Fong is the UC Student Regent for 2000-2001. He is a graduate
student in public policy at UCLA.
By Justin Fong
I cannot think of a convincing reason why the UC Regents should
not repeal SP-1. The primary argument used to oppose the repeal of
SP-1 is that “race preferences” are bad and illegal.
The fact is that the repeal of SP-1 will not bring affirmative
action back to the University of California. It will, however,
re-affirm our commitment to diversity and send a welcoming message
to women and students of color.
The repeal of SP-1 will help us re-establish faith in the system
of shared governance that was violated when SP-1 was passed against
the recommendation of the Academic Senate. The repeal of SP-1 will
prevent the university from being dragged further through the mud
by those who use UC to oppose diversity and affirmative action
across the nation. A long overdue move to repeal SP-1 was promised
this spring, but it has yet to happen and people are still
waiting.
The original passage of SP-1 was undemocratic and defied the
university’s own concept of shared governance. Those who
opposed SP-1 included UC President Jack Peltason, all nine
chancellors at the time, hundreds of faculty and academic senate
members, and thousands of students, community members and community
organizations. Nevertheless, 14 members of the Board of Regents,
driven by the political agendas of Ward Connerly and then-Gov. Pete
Wilson, “forced the nation’s largest public university
system to be color-blind in its admission policy.”
 Illustration by JARRETT QUON/Daily Bruin I could choose
to launch a defense of affirmative action policies and their
purpose, but I leave that for another day. But, I do wish to say
that affirmative action and the consideration of race in hiring and
admission are still very much alive in California in every
selective private university and Fortune 500 company that operates
in the state. People can argue that diversity is not a valuable
goal, but the most selective institutions and most competitive
corporations are pursuing diversity in their own ranks and
defending the importance of diversity in court, and for good
reason.
Ward Connerly and his supporters have chosen not to go after
Stanford, IBM or Microsoft, but have chosen to pick on our public
schools and state employees through manipulation of the political
proposition system.
The discouraging result of SP-1 and the elimination of
affirmative action is that people are reviving the prejudice and
stereotypes about women and minorities that we as a society have
been trying to overcome.
“Why should we let minorities in over qualified white
students?” Somehow the word “minority” has become
equated with the word “unqualified.” This is all too
familiar. There was a time when “woman” implied to many
people “inferior” ““ and to many it still does.
“Blacks” were labeled as “lazy” and
“Mexicans” as “dumb.” “Asians”
cannot escape the reputation of being “untrustworthy”
as the media has shown recently with the Wen Ho Lee case and the
campaign contribution controversy.
Any action that aims to increase access for minority students is
seen as “lowering the bar” or a way to “admit
unqualified students.” The accusation that those minorities
accepted before affirmative action was abolished were
“unqualified” is an insult to UCLA alumni, minorities
and women alike.
Last year there were two African American students at the UCLA
School of Law. In 1994, the year prior to the passage of SP-1, 46
African Americans were enrolled. Does that mean 44 of those African
American students were unqualified?
Not only has the debate about SP-1 sent negative messages to
current and future students, it insults alumni by implying they
were unqualified to get the education they received. Should we
re-evaluate all those alumni who were admitted before eliminating
affirmative action and tell them they did not deserve the
opportunity for their achievements?
Over 50 percent of the population of California is made up of
communities of color. To believe that of the hundreds of thousands
of high school students from minority communities, only a handful
are capable of succeeding at the University of California is a
racist notion. There are thousands of students from these
communities who could excel at a UC if given the opportunity.
Each year the University of California finds something positive
to say about our efforts to address the crisis we are facing in
minority admissions. Unfortunately, sometimes we believe our own
stories too much and forget the truth. When we report application
numbers are up, we often neglect to include the fact that admission
and enrollment for minority students are down. My objective is not
to focus on the negative, but to be honest about the reality of the
challenge we are facing.
It was recently reported that the raw number of applications
from underrepresented minority students reached a “record
high” this year. The reality is that the numbers are not so
rosy. For example, system-wide applications from African Americans
rose from 3.97 percent of total applications in Fall 1999 to 4.01
percent in Fall 2000. This is an increase of four one-hundredths of
1 percent. From Fall 2000 to Fall 2001, the percentage increased to
4.14 percent of total applicants. At UCLA, the number of African
American students applying for admission in Fall 2001 dropped as a
percent of total applications. In light of the facts, the
“record high” leaves little to celebrate and the
underlying challenge persists.
During the past five years, students have watched the university
fail in its commitment to excellence and diversity and have asked
the Board of Regents to rescind SP-1 and SP-2. This gesture of good
faith by the Board of Regents would send a huge public message to
minority students that we want them at our campuses. It would be
the greatest outreach tool we could have, and at absolutely no cost
to the university.
The university outreach efforts are important, but they are not
changing the perception that the university is unwelcoming. Many of
the minority students accepted are not coming to UC and we are
losing the reputation for diversity and excellence that was once
our hallmark. Why is this?
We cite our top 10 rankings as evidence that we are competitive
with any university in the world. Yet we are not attractive to the
minority students being admitted. Over 50 percent of the
underrepresented students accepted to UCLA choose to go elsewhere,
perpetuating our diversity problem.
As minority students see the lack of success of our outreach
efforts, dwindling support for ethnic studies departments, limited
availability of services for women and minorities on our campuses
and increasing hostility toward themselves and their peers, it is
understandable that they question how much the university cares
about them.
I urge my fellow members of the Board of Regents to rescind SP-1
to send the much needed message that UC cares about
underrepresented students and is committed to excellence and
diversity.