
hiring at the state’s public colleges and universities, as
well as other state-run entities.
The use of race as a factor in admissions at the University of
Michigan was recently upheld in Gratz v. Bollinger when a federal
judge ruled that attaining ethnic diversity is a compelling enough
reason for using race.
But the ruling contradicts a federal ruling made against an
affirmative action program at the University of Washington. Grutter
v. Bollinger, also dealing with the University of Michigan, is
scheduled for trial Jan. 16.
While the University of Michigan continues its affirmative
action policies, a 1996 ruling in Texas banned such admissions
policies, with two other states ““ California and Washington
““ following suit with ballot initiatives.
“I don’t think a society that continues that profile
is healthy,” said Jim Turner, Assistant Vice Chancellor of
the graduate division. “I know California has led a domino
effect as far as leading the way in the anti-affirmative action
sentiment.”
In recent years, it has been the UC Board of Regents who have
supported anti-affirmative action policies, with Regent Ward
Connerly at the forefront of the group’s support.
In 1995, the board approved SP-1, which preceded Proposition 209
in ending the use of race in UC admissions. The decision also laid
the groundwork for UC’s outreach programs, which are intended
to maintain diversity at the university.
It passed 14-10, and in place of affirmative action programs,
the board launched a $60 million outreach program the following
year ““ the budget for which has since grown to $300
million.
“Diversity that’s merely skin-deep may not yield the
viewpoint diversity that exists in a market of ideas; you’re
relying on racial profiling,” said Kevin Nguyen, Executive
Director of the American Civil Rights Institution, of which
Connerly is the chairman.
“We think the quality of the incoming class has been
strengthened (since SP-1 passed) not only in GPAs and SAT scores,
but you see less of an economic disparity and improved retention
and graduation rates.”
The following year, first-year admits to the UCLA School of Law
reflected the most drastic change in admissions history at the
school. The number of white students increased by 30 percent and 70
percent, while the Latino count dropped 17 percent and the African
American population suffered a 50 percent decline.
Though several groups have protested SP-1 and similar policies,
including UC professors at a demonstration on the Berkeley campus,
Nguyen is confident the Regents made a decision beneficial to the
educational system.
“The Regents should have done what they did regardless
““ it was a lawsuit waiting to happen,” he said.
“The means by which the UC was pursuing diversity was a means
of discrimination. The debate is not whether it’s good or bad
““ it’s diversity or a class of raw academic
talent.”
Nguyen estimates that within five to ten years, racial diversity
will increase as more children benefit from the outreach
programs.
Though Nguyen said Proposition 209 and SP-1 have provided
stronger footholds for potential UC students, efforts to repeal
SP-1 are currently under way through the activism of dissenting
regents, according to Justin Fong, student regent and second-year
public policy graduate student.
“California has been suffering ““ and it was never a
consensus to begin, it was a handful of people’s decisions
who made a sweeping decision,” Fong said. “California
has been stereotyped as anti-affirmative action, but in fact
it’s very alive.”
Several UCLA professors attended the American Association of Law
Schools Conference Saturday to discuss affirmative action in
universities. The disparities in state policies have raised concern
for affirmative action on a broader scale.
“Even when decisions are made out of one’s
jurisdiction, we pay attention,” said Regina McConahay, UCLA
School of Law spokeswoman. “I think we all suffer when doors
are closed.”
Faculty-sponsored scholarships and alumni outreach programs for
underrepresented groups are among the alternatives McConahay said
she hopes to see implemented on campus.
“The lack of diversity directly affects the academic
experience and excellence at UCLA and has caused us to over-rely on
academic indicators we’ve shown are biased,” Fong said.
Additionally, the ban on affirmative action is expected to have a
long-term effect on the composition of the number of educated
individuals in society.
“It’s a pipeline, the farther you go up (in the
level of education), it’s much less,” Turner said.
“I am personally convinced it’s disadvantageous to have
a homogeneous student body in the classroom.”
The Law Fellows Outreach Program is actively pursuing the search
for potential students and fostering the resources necessary to
ensure the success of disadvantaged students.
Meanwhile, fellowship programs directed at minority groups were
removed by Proposition 209, and other race-based policies at the
university underwent modification.
“When one door closes you try to find a window,”
McConahay said. “I think the law school has had a strong
background in opening doors and we will continue to find
ways.”
LANDMARKS IN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION A look at
education and labor through time. 1978 The
decision of U.S Supreme Court in Regents in UC v. Bakke establishes
the legality of using race as a factor in college admissions, but
forbids racial quotas. 1986 In Wygant v. Jackson
Board of education, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that a school
board could not lay off an individual soley for the purpose of
maintaining diversity, according to the equal protection clause of
the 14th Amendment. 1995 In Adarand Constructor,
Inc. v. Peña, the U.S. Supreme Court restricts, but does not
outlaw the use of affirmative action in the granting of federal
contracts. 1995 The UC Regents pass SP-1 and 2,
ending the use of affirmative action in admissions, hiring and
contracting throughout the UC system. 1996 Hopwood
v. University of Texas Law School bars the school from considering
race in admissions processes. 1996 California
voters pass Proposition 209, ending the use of affirmative action
in the state. 2000 Gratz v. Bollinger et al, rules
that the University of Michigan’s current admissions policy is
constitutional, finding the pursuit of diversity for educational
purposes a compelling interest. 2000 Grutter v.
Bollinger et al, pending. Trial date scheduled for Jan. 16 over the
alleged discrimination of an unsuccesful applicant. SOURCE: The
White House, ACLU, Center for Individual Rights, Affirmative Action
and Diversity Project-UCSB, University of Michigan Original by ADAM
BROWN/Daily Bruin Web Adaptation by HERNANE TABAY/Daily Bruin
Senior Staff