In a Supreme Court case that may influence the future of admissions policies nationwide, University of California officials have filed a brief in support of the University of Texas’ race-conscious stance on admissions.
In a letter sent on Aug. 13, UC President Mark Yudof and 10 chancellors made the case that the UC’s inability to use race as a factor in admissions decisions has led to a considerable decline in the number of underrepresented minority students across the system.
Passed in 1996, Proposition 209 banned the consideration of race or ethnicity in any state government “operation,” which includes admissions to California’s public universities. The UC has remained persistent, however, in trying to find alternate ways to increase minority enrollment, such as implementing holistic review in 2007.
By submitting this brief, the UC is being totally transparent about the role it believes race should play in admissions. And, should the Supreme Court rule to uphold affirmative action, the UC could begin to take steps toward instituting a less muddled admissions policy in which race is allowed to play a small but present factor.
In the past, the UC’s holistic admissions process, implemented to “create a more diverse campus,” has been accused of trying to sidestep Proposition 209.
Right now, a student’s application is examined as a whole and given a final score, rather than evaluated in parts. This approach has been criticized, however, for its potential for subjectivity because students can discuss prohibited factors like race in their personal essays.
A Supreme Court ruling in favor of the University of Texas will validate the UC’s well-placed efforts to increase the minority presence across its campuses.
By taking race into consideration in admissions decisions, the UCs could begin to equalize higher education opportunities for traditionally underrepresented minority groups.
This will not only benefit the individual students themselves, but also the greater Californian society ““ higher education has been consistently correlated with better job prospects. More so, the University of California’s mission statement says that “providing long-term societal benefits” is a primary goal of the 10 university campuses.
The lawsuit against the University of Texas was filed by a once-prospective student, Abigail Fisher, who contests that the school denied her admission on the basis of her race.
The University of Texas has since stated that Fisher, who is white, would have been denied admittance even without affirmative action policies.
Fisher and other prospective students should realize that race is not the determining element of these decisions. Rather, race is considered in the larger context of a student’s application, and is neither a free pass for unqualified minority students nor a barrier for qualified non-minority students in the admissions process.
But will the UC’s letter do anything to change either court or public opinion?
Miguel Unzueta, a professor at the UCLA Anderson School of Management who researches affirmative action policy, said it is unlikely the UC’s statement will affect the case’s outcome. The letter, Unzueta said, relies on findings from social scientists to explain the intangible educational benefits of a diverse campus but lacks clear statistical proof.
Though the brief may be a symbolic gesture, the UC is right to confirm its commitment to providing equality of opportunity to the state’s minority students.
In these efforts, however, the UC may find that Californians are unwilling partners.
“The idea that whites are being specifically discriminated against is the main opposition to affirmative action,” Unzueta said, adding that many people mistakenly believe that universities use a quota system for accepting minority students.
These perceptions perpetuate the harmful view that underrepresented minority students are admitted solely on account of race-conscious admission.
Richard Sander, a UCLA law professor and critic of affirmative action, holds that the current use of racial preferences in the college admissions process is problematic in large part because of the stigma it places on minority students.
The antidote to this misconception is total and publicized transparency about the role race would play in admissions decisions: less significant than academic ability, extracurricular achievement and socioeconomic condition, but still a factor in the holistic process.
However, in the meantime, the UC can still work within the confines of Proposition 209 by emphasizing outreach efforts to high schools with many minority students, advertising clearly the prerequisites for a UC education and the best avenues to achieve this at their high schools.
Proposition 209 aside, race, just like socioeconomic conditions, athleticism or any other non-academic characteristic, should be allowed to play a small role in admissions decisions, as it is certainly an important context in which to consider a student’s achievements.
Email Grano at kgrano@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to opinion@media.ucla.edu or tweet us @DBOpinion.