Bryant Tan Tan is the 2001-2002 USAC
academic affairs commissioner.
Welcome to a new school year, a fresh start, and the continued
realities of your education at UCLA. Welcome to a university that
masks in blue and gold a student body that is ill reflective of Los
Angeles and California, a limited and culturally irrelevant
education, and a continued unwelcome mat for underrepresented
students.
Welcome to this year’s entering class, the last to enter
through an over decade-old admissions system that was challenged
and mandated to change with the repeal of Standing Policy 1 this
past May. A committee comprised primarily of faculty and
administration have worked throughout this summer to develop a new
admissions system ““ moving away from a tiered system toward a
“comprehensive” one.
Though some may believe the system is being revolutionized, the
changes are only modest. The major difference: all of next
year’s applicants will get a fairly
“comprehensive” look at their application (including a
look at their course patterns, essay, extracurricular activities
and life challenges).
Academic achievement (GPA, SAT I and II, APs) continues to be
the driving force for the faculty who are wary of having the
average entering UCLA student’s GPA or SAT scores drop,
regardless of what those numbers actually represent. And life
challenges (including socioeconomic disadvantage), which attempt to
substitute for affirmative action, do not carry the same weight or
influence affirmative action ever did.
The new admissions system will continue to admit a class that
does not reflect the diversity of this city and state. How does
this happen when year after year, diversity and greater numbers of
underrepresented students are supposedly a desired outcome? Is our
faculty and administration just paying lip service to
diversity?
The results of any admissions process will continue to provide
low diversity numbers unless it is truly a priority. Diversity does
not come without an expense. Greater diversity may mean that the
average GPA and SAT of UCLA freshman plateaus or decreases. But we
must ask how reliable and valid these measures are when they are
spoiled by the inequalities of the K-12 system.
What we should really ask is: What is the expense we pay when we
do not admit underrepresented students? The state and UCLA has a
compelling responsibility to provide higher education for all
people of California. The cost of denying admission to communities
of color is too great for us to continue to tolerate.
Throughout this summer, I’ve been able to work with
faculty and administration to develop this new system. Yet my many
critiques often go unaddressed or unheard. The faculty and
administration continue to be too limited in their move toward a
“comprehensive” review.
It is students and the community who must continue to set a
course and a vision to define what education should be about, and
who that education should benefit. Any admissions system that is
developed without the direction of these two key elements will
always fail. There is no way this institution can adequately
address the needs of the community without including us at the core
of this development process.
The truth that becomes clearer after every meeting is that we
are not able to regain pre-affirmative action diversity without
affirmative action. And while we’re busy debating the pros
and cons of affirmative action, meritocracy, hard work,
institutionalized racism, individualism and outreach ““
generations of students of color continually fail to meet standards
made by the education system and UCLA. That is the reality and a
truth that we easily ignore in our day-to-day trivialities. The
question is, what will you do to rectify that reality?
Today, many students actively participate in an ongoing movement
for educational justice and making higher educational more
accessible for all people. We search for both short-term and
long-terms solutions to our country’s long history of failure
in education, equality and supporting people of color.
Last year, after six years of struggle, we were able to repeal
SP-1 and 2, which eliminated considerations of race and gender in
admissions and hiring in the UC system. Though we still live under
the dark cloud of Proposition 209 in California, which still
prevents us from considering race and gender in admissions,
repealing SP-1 and 2 was another step toward bringing diversity
back to UCLA and bringing justice to higher education.
Diversity, or the lack of it, will continue to be at the center
of the discussions for many entities of this university. Whether
this is your first quarter here or your last, engage yourself in
critically analyzing and understanding what your education means
when there is no diversity. That day is coming near.
Don’t be a bystander. Take an active role in your
education.