Impact of affirmative action vote weighed
Officials predict decision will not affect faculty, staff
By Anne Mai
Daily Bruin Contributor
A year before students feel the impact of the University of
California Regents’ decision to disband affirmative action,
prospective staff and faculty are dealing firsthand with the
program’s end.
On Jan. 1, 1996, following the regents’ orders, UCLA stopped
considering ethnicity and gender as factors in its hiring
practices. But unlike the changes the program’s end will have on
student admissions, officials believe there will be relatively
little impact for faculty and staff.
The decision, known as SP-2, which states that UC schools cannot
use race, religion, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin as
criteria in its employment and contracting practices, may be more
ideological than substantive.
"It’s been our feeling all along that SP-2 will have little, if
any, effect – probably so little that we won’t be able to measure
it," Chancellor Charles Young said.
Part of the reason for the limited changes is UCLA’s reliance on
federal grants and other forms of aid. Much of this federally
funded aid is contingent upon a diverse campus environment, which
affirmative action encourages.
This leaves the university in a delicate balancing act,
according to Charles Lewis, chair of UCLA’s Academic Senate.
"The ruling has left us stuck in between a rock and a soft spot,
so to speak," Lewis said.
The supremacy of federal regulations over the regents’ ruling
will help maintain the positive effects of affirmative action.
"Probably, departments and schools that have been committed to
diversity will continue to be so, and they will find other ways to
achieve diversity, without relying on affirmative action," said
Raymund Paredes, the vice-chancellor of academic development.
In the past, the UC personnel policies contained a "tie-breaker"
clause, giving the minority or female candidate the advantage if
the two applicants appeared identically qualified.
However, this situation did not occur often, according to staff
affirmative action officer Keith Parker.
When it did, Parker advised department heads against using
affirmative action as a "tie-breaking" condition. Instead, Parker
said he urged the department heads to re-examine their criteria and
choose the most highly qualified candidate.
"The question never comes up,"Parker said.
In 13 years of experience, Parker remembered only five
tie-breaking situations that have come to his desk – an extremely
small percentage of total university employees.
"SP-2 wouldn’t have substantive impacts on our programs. (But)
it has a big symbolic impact," Parker said.
"Affirmative action just isn’t much of a factor at the faculty
level," Paredes agreed. "At the faculty level, almost always
judgements are made on who’s the best qualified for the
position."
But despite the minor tangible effects, some campus leaders said
the psychological impact would be large.
"Regardless of what administrators say, SP-2 sends a very
chilling signal about the future prospects of having more
underrepresented professors on campus," said Max Espinoza, director
of Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA) and a vocal
defender of affirmative action.
"They need to repeal the regents’ decision and continue to
strengthen the program."
And Parker conceded that, however few, there may be more tie-
breaker situations that come before department heads.
In order to ensure that these situations end up complying with
SP-2, university officials said they intend to closely monitor
hiring processes and swiftly respond to any complaints.Comments to
webmaster@db.asucla.ucla.edu