Tuesday, November 4, 1997
At last, Proposition 209 is the law
But a law prof says ‘many, many issues’ remain to be hashed
out
By Mason Stockstill
Daily Bruin Contributor
California Proposition 209 passed its final legal hurdle Monday,
as an appeal by the American Civil Liberties Union and other civil
rights organizations was denied a hearing by the United States
Supreme Court.
The court declined to hear the appeal, meaning that it will not
rule on it. So the previous decision to uphold Prop. 209, rendered
by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, will stand.
"We are deeply disappointed with the high court’s ruling," said
Ed Chen, staff counsel with the ACLU.
"This leaves the nation without guidelines as to the
constitutionality of similar laws," Chen said.
California Governor Pete Wilson, on the other hand, was
satisfied with the court’s decision.
"It is time for those who have resisted Prop. 209 to acknowledge
that equal rights under the law, not special preferences, is the
law of the land," Wilson said.
However, just because this case cannot be appealed further does
not mean that the issue is resolved. Far from it, says UCLA Law
Professor Cruz Reynoso.
"There are still many, many issues that need to be sorted out
regarding 209," Reynoso said.
The actual changes that will come in every policy, from
admission to employee-recruitment, could come into question,
Reynoso said.
"The remaining issues will be sorted out by the courts," he
said. Those ‘issues’ include the thorny question of jurisdiction.
There is still question about which programs the Proposition
covers. If admitting students based on their race or gender are
banned by this proposition, Reynoso said, then so might recruitment
of students based on their race or gender, or scholarships that are
offered only to underrepresented minorities.
This decision does not set a national precedent. Federal
affirmative action programs will remain in effect.
As well as still having details to sort out, the courts could
still rule 209 unconstitutional.
"If the Supreme Court were to hear another case, similar in
nature, and then rule that laws banning affirmative action are
unconstitutional, under that decision 209 would be
unconstitutional," Reynoso said.
The non-decision comes on the heels of a recent study led by
UCLA Professor of Urban Planning Paul Ong, which concludes that
eliminating affirmative action policies could result in lower wages
for women and people of color.
"In the absence of strict enforcement of nondiscrimination
policies, it is very likely that further progress in eliminating
employment disparities will be slow," the report concluded.
What this means for UCLA, though, is that there is little hope
of return to the kind of admissions that allowed race to be taken
into account, a policy last used with this year’s freshman
class.
Students’ opinions varied, though there were many who believed
that the proposition had negative impacts on the UCLA campus.
"(209) interferes with the diversity of the campus and it
creates a much more conservative climate," said Roberta Pickett, a
third-year microbiology student.
Some UCLA administrators would rather keep their focus on
working within the law, however, and they include Chancellor Albert
Carnesale.
"We shouldn’t focus so much on the law itself," the chancellor
said in a recent interview.
"The more negative we sound, the less willing people are to
apply," he continued.
Meanwhile, since UCLA can no longer take race into account when
admitting new students, administrators are increasing outreach
programs in order to continue drawing a diverse field of
applicants.
"We need a higher number of applicants from underrepresented
peoples before we can have a higher enrollment of the same,"
Carnesale said.
With reports by Michelle Navarro and Steven Tanamachi, Daily
Bruin Contributors