By Patricia Greenfield
Greenfield is a professor of psychology. She was a member of the
Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Relations with Schools
(CUARS). This submission, while informed by experience with CUARS,
is her opinion and does not represent an official CUARS
position.
Last week’s Daily Bruin contained the latest assaults on
diversity that have been ongoing since the end of affirmative
action. It is the latest in the double-speak campaign of “We
want diversity, but we will find anything that can level the
playing field for underrepresented minorities to be unfair or
illegal.” This latest assault was on the language test of the
SAT II.
After finding that all three of the SAT IIs predict college GPA
better than the SAT I (which is known to be more difficult for
African Americans, Latinos and Native Americans than for other
groups ““ and which UC President Richard Atkinson has strongly
suggested should be eliminated in the admissions process), some now
raise an argument against the SAT II language test.
The argument that surfaced recently at the UC Board on
Admissions and Relations with Schools (BOARS) is that people who
speak Spanish or Chinese at home, for example, have an advantage
over native English speakers when they take an SAT II in their
native language and, therefore, these tests should not be given the
same weight as other SAT achievement tests.
The proponents of this argument seem to forget that most of us
native English speakers are taking all the tests in our home
language. The logical conclusion is that we should discount all of
the SAT Is and II taken by English speakers because it is in our
home language. Or the other equally logical (and equally absurd)
possibility is that native English speakers should be taking all
the tests in a second language such as Spanish or Chinese.
Instead of conceding the overwhelming disadvantage of having to
go to school and be tested in a second language, the proponents of
this argument draw attention to the one situation ““
achievement in a non-English home language ““ in which the
disadvantage is eradicated and even reversed.
Another absurd conclusion that follows from the argument against
giving weight to foreign language achievement tests is that because
a student is a native English speaker, he or she will automatically
do well on the English SATs, I or II. If this were so, the test
would be useless, because every native English speaker would get an
800 on both English “aptitude” (SAT I) and English
achievement (SAT II). The English SATs would be totally
nonpredictive of later academic accomplishment.
Obviously, this is not the case.
It is equally obvious that you do not get an 800 on the Spanish
test from speaking Spanish at home. It is necessary to study hard
and develop a literary knowledge of Spanish (or any other
language), just like it is for English-language students taking the
English tests.
The recommended changes in admissions policy in the UC system
are supposed to create a level playing field for all. The search
ostensibly is to find measures that predict college performance,
yet also level the playing field for without using the legally
banned race or ethnicity. The language SAT II, even when taken in a
home language, both predicts college performance and redresses
non-race-based disadvantage.
If we are to follow President Atkinson’s mandate to
achieve diversity, this is exactly what we should be looking for in
UC admissions. Yet as soon as a promising key, such as home
language achievement tests, is found, it is instantly labeled
“unfair”.
To not treat the SAT “foreign” language tests as
equivalent to any other SAT achievement test is a discriminatory
travesty. This fallacious argument of “unfair
advantage” (which has been used for years in UCLA admissions
to devalue the foreign language SAT IIs when taken by native
speakers) must be eradicated once and for all.
Just as an achievement test taken in a home language can
partially (and only partially) redress the disadvantage of being
educated in a second language, so can the use of other
non-race-based life challenges partially redress other
disadvantages.
Underrepresented minorities are underrepresented because they
face barriers. The system of life challenges that has been expanded
and refined over the summer of 2001 attempts to identify these
barriers and take them into account in the admissions process. We
cannot remove them. But research here and at Berkeley shows that
the stronger role life challenges play in the admissions system,
the more underrepresented minorities are admitted. Now it is up to
us to figure out what weight life challenges should have in our
admissions process now and in the future.
Yet there is a strong resistance to the thorough-going use of
life challenges in the admissions process. One strong response to
placing weight on life challenges in the admissions system in order
to level the playing field for all groups has been to assert that
it is “illegal.” It is not illegal. Life challenges are
counted equally whether they occur to a black applicant, a white
applicant, a Latino applicant, a Native American applicant or an
Asian applicant; they are not race based and, therefore, they are
not illegal.
What should be illegal is the response coming over the years
from certain members of the UCLA admissions office: They urge the
admissions committee to reduce the importance of life challenges
because their prominence in the admissions process can let in
underprivileged Asians (e.g. Cambodians) as much, or more than,
truly underrepresented pan-ethnic groups such as Native Americans,
African Americans or Latinos. The underlying implication of this
argument is that the use of life challenges, because it also would
increase the number of Asian students admitted to UCLA, would
further erode the white population at UCLA and that his would be
undesirable. This kind of thinking is discriminatory and therefore
could be illegal! In essence, some segments of the Admissions
Office reject the use of a particular assessment tool because they
do not want to apply it equally to all groups.
The UCLA admissions committee and the UCLA admissions office
have found a way to increase the number of underrepresented
minorities at UCLA ““ by taking into account life challenges.
But when we use this tool, we apply it equally to all groups. It is
not applied only to underrepresented groups.
This is a truly democratic and egalitarian methodology. It is
perfectly legal. However, both within the committee and within the
admissions office, there has been resistance to using this tool to
the fullest extent if it lowers the number of white students. There
seems to be a desperate reactionary need to maintain white
privilege in UCLA admissions; it is always expressed in a very
implicit and quiet manner.
Remember that, with the end of affirmative action, not only was
race discounted in the admissions process, but so was racism.
Because of Prop. 209, we can no longer even attempt to redress the
injustice of racism, the largest barrier of all; we are very
handicapped in leveling the playing field for all groups.
Nevertheless, we have found a few tools in the struggle for justice
in UCLA and UC admissions:
1. We can eliminate the SAT I, which is a barrier for
underrepresented groups but which does not predict college
performance as well as other measures which provide a more even
playing field across groups.
2. We can put more weight on the SAT IIs, which contain material
taught in school, rather than by private coaching firms.
3. We can resist discriminating against foreign language tests
just because some students may be taking them in their home
language (and remember that most of us are taking all the tests in
our home language).
4. We can take account of life challenges as a non-race-based
way to level the playing field for all applicants.
5. As part of the movement to a more humanistic, holistic
admissions process, we can consider personal achievement not just
in admitting students, but in assessing their success at UCLA.
Freshman GPA is not the only measure of success. If we are
moving toward the consideration of the “whole person”
in admissions, why are we not considering the “whole
person” in our evaluation of college success?
These five points provide our tools for the achievement of all
kinds of diversity, not just ethnic diversity. Now we must use them
fearlessly and aggressively.