The original version of the headline accompanying this article contained an error and has been changed. See the bottom of the article for more information.
Last fall, there were 1,082 black undergraduate students at UCLA out of a total of 28,674 students. That’s less than 4 percent, and it’s not likely that this year’s numbers will be much different.
The small proportion of underrepresented students stems from the passage of Proposition 209, a 1996 state law that bans race-conscious admissions at California public universities. Immediately after the affirmative action ban, UCLA’s enrollment rates for students from underserved communities dropped by more than half.
As evidenced by immediate and dramatic changes in the numbers of African American, American Indian and Latino students on campus following its implementation, Proposition 209 has proved to be a serious hindrance to the diversity of our student body.
As a public university system, the benefits of our resources should be broad-based and widespread to promote the well-being of all Californians. This includes historically underrepresented students of color whose experiences have too often been shaped by obstacles such as underfunded schools, hypersegregation, racial isolation and implicit bias or discrimination.
Institutions and individuals alike should no longer overlook the social injustice that affects race and access to education. This board supports the practice of affirmative action in higher education and the repeal of Proposition 209.
In March, Senate Constitutional Amendment 5, a state measure that would have overturned part of Proposition 209 and allowed race to be considered in the admissions process at state universities, was removed from the November ballot by state legislators. They did this partly in response to some Asian and Pacific Islander American opponents who raised concerns that affirmative action would negatively impact their community’s college admissions outcomes.
We view access to higher education differently. Opponents of affirmative action perpetuate the myth that equal opportunity exists in higher education and that the most qualified students are the ones that get ahead.
But that level playing field is only a myth. Inherent unfair preferences and privileges along racial lines do exist, and we cannot fix the state of racial inequality by ignoring the problem of racism.
A report from the UC Office of the President shows that black and Latino students tend to come from lower-income families with less education. Students from these groups fall behind in academic preparation and meet the UC’s eligibility requirements at lower rates because they have less access to education resources.
These are students who are systematically shut out from the benefits of education and could otherwise succeed.
While the University employs outreach strategies to better reach historically underserved students, allowing for the consideration of race is the most effective solution to mitigating the barriers caused by pervasive racial inequality.
Singling out race as a factor to be excluded in the admissions process prevents the UC from diversifying its campus to accurately reflect the demographic of the country’s most diverse state. Most importantly, it perpetuates the inequity of educational access for students who come from certain communities.
The University has stated on several occasions that the UC needs to practice affirmative action in admissions to enroll a more diverse student body.
We stand with the University on this issue. It’s time for our state representatives and voters to do the same.
Correction: The University cannot repeal Proposition 209.
I’VE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS DAY! DB, you have finally come to your senses!
In the ranks of great legal and academic minds (like State Supreme Court Justice Goodwin Liu and Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor)…expanding educational opportunities can be achieved through race-conscious admissions that benefits not just Latinas/os, Blacks, Native Americans, and Southeast Asians…but makes us a more culturally competent society while addressing the institutional neglect towards people of color in this country.
As Gene Block said rang true about Prop 209, “Today it is clear that we have suffered for it.”
Let’s ask this question first:
How many African-American students apply to UCLA each year? What proportion of those students are accepted?
While I understand that there is a small proportion of the UCLA student body that is African-American, it doesn’t mean that the university is turning away applicants who are of that background more than applicants who aren’t. You can’t expect the university to admit students who aren’t applying anyway.
Here is a table of information obtained from the University of California Info Center:
http://data.universityofcalifornia.edu/student/admissions/data-tables/Freshman-Applicants-Admits-Enrollees-by-Campus-Ethnicity-Fall-1994-2010.pdf
In 2010, 44.5% of African-American applicants were admitted, 43.2% of Chicano/Latino applicants were admitted, followed by White, Asian, and American Indian, all with less than a 37% admit rate.
In 2009, 46.4% of African-American applicants were admitted, 45.9% of Chicano/Latino applicants were admitted, American Indian with 40.4%, followed by White and Asian, both with less than a 37% admit rate.
In 2008, 50.9% of African-American applicants were admitted, 44.6% of Chicano/Latino applicants were admitted, followed by White and Asian, both with less than a 39% admit rate.
Keep going… Even before 1996, when Prop 209 was approved, the relative proportions between admit rates across ethnicity/race was not that different. In fact, the proportions were much more equal across the board, but still higher for African-American and Chicano/Latino applicants.
The problem isn’t that students are being turned away; it’s just that not many students of those backgrounds apply. You can’t accuse the school for not accepting students who don’t apply, and you can’t expect the school to accept 100% of any type of applicant regardless of what background from which they come. If you want to increase the amount of African-American students at any school, more of them need to apply, and that means it’s a problem at the high school and community levels, not the university level.
What you actually provided isn’t the admit rates for each race, but rather their yield rates, which is the percentage of students who choose to enroll in the college.
Looking at the table you provided from the University of California Info Center, the actual admit rates for each race in 2010 were:
African American 13.5%
American Indian 20.4%
Asian American 25.3%
Chicano/Latino 15.0%
White 24.2%
in 2009 they were:
African American 15.1%
American Indian 18.0%
Asian American 24.9%
Chicano/Latino 15.6%
White 23.4%
and so on… yes the yield rates for African-Americans and Latino students are higher than other races, but their low admission rate means that their numbers at the university are low.
Source: http://data.universityofcalifornia.edu/student/admissions/data-tables/Freshman-Applicants-Admits-Enrollees-by-Campus-Ethnicity-Fall-1994-2010.pdf