Though they laughed at the shaky home video of themselves
marching on Washington last week, the UCLA law students who
gathered at the UCLA Law School Monday found nothing funny about
the possible end of affirmative action in university
admissions.
The discussion gave the students a chance to share their
experiences. Many had submitted a brief to the Supreme Court in
support of affirmative action and several were present to hear
portions of the oral arguments.
One of the students, Erika Dowdell, was an
“intervener” in the case ““ she testified and
brought evidence in the Michigan case in the lower courts and
subsequent appeals ““ but she was not able to participate in
the debate before the Court.
The students discussed some of the reasons they believe
affirmative action is necessary, naming in particular the isolation
of minority groups at institutions of higher learning. Gaining
admittance to historically black universities is not adequate, and
an education at a first-tier university is necessary for
advancement, they said.
Many of the students expressed their feelings that UCLA has been
essentially resegregated since affirmative action was dropped in
1996 when Proposition 209 forbade the use of race preferences in
California.
“UCLA Law School only graduated two black students last
year,” said Erika Dowdell, a first-year law student who spoke
at the Lincoln Memorial during the march.
Dowdell attended the University of Michigan as an undergraduate,
and has been involved in the affirmative action case since she was
17.
“I look around and see only four other black people in my
section of eighty people. … I feel totally silent,” Dowdell
said.
“There is this sentiment that diversity is so valuable,
but it is not, if I feel like a token.”
Marky Keaton, a third-year law student, explained this feeling
by saying that a student who lacks the support of students with
similar backgrounds can often feel isolated.
And in classes like criminology, which often involve
race-related issues, an isolated minority student feels obligated
to defend and represent his whole race by himself ““ which can
cause severe emotional harm, Keaton said.
Nearly all of the students who spoke said that affirmative
action was misrepresented in the media.
Devon Carbado, a UCLA law professor who organized the event with
fellow Professor Kimberle Crenshaw, said the way that the press
frames the affirmative action issue is not balanced.
Phrases like “less qualified students” and
“racial preference” reflect the basic imbalance in the
way that affirmative action has been covered, Carbado said.
“Affirmative action is not about racial preferences, it is
about remedying historical discrimination, which is the reason that
our schools are not naturally diverse,” Keaton said.
Many of the speakers called standardized tests such as the SAT
and the LSAT racially biased.
A 1991 study presented during the Michigan case lists LSAT
scores for Latino and black students as an average of 9.2 points
lower than white students with the same GPAs, a fact which many of
the speakers ascribed to questions that favor certain groups.
Near the end of the discussion, the focus turned to the
future.
“The fact that there were student interveners in this case
constitutes a step forward,” Crenshaw said.
Many students emphasized the need for education and
communication, and one student suggested having a hearing on the
validity of the LSAT at UCLA.
While most of the students who spoke had either participated in
the march or in writing the brief, the audience included many
students who just wanted to be informed.
“It was good to hear the full range of ideas, arguments
and values involved in this debate,” said Bjorn Johnson, a
second-year law student.
“Bringing these ideas to the forefront was interesting and
good for me,” he said.