51 Comments
author

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).

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Fair enough .... I can live with that decision.

BUT, let's not start getting Orwellian like much of the country at the present. Are they going to tear down the Campanile because the Sather fortune was built off the backs of the 49ers? Will they burn down Wheeler Hall because of his German sympathies in WWI? Or will Pappy Waldorf go the way of John Boalt because there weren't a sufficient number of PoC's on the team? Affirmative Action is fair. But I pray we don't start destroying our history the way the Taliban did with the statues at Bumiyan.

Expand full comment

Why are you going here? I thought this was a Cal sports site?

Since you did go here, it's shocking and sad that anyone in 2020 would support this blatantly racist effort to exclude Asian-Americans from the UC system in favor of more politically connected citizens.

Expand full comment

General Question: What is the missing 20%? Is it International students, mixed students or people who 'Decline to State'? By my count: 33 + 21 + 22 + 4 = 80.

Also, if you assume that 20% unknown figure remains, and reduce the census percentage accordingly, this doesn't really seem to help African Americans all that much as they would represent 4% of the student population when their state percentage is 4.8%. If anything this would increase the number of whites and latin students. But that is assuming the UC system tries to apportion everything according to census percentages, and I don't know what they envision.

Expand full comment