University of California regents vote strongly in support of affirmative action
The UC regents make a strong statement to reverse a landmark 1996 ruling.
In a “special meeting”, the University of California regents unanimously voted in favor of a measure that would reverse 1996’s California Civil Rights Initiative and reinstitute affirmative action.
The move to undo the California Civil Rights Initiative, or Prop 209, which California voters passed in 1996 with 54.5% of the vote, comes on the heels of weeks of protest and, in some cases, riots that have engulfed American cities. The unrest was triggered by the death of George Floyd, an unarmed black man who died at the hands of a white Minneapolis officer who knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes.
Now, the state legislature is moving on a bill that would allow special preferences for race, ethnicity and sex when it comes to state employment and, by extension, admission to California’s prestigious university system.
The passage of Prop 209 is linked to “a decline in minority representation on [University of California] campuses” and the regents have made this decision to correct the “original sin of this country” per regent Eloy Ortiz Oakley and help push the UC system to more closely “represent the rich diversity of our state” per UC President Janet Napolitano.
Photo courtesy of my camera. Not a photographer. FREMULON.
According to these two articles, this decision was supported by Napolitano, “most of the various faculty and student bodies” on the UC campuses, “all 10 campus chancellors and the governing bodies for faculty, undergraduate and graduate students”.
Here’s a quantitative breakdown of California residents vs. the breakdown of the UC campuses:
At present, show (sic) Asian-American still comprise some 33% of the system’s undergraduate and graduate students, while accounting for 15% of state residents. White make up 21% of UC students and 37% of the population, while Latinos appear the most underrepresented as they comprise 22% of UC students but 39% of state residents, the largest single groups.
African-Americans make up 6% of California’s residents but only 4% of the UC student population, according to state and census figures.
The next step for the repeal is to face the state senate; if it passes there, then it will be on the ballot for voters on November 3.
Everyone is entitled to have—and express—an opinion on what is a divisive subject. Please be respectful of one another and don’t be dicks.
While I definitely agree with the idea behind affirmative action (you do need to artificially help the under-represented population to have that better education), I am skeptical about how much impact this would have, outside of a clear higher acceptance rate for applicants of certain backgrounds but whether they will decide to come is a different story. My understanding is that even with the UC not looking at the racial background of the applicants, almost all of the under-represented applicants probably include that info, in a not so subtle way, in their essays. On the other hand, you also run the issue of some of these under-represented students doubting themselves into thinking that they only got in because of affirmative action (not to mention the even more troublesome issues of their professors and fellow students believing in this). Anyhow, I'm just curious if someone has a link to some compelling arguments as to how this change would actually be effective (rather than just a gesture for the UC Regents to pat themselves in their backs).
My own view is that this is a correct thing to do, and for proper reasons. It is not for my benefit or my family as we are white, but as a white person, I know it is always an argument to say let them pull themselves up by their boot straps "like we did". Well, we didn't face what they face. All people face hardship, and in the case of Asian Americans, who have faced (and face) discrimination for sure, and yet despite persistent racism against Asians it is of a different character than that against African Americans or Latinos. Others more knowledgeable could expand on those differences. But to address the persistent circumstance of poverty, discrimination and generational lack of education among other groups, I believe it is the role of the State and the UC system to strive toward a fair society, a society that seeks to right wrongs, and a system that seeks to correct historic imbalances in representation among the business, academic and power class in the State. Access to UC is a finite resource. A treasure for sure. If the UC system is passive in only accepting who is best qualified, it perpetuates the bias that is built into the fabric of other State agencies, cities, communities and histories. It's a damn shame for any not accepted who are well qualified, but our motto is Fiat Lux, and if there is any light here, it is to be at the vanguard of building a more just and civil society that seeks to improve the lives of all people and peoples.