Gender, sexual identity, immigration status, language, national origin and religion – these are all controversial topics that meander into discussions on college campuses. It appears that the issues of race and ethnicity at UCLA have the most controversial connotations.
The moderate to low number of black, Native American and Latino students, as well as students from some Southeast Asian countries, at UCLA reflects the sensitive sentiment that race has on our elite public university, which also hosts a large percentage of white students.
More specifically, the heated subject of affirmative action in higher education is about to take the national stage and catapult the question of whether state bans on race-conscious admissions programs are constitutional.
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States is hearing opening arguments from parties in a court case challenging the State of Michigan’s voter approved ban on affirmative action in public colleges and universities.
The case, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, affects California students in public institutions of higher learning since voters here also passed a similar ban, Proposition 209, in 1996. Students across all demographics, especially at UCLA, should understand the urgency for a decision that can help delegitimize the prohibitions on affirmative action and reinstate the use of race as one of many potential factors in admission.
Unfortunately, opponents of affirmative action sensationalize myths about college race-conscious admissions programs. A lack of a diverse academic environment serves to the detriment of our student body, and a ban on race as an admissions factor hurts students of color who might graduate from neglected school districts that do not always offer exceptional curriculums as they would in more affluent neighborhoods.
In my UCLA courses and through informal discussions, the most pervasive argument against affirmative action is that it hurts fellow college applicants as a form of “reverse racism.” At UCLA, white and native-born Asian or Pacific Islander students make up a majority of the student body.
Some say that a race-conscious admissions process would penalize the success of these students. However, a 2008 research study conducted by a California State University, Northridge professor found that white student enrollment at UC Berkeley and UCLA declined after California banned affirmative action. Furthermore, a 2012 legal brief by Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus mentions that after Texas briefly prohibited affirmative action in 1996, Asian and Pacific Islander enrollment remained “constant” at flagship institutions.
And, while on the subject of Asian and Pacific Islander groups, this attempt to drive a wedge between racial minority groups is concerning since ethnic groups like Filipino students saw their enrollment numbers take a steep drop after 1996’s Proposition 209. Moving forward, students should also realize the benefits of a more diverse student body, since the transition into professional careers will demonstrate the diversity of the workforce and does not reflect UCLA’s racial demographics.
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed several times that a diverse student environment is a “compelling interest,” which only adds to the evidence that students at prestigious public universities might not be culturally competent to function in the professional workplace. A wide array of diverse groups at UCLA benefits our development as individual thinkers and as a collective population. While there may be a diverse pool of students from different states or with different musical capabilities, our top public universities, UC Berkeley and UCLA, demonstrate a disappointing curve in enrolling racial minority students.
Affirmative action programs can provide an opportunity for the admission of more students of color admission into our elite institutions, which can then help create stronger cross-cultural understanding from inside and outside of the classroom. In addition, race-conscious programs accelerate the deconstruction of stereotypes that have often perpetuated bigoted incidents across colleges in our public universities, like racially themed parties. As citizens of the world and UCLA scholars we deserve a better future and that requires a more accurate representation of our state’s ethnic makeup.
Bruins should do their part in perceiving this issue beyond the hyperbolic statements and narrow vision of race. Affirmative action does not seek nor actually results in any negative repercussions for students of any background. Race-conscious programs also help enhance our perception of the world and improve our chances of interacting with our future co-workers.
In a final plea, all affirmative action programs – whether at Harvard University or the University of Michigan – do not use quota systems. There is no ill intent to admit students of lesser standards or restrict students of a different racial group from being admitted to a school. Rather, this is an attempt to recognize our nation’s past of educational injustice and use race-conscious measures to cultivate a realistic representation of our country’s transforming demographics.
If SCOTUS bans affirmative action, does that mean college admissions will finally have to stop using the racist SAT test, since that’s basically affirmative action for white people? The SAT–and especially the SAT 2–have been shown time and time again to predict virtually nothing about college performance; however, high scores on these tests correlate hugely with how white one’s community is, and how rich it is. Sure, the SAT2 is no longer required, and the ACT is offered as an alternative to the SAT, but as long as either of these tests are even accepted for consideration in the application process, our school will continue to disproportionately favor those who were born rich and white.
How is standardized tests racist as if you study, you can do well in it.
Affirmative action is not the same as holistic review. Affirmative action is 100% race-based, and holistic review gives considerations to the poor. In short, affirmative action is unjust but holistic review is justifiable.
In another way to explain this, why should a poor black, be judged differently from a poor white, or a poor Asian? Under affirmative action, colleges will only accept poor black, but not poor white or poor Asians. To be, this sounds more racist than your claim on standardized tests.
You can study to be good at hoola-hooping too; it still won’t predict college performance, though, so that means it shouldn’t be used as an admissions test.
Also: you’re seriously trying to say that, since anyone can study to improve their SAT scores, the SAT isn’t racist, even if performance correlates more strongly to white-ness than to high school or college GPA? That’s like saying that the Mississippi voter registration tests weren’t racist; sure, almost no one who was black did pass the test that would allow them to vote, and almost everyone who was white did, but there were a couple of blacks that did pass, and a couple of whites that didn’t, so… definitely not racist, nope, not at all. And there were a few free blacks and enslaved whites during American slavery, so American slavery wasn’t racist either.
…that’s because generally blacks were given a different and much more difficult test than the whites (at least in most situations). The SAT is the exact same test for all students.
I will agree that the SAT has very little correlation to how one will perform in college though.
Our school doesn’t disproportionately favor those who were rich and white – if you compare UCLA’s demographics with those of the LA metropolitan area, our white population is SPOT on with the general population. It is our Asian population that is disproportionately high. Often times, our white population is LOWER than what it is in California/Los Angeles.
But by all means, continue shaking your fist at everyone’s favorite whipping boy, the ‘rich white dude.’
I disagree. All affirmative action programs do have “intent to admit students of lesser standards or restrict students of a different racial group from being admitted to a school”, while declining this fact. Private schools like Harvard do limit Asians to a certain percentage (~15%) of admitted student every year.
Studies has shown that affirmative action does not actually help those in economic disadvantages, but helps upper class African American and White female students. It is not even a “solution” to fix “our nation’s past of educational injustice.” Even if it does increase the number of minority students, it is unjust to “establish an immoral law as a solution to a past immoral law.”
In short, Martin Luther King Jr said “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” College applicants should be judged by their academic achievements, but not their skin colors.
MLK Jr would have committed over several civil disobediences at how low amount of Black Americans are in colleges and universities as well as the widening wealth gap that will be increased if universities do not see a “critical mass” of historically disadvantaged minorities.
MLK Jr fought for the equal rights and equal opportunities for minorities, not equal results.
Are you saying that MLK would want to keep disproportionately low amounts of black and brown people in the UC? And have you forgotten that schools were integrated after the end of Jim Crow by race-conscious bussing programs/redistricting, which is extremely similar to affirmative action, and which figures including MLK stood firmly behind?
Not all minorities are from bad schools, and not all whites are from good schools. Affirmative action is a terrible attempt at a blanket solution for a problem that needs to be looked at on an individual level.
College admissions should be exclusively focused on individual merit, not group association by race to statistics and averages. If the individual in consideration for admissions faced raced-based problems, take it into account, but don’t assume that each [insert minority] here faces the exact same problem.
While not all minorities are from “bad” schools and not all “white” from good schools and not everything could be like “cookie cutter” or fit into a nice “box” this would be a decent attempt considering the “normality” or “average”.
It is unfortunate that several people believe that we would be admitting students of a lesser standard to an elite university. No, not all! Could you kindly consider the following? A student from an immigrant very hard working family, a credit to our society, with children attending school.
These children are already at a disadvantage. Why? Consider the long hours parents work, the inability to provide assistance with homework or writing papers, the responsibility the oldest has to his younger siblings, the absence of technology at home, socioeconomics, language, negative influence due to demographics…However, this child has the motivation and drive to succeed in school. If he/she does well and attempts to get into UCLA with a 3.8 GPA where the average incoming student’s GPA is a 4.3, then this minority student does not get into UCLA.
Is it because he/she is of a lesser standard or is it because he/she did not have the advantages and support the “average” white student has today?
Our classes should be composed of a diverse population, some “other” populations just do not comprehend and could never really sympathize with the reality of what students in inner-city demographic ares face today and try to beat the odds.
Again, how unfortunate to not give these self-motivated, hard working, and of a “greater” standard students the opportunity of a lifetime they deserve to help lead our country.
-Inner-City Teacher, M.S. Ed
This article addresses “affirmative action,” not “holistic review.” I agree with your overall argument, but again, not all minority students are in disadvantage. We should look at each individual’s background, but not thinking “he is [insert minority], so life might be difficult for him.”
After all, affirmative action is an attempt to lower the standard to all minorities except Asians. Just an example to explain this situation: I am an Asian immigrant and I struggled to learn English in high school. Under affirmative action, and because I am Asian, I will be expected to have a nearly prefect SAT and GPA in order to get into UCLA, which does not make sense since most native English speakers cannot even do so.
That’s being said, STOP stereotyping people by their races. If it is reasonable to lower the “college entry bar” for poor Black students, the “bar” should also be lowered to poor White students, to poor Asian students, to all students under the same disadvantages.
The bar is never lowered…it is called “opportunity”! Are you familiar with the noun? Are you familiar with the value of diversity?
The bar is lowered in the sense that you are expecting lower grade and academic performances from those disadvantage students. You give them “opportunity” by lowering the academic “standard.”
And check out the definitions of “diversity” and “different races.” The two nouns have different meaning, and you cannot judge people’s background by looking at their races ONLY.
No the bar is Not lowered considering the tools and resources they have. But it is clear you have NO experience on the matter of inner city education. So, I shall let blissfully continue with the absence of experience and hopefully wisdom will kick in later. 🙂
I read you loud and clear, Guest. People like Rodriguez think that anyone who questions any aspect of affirmative action OR holistic review is anti diversity.
Rodriguez, I find it funny that you criticize Guest for not understanding “inner city” education. Using YOUR own language, you’ve emphasized something that relates to socio-economic class – not race! If you truly care about inner city students, you’d care about uplifting anyone who faced the stressors you mentioned, regardless of color.
We should still be taking measures EARLY ON in students’ K-12 educations so that ideally, UC can be representative of the California population. That IS a good goal. But the answer is NOT to accept lower GPAs/test scores/extracurriculars just to ‘fill slots’ at one of the last steps in a student’s educational career.
Someone above made a great point – it’s our duty to guarantee equal opportunities…not equal results.