Illustration by RACHEL REILICH/Daily Bruin
By Kennisha Austin
Your school has a major problem. Now UCLA isn’t the sole
bearer of this problem. Actually, all nine University of California
institutions of higher education share the same devastating
predicament. The crisis facing these prestigious public
universities are their biased and unwelcoming policies on
admissions and hiring into the University of California system,
Standing Policy 1 and Standing Policy 2, respectively.
These policies, more commonly known as SP-1 and SP-2, were
adopted by the UC Board of Regents in July 1995. SP-1 and 2 are
policies that prohibit the use of race, sex, ethnicity, or national
origin as criteria for admission or hiring. As if that simple
statement alone doesn’t completely dismiss the immense
barriers to access to education and employment that communities of
color and women face everyday, SP-1 goes on to further
devastate.
It states that “not less than 50 percent and not more than
75 percent of any entering class on any campus shall be admitted
solely on the basis of academic achievement.” What is so
detrimental about this aspect of SP-1 is that “academic
achievement” is defined solely by GPA and SAT scores, two
sets of criteria that have immense educational inequalities
attached.
First the increased importance of students’ GPA as a major
factor in admissions completely takes for granted the
disproportionate unavailability of grade point boosters such as AP
and honors courses in many public high schools that are
overwhelmingly populated by students of color. Many of these
schools exist without books, desks, and certified teachers, much
less a wide variety of enhanced courses. There definitely exists a
huge disparity in opportunities for these students to improve their
UC eligibility through GPA.
Second, a substantial cause for concern is the increased
relevance of the SAT as a major determining factor, as it has been
shown to be culturally biased against communities of color.
Professor John Garcia of the UCLA Departments of Psychiatry and
Psychology stated, “In a test made up of items from the
mainstream culture and dominant socioeconomic group, the minority
and poor student will appear disadvantaged because he has had less
prior experience to the sources of the test” (Carlos Manuel
Haro, “Criticisms of Traditional Postsecondary School
Admissions Criteria: a Search for Alternatives”).
Even William Turnbull, a former president of the Educational
Testing Service, which administers the SAT, has said when talking
about the possible detriment of placing high significance on exams
that are rooted in one specific culture, “if no other
information about students is brought to bear on the
college’s decision, a student from a minority culture may be
denied admission to selective institutions.” All of this
directly addresses why SP-1 must be abolished (Haro,
“Criticisms”).
Despite all of these glaring inequalities surrounding the
implementation of such a policy, SP-1 still passed by a narrow
margin, 14 to 10, largely due to the efforts of Ward Connerly, the
author of the measures. The Ward Connerlys of the world would have
us believe that policies like SP-1 and 2 and legislation like
Proposition 209 are necessary in order to level the “playing
field” and end the “reverse discrimination” that
programs like affirmative action supposedly created.
In addition, the argument from Connerly and his cohorts has been
that the use of affirmative action programs is a disservice to
minorities and women because it stigmatizes those who benefit from
them.
But when one considers the enormous levels of poverty,
inadequate health care, racial profiling and immense inequalities
in public education and employment that communities of color face
every day, the idea that the end of affirmative action is the best
possible solution to level any playing field in America is
comical.
There is a continual failure to recognize that as long as these
instances of immense inequality and institutionalized racism
continue to exist, ending programs that can at all assist is not
the viable solution. Instead time and resources would be better
spent truly attempting to level the playing fields by addressing
the issues of underrepresented communities and implementing real
solutions.
The concept of affirmative action becoming a tool of
“reverse discrimination” against whites is absurd.
First, in order for reverse discrimination to occur, that would
mean the original historical patterns of discrimination that placed
minority groups as subordinate and whites as superior would have
had to be completely reversed. But it must be obvious that this not
the case, for minorities have not reversed the roles and become the
ones who are implementing admissions criteria in their favor so as
to penalize whites.
Second, looking at history, race discrimination came in the form
of race classifications being mandatory in admissions factoring so
as to either completely bar certain racial and ethnic groups from
the university, or at the very least, strictly limit the number of
minorities who received admission. Affirmative action programs
never called for any policies such as implementing a low quota on
the number of whites who were admitted into college.
Regent Connerly fails to recognize what is “truly
unfair” to all Americans is the return of segregation to
public institutions, which is being witnessed as a result of the
passage of policies like SP-1 and 2. It is unfair to all the
students who attend UC schools, where they have experienced 50
percent drops in the number of student from underrepresented
minority communities since the end of affirmative action.
The voices of underrepresented communities are necessary in
every classroom because the perspectives they have to offer benefit
others. That is what diversity is about. The continued exclusion of
students and faculty of color and women is the real disservice to
all.
And more and more people in retrospect are admitting that and
looking to rectify this huge mistake. For instance, several current
regents are actually lobbying their colleagues to take steps to
repeal SP-1, so as to restore the reputation of the University of
California as welcoming to minorities and women.
It has been the students, though, who through the Statewide
Affirmative Action Coalition, are constantly working to ensure this
repeal occurs, as soon as possible. Unlike, the Board of Regents
who are pushing for this repeal simply to improve the perception of
the university, students have called for the repeal of these
policies for almost six years now, because we recognize the
devastation policies such as these are wreaking on entire
communities.
By denying students of color access to education, the UC is also
denying their communities the resources those students would be
able to bring back. Who is more likely to work, organize and
participate in minority communities than the very individuals who
come from them?
Every time an underrepresented student is denied the opportunity
to be a doctor or lawyer, that is one less doctor or lawyer for
impoverished and marginalized communities who desperately need the
resource.
The regents have an opportunity as early as March to bring this
issue to the board and vote to reverse these detrimental policies.
There is no other time for this but now.
Ultimately, the entire public education system needs to be
reconstructed so as to solve its obvious and devastating
inequalities. And in order for this to occur, biased and
unnecessary measures like SP-1 and 2 must be repealed. It is an
insult that each student who takes the time to apply to the
University of California isn’t given a full and comprehensive
review of their potential as a possible student. That is just one
of the many inadequacies that SP-1 is responsible for and that is
just one of the many reasons why it has to go.
I call out to all students and faculty who also recognize the
importance and urgency of this issue to get involved with
organizing efforts. Come to the UCLA chapter of he Statewide
Affirmative Action Coalition meetings and push for the repeal. As
students, in coalition with all our allies, we will continue the
struggle for true equality in education and use the repeal of SP-1
and SP-2 as the first step in the push for education as a right for
everyone.