By Shauna Mecartea
Daily Bruin Reporter
Student Regent Justin Fong will call for the full repeal of SP-1
and 2 by proposing a substitute motion for RE-28, an item proposed
by the Board of Regents to resolve future admissions policies.
“It’s clear to a lot of people that RE-28 really
falls short of what people expected,” Fong said.
“People have not been calling for SP-1 to only be replaced
for six years.”
Language in Fong’s proposal, which will be presented at
the UC Board of Regents meeting on Wednesday, acknowledges the
diverse population of California and affirms that the UC system is
committed to diversity by repealing SP-1 and 2, which ended the use
of race, religion, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in
admissions or hiring.
The substitute motion complies with Proposition 209, the state
voter initiative that ended affirmative action, but will eliminate
the current admissions policy.
SP-1 states that 50-75 percent of applicants will be accepted on
academic achievement only. Repealing SP-1 will eliminate this
clause and allow admissions readers to examine a student’s
entire application ““ not just GPA and SAT scores for that
group.
But RE-28 will not remove the current admissions policy.
RE-28 states that,”The term academic achievement
referenced in SP-1 shall include academic and related educational
criteria.”
Other regents said Fong’s proposal is redundant because
RE-28 already supersedes SP-1 and 2.
“Supersede is the same as rescind,” said Regent
William Bagley, who said he is more concerned with having RE-28
passed by the board by a significant majority than with revising
its specific language.
Regent Ward Connerly, who spearheaded the end of affirmative
action with SP-1 and 2 and Proposition 209, could not be reached
for comment.
“I share Bagley’s desire to remove the University of
California from the debate about race-based affirmative
action,” Connerly said in a statement released Friday.
“The people of California have resolved this issue and the
book must be closed on this debate.”
But some students said the regents are not responding to their
requests.
“The regents are trying to make it seem that they are
taking action, when really they are not,” said Evan Okamura,
external vice president of the Undergraduate Students Association
Council.
The third clause in RE-28 states, “since the adoption of
SP-1, some students … have expressed pride in knowing that they
were admitted based on their own accomplishments.”
“The clause is basically commending SP-1,” Okamura
said.
Some students and faculty said they found the language offensive
because it says students admitted under affirmative action were not
admitted based on their accomplishments, Fong said.
But Bagley said the language was added to appease other regents
and ensure RE-28 will pass by a significant majority.
While RE-28 states that “the provisions for admission
based on academic achievement outlined in SP-1 shall remain in
effect” until the Academic Senate provides admission policy
suggestions and is approved by the board, Fong’s substitute
motion “rescinds Regents’ Policy SP-1 and
Regents’ Policy SP-2.”
RE-28 also states that programs to ensure “the retention
of all students” will be available and that new initiatives
“to improve the transfer of academically prepared
students” from community colleges to the UC system will be
undertaken.
Both affirm the commitment to expand outreach programs and
comply with Proposition 209. They state that the Academic Senate
will determine the conditions for admission to the UC system, and
that the Academic Senate will report to the board in no more than
one year.
After the passage of SP-1 and 2 in 1995 ““ to the dismay of
all nine UC chancellors and Academic Senates ““ students,
community members and faculty protested to rescind the
measures.
After six years of steady protesting, activists gathered at the
March regents’ meeting at UCLA to demand SP-1 and 2 be added
to the agenda. But according to the regents’ policies,
suddenly adding items to the agenda is illegal.
Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, regent by virtue of his office, said
to the crowd that the measures would be discussed in May, when the
repeal of SP-1 and 2 would have enough votes to pass.
Since the California State Legislature passed ACR-21, which
calls for the regents to repeal SP-1 and 2, Fong said it is in the
best interests of the University of California to rescind SP-1 in
compliance with the state’s wants.
Fong will offer the substitute motion at the meeting in place of
the standing proposal, RE-28.
From there the regents will vote to pass, fail or table the
motion.
If Fong’s motion passes, RE-28 will likely be withdrawn
from consideration. If the motion fails or is tabled, then RE-28 is
available to be amended or voted upon, Fong said.