As students get back into the swing of things for their spring
quarter classes, a battle over the heart and soul of the future of
the University of California is taking place in Sacramento right
now. On one side is Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose 2004-2005
budget proposes to eliminate funding for UC outreach programs, a
policy change which would drastically affect minority and
low-income students. On the other side are various groups and
individuals, from state politicians and UC administrators to
pro-outreach students, who are working hard to save as much funding
for the programs as possible.
While these actions will probably prevent outreach from being
completely eliminated, it is becoming clear that whatever remains
of this vital education program will be a shadow of what it used to
be. Budget negotiations have not been going well for outreach
supporters. In the words of Carol Liu, chairwoman of the State
Assembly Higher Education Committee, “It’s tough to
fight a movie star.”
In times like these, I wonder what happened to the
once-pro-education candidate Schwarzenegger was during the recall
election last fall. During the campaign he specifically stated,
“Now, does this mean that we’re going to make cuts?
Yes. does this mean education’s on the table? No.” The
governor’s campaign focused on rooting out government waste
and inefficiency to solve our state’s budget woes.
In reality, over the past few months, the governor’s
specific plans have become clear ““ the Terminator is
terminating vital education programs, not government waste. Even
worse, he is specifically targeting the cuts to programs he is
ideologically opposed to instead of evenly dispersing them. On top
of his 2004-2005 budget plan that calls for complete elimination of
student outreach programs, he completely wiped out funding for the
UC Institute of Labor and Employment.
More importantly, the governor’s apparent anti-diversity
platform is going to hang minority and low-income students out to
dry and reverse all of the progress made by outreach programs at
reversing the declining numbers of minority students in the UC.
When the voter-approved ban on race-based admissions policies
went into effect for the entering class of 1998, admissions
percentages for underrepresented minorities (Native American,
African American and Latino) to the UC experienced a precipitous
decline, especially at the flagship campuses of UC Berkeley and
UCLA. As a percent of total admissions, underrepresented minorities
went from highs of 26.1 percent and 26.7 percent in 1995 at UC
Berkeley and UCLA, respectively, all the way down to 11.2 percent
and 12.7 percent in 1998, the first year the ban went into
effect.
In response, the UC implemented intense outreach programs to
recruit and motivate underrepresented minorities to choose UCs. The
program has been largely successful and the percent of
underrepresented minorities has increased slightly each of the last
few years. At UC Berkeley and UCLA, underrepresented minorities
constituted 16.5 percent and 16.8 percent of students admitted in
2002.
However, these levels are still low, and Schwarzenegger’s
proposed elimination of outreach would reverse this progress and
have catastrophic effects on student body diversity. The levels of
underrepresented minority students admitted to the UC will likely
drop significantly ““ perhaps even to the 1998 lows seen in
the immediate aftermath of the ban on affirmative action.
Without outreach, the California education system will move down
the path of resegregation, with affluent white and Asian students
making an even greater majority of UC students while everyone else
is banished to lower tier schools.
As a result of these effects, everyone is going to suffer. White
and Asian students will suffer from going to universities that are
racially homogeneous and unreflective of the real world diversity
of backgrounds and opinions among Americans. There is only so much
that a school full of prep students will have to offer.
Low-income students and other minorities will suffer because
outreach programs are often the key stimuli that motivate these
high school students to go to college. Additionally, as a
publicly-funded institution, the UC ought to serve the entire
population, not just select students.
In the end, it is insulting to have the governor, who promised
to help California, cut this critical education program for
disadvantaged students with the stroke of a pen. In the end, the
governor’s cut has nothing to do with cutting government
waste or inefficiency and everything to do with politically
expedient but thoughtless policies.
Bitondo is a third-year political science and history
student. E-mail him at mbitondo@media.ucla.edu. Send general
comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.