EDITORIAL BOARD Christine Byrd
 Editor in Chief
Michael Litschi
 Managing Editor
Jonah Lalas
 Viewpoint Editor
Barbara Ortutay
 News Editor
Amy Golod
 Staff Representative
Timothy Kudo
 Staff Representative
Brian O’Camb
 Staff Representative
  Unsigned editorials represent a majority opinion of
the Daily Bruin Editorial Board. All other columns, letters and
artwork represent the opinions of their authors. Â Â All
submitted material must bear the author’s name, address, telephone
number, registration number, or affiliation with UCLA. Names will
not be withheld except in extreme cases. Â Â The Bruin
complies with the Communication Board’s policy prohibiting the
publication of articles that perpetuate derogatory cultural or
ethnic stereotypes. Â Â When multiple authors submit
material, some names may be kept on file rather than published with
the material. The Bruin reserves the right to edit submitted
material and to determine its placement in the paper. All
submissions become the property of The Bruin. The Communications
Board has a media grievance procedure for resolving complaints
against any of its publications. For a copy of the complete
procedure, contact the Publications office at 118 Kerckhoff Hall.
Daily Bruin 118 Kerckhoff Hall 308 Westwood Plaza Los Angeles, CA
90024 (310) 825-9898
They just don’t get it.
At the last UC Board of Regents meeting, more than 1,000
students protested for the repeal of SP-1 and 2 as a symbolic
reassurance that the University of California ““ despite what
its admissions numbers at competitive campuses might indicate
““ does not act exclusively toward minorities.
The UC Regents adopted SP-1 and 2 in 1995 ““ ignoring
opposition from the chancellors and the academic senates at all
nine UC campuses at the time ““ ending the consideration of
race, gender and ethnicity in both admissions and hiring.
But now, some regents have responded to the much-justified
clamor against SP-1 and 2. Not by proposing to repeal these
measures at their meeting at UC San Francisco on Wednesday, but by
introducing RE-28, a measure that simply reaffirms the status quo
and changes nothing.
Anyone with even a rudimentary education can understand the
value of sending a message to the community ““ even if it is
symbolic. Currently, the UC’s most prestigious campuses
““ namely UC Berkeley and UCLA ““ in no way adequately
reflect the makeup of California’s population. The UC is
meant to serve the public, but this idea seems abstract today as
the institution becomes more elitist.
The only change RE-28, sponsored by Regent Judith Hopkinson,
would make is utterly insubstantial: Under SP-1, 50 to 75 percent
of UC admits are picked based on academic achievement alone, namely
GPA and SAT scores. Under RE-28, this would be expanded to include
“academic and related educational criteria.”
If it sounds vague that’s because it is ““ but even
Regent William Bagley, a supposed proponent of repealing SP-1 and
2, supports the misleading measure.
It boggles the mind to think that a board responsible for
managing a university system containing some of the most
intelligent minds in the nation lack the collective intelligence
themselves to realize the importance of repealing SP-1 and 2, not
replacing it with the same measure under a different name.
A repeal of SP-1 and 2 would show that the regents do want to
send a message and do care about representing the public that
supports the university. But RE-28, a replacement rather than a
repeal, is just a slap in the face of students who have worked so
hard to make the university a welcoming place for minorities.
We hope the regents are not so stupid as to think we don’t
realize the negative implications that RE-28 will have. Or perhaps
we actually have the foresight some of the regents lack.
RE-28 attempts to make affirmative action a dead issue by
perpetuating the false impression that SP-1 and 2 are gone. But the
spirit of SP-1 and 2 will remain intact, and so will the exclusive
image of this university. RE-28 is a pathetic attempt to
“compromise” on the issue of affirmative action ““
not by listening to students, faculty and staff ““ but by
covering it up with the same proposal in different language.
But there is no compromise to be made with this issue nor is
there room for ambiguous proposals: either you repeal SP-1 and 2 or
you do not.
RE-28 does not.
The regents have absolutely nothing to lose in repealing SP-1
and 2. Under Proposition 209, California law forbids the use of
affirmative action: there’s no reason why the university
should add insult to injury by having its own policy against
affirmative action.
Rather than playing with semantics, the regents need to repeal
SP-1 and 2 and work within California law to promote diversity on
our campuses. No education is complete without exposure to the
point of view of people with different backgrounds than our
own.
We commend Student Regent Justin Fong for his attempts to
introduce his own proposal that would eliminate SP-1 and 2. Regents
Bagley and Hopkinson were once vocal about the need to repeal SP-1,
but their support of RE-28 reveals their true nature. What we
thought was their understanding of diversity and appreciation for
symbolism is really just hollow, empty rhetoric and disregard for
students.
If Hopkinson and Bagley fail to understand the detrimental
impact that RE-28 will have on the UC, Ward Connerly, the regent
originally behind SP-1 and 2, does not. And he no doubt appreciates
the favor this measure does for his agenda.
Students should be up in arms at this outrageous proposal. Once
again, they need to make the regents aware that they will not stand
for their skirting around the issue. Real change needs to be
implemented.
The regents have insulted the UC and they need to hear about
it.