Estrada is a fourth-year philosophy student and the CRC-SRRP
Sub-Committee Chairperson. Sandoval is a fifth-year political
science and history student and the CRC Chairperson. Â
Illustration by HINGYI KHONG/Daily Bruin
By Lisa Estrada and Antonio
Sandoval
Diversity is the university’s crying call. Everywhere you
turn, someone is trying to justify to someone else that UCLA is
still committed to diversity. But is there really a commitment to
diversity? Has the university accepted its responsibility? Has it
come up with a long-term strategy to combat the lack of diversity
from all angles? Many of us do not think so. All we hear are the
crying calls ““ just words ““ with no action.
The UCLA administration makes claims for diversity and greater
access for students of color whenever they can. They have created
programs to remedy the problems of low admissions rates with little
quantitative success. There are a few students of color admitted to
the university, many of them among the finest students in the
state. However, these admissions do not guarantee graduation. Many
students of color feel this risk is too high to take.
The reality is that many students, once matriculated, will not
graduate from UCLA. Every year students are dismissed from the
university because they fail to meet requirements for continued
good standing. These students are not dismissed from the university
because they are not able to keep up with the competitive pace of
UCLA academia. Rather, most of these students have other
responsibilities, be it work, family or personal issues that divert
their focus from academics.
Other students who fall under academic penalties are victims of
circumstance. For example, the student commuter may not have enough
money to live near campus and rarely has support groups that can
assist in preventing such consequences.
The unfortunate part of this is that these students had the
potential to be educated and to bring that education to members of
the community. In the end, the community loses the talents of these
individuals and in communities of color, the impact of such a loss
can be disproportionate.
Some students decide never to return to UCLA once dismissed, but
each year, during the summer some dismissed students return to the
university. These students, mostly from underrepresented
communities, return for an opportunity that is rare. They
participate in a program that was created to ensure that the
diversity UCLA was known for continued. This program, called the
Summer Readmissions and Retention Program, has worked to achieve
the goal of ensuring that dismissed students have an opportunity to
return to the university.
The SRRP is catered to the dismissed student population. It
works at readmitting dismissed students by providing support
through academic counseling, peer advising, tutoring and workshops.
The program has also held a specially designed class in which
students are able to discuss and reflect upon their own education,
how to take control of it and how to get the most out of it. The
ultimate focus of this program is the completion of requirements
and eventual student graduation.
There are many SRRP participants who can attest to its benefits.
Like most students, these dismissed students might have entered
UCLA with a major that was not right for them. Combined with not
having a strong support group, being one of the few people of color
on campus, working or commuting, this student might have fallen
under academic probation, subject-to-dismissal or dismissal status.
The difference in many of these students’ lives is that they
have participated in SRRP ““ the success stories make the
project worth the investment.
Many students who participated in the program will say that it
was SRRP that turned things around for them. Like many dismissed
students, they say they have been impacted by the positive
reinforcement that was brought through the consistent efforts of
the program. The unfortunate part of this whole picture is that the
SRRP program might not be around any longer ““ the victim of
bad priorities, shortsightedness and neglect by the university of
students from ignored communities. This is why SRRP needs to be
saved from extinction.
The Campus Retention Committee is proud to have been involved in
the development of such a beneficial program. For this reason the
CRC will not stand by quietly and watch the SRRP program end. It
was announced late last summer that the program would no longer
continue. The UCLA administration has led us to believe that a
genuine effort made to keep the SRRP program alive. Regrettably,
the CRC has found that the UCLA administration has failed to secure
resources to allow the continuance of SRRP.
For years, the UCLA administration has claimed the motto of
diversity without actually working to implement its vision. Every
year UCLA admits fewer and fewer students of color into the
university. These populations matriculate into the university with
great expectations of growth and an established commitment made by
administrators who pretend to care for their well being. The
eventual let-down comes when students fall into a situation in
which they are no longer welcomed at the university and they
discover that the promises made by administrators may have been
just empty rhetoric created to divert attention from the fact that
the university is increasingly unwelcoming.
SRRP helps students being pushed out of UCLA. The CRC has made
an effort to work with administration on this issue but we are once
again disillusioned by false promises and meaningless gestures.
It is time that the university keep its commitment to students.
Likewise, it is imperative to keep its commitment to diversity.
Without SRRP, the university will not have a program to readmit
those students who, many times, out of no fault of their own, have
fallen into academic difficulty.
It seems that the university has given up on the idea of a
second chance, a chance that for many students could mean
everything. The idea of not extending this second chance seems
consistent with the unwelcoming gestures that the university has
constantly shown for its students of color.
The CRC has already tried to meet with anyone who could change
the fate of SRRP. No one seems to be able to find a solution to the
problem. The university administration has failed in this respect.
It is time for the person with whom the buck stops to start
responding to the concerns of students. It is Chancellor
Carnesale’s responsibility to find a solution to this
problem. SRRP cannot cease to exist because of a lack of
commitment.
If the chancellor does not respond to this problem it will
reinforce the perception that the claims of diversity are only
sound bites. It takes more than just admitting a student of color
to UCLA to ensure diversity. It means ensuring that each student is
given the tools to succeed. It is disappointing that we have been
forced to bring out this issue in this way, but on issues of
diversity, action speaks louder than words.