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
The University of California released its admissions numbers for
the 2001-02 academic year last week, and although the number of
minorities admitted to the UC overall rose to a level similar to
when affirmative action was in use, the percentage of minorities
admitted to UCLA and UC Berkeley has not changed significantly.
The number of Latinos, African Americans, Pilipinos and Native
Americans admitted to these two schools are nowhere near the level
before the implementation of SP-1, which ended the consideration of
race and ethnicity in the admissions process. Sadly, these
statistics come with a heavy cost: the diversity of our
university.
But don’t be mislead by the fact that the number of
minorities admitted to the UC as a whole has increased; several
factors account for this.
For instance, the increase in Latino admits to the UC may relate
to a change in state demographics. According to the U.S. Census
2000 figures, over the last 10 years, Latinos have increased by 35
percent statewide. Even so, the number of Latinos admitted to the
UC is still not representative of the percentage of Latinos in
California’s population. This truly is a an injustice that
reveals the institutionalized barriers in the educational system
that different racial groups face. It is also an indicator of the
need for mechanisms to create a more equal playing field.
We are glad to see that diversity has increased at other UC
campuses. For example, partly as a result of attempts to increase
the size of its entering class, UC Irvine admitted a
disproportionate number of minorities compared to other campuses.
In fact, African American admission rose by 78 percent at UCI.
While this is good news for the UC, without a view of the bigger
picture, it gives the false impression that more competitive
campuses like UC Berkeley and UCLA have also experienced similar
growth when they have not.
In attempting to secure racial and socioeconomic diversity
without affirmative action, the UC has adopted a number of
ineffective initiatives ““ the 4 percent plan, for example.
According to this plan, all students graduating within the top 4
percent of their high school class are guaranteed admission to the
UC.
Part of the idea behind the program held that students in lower
socioeconomic communities would be considered within the context of
their own high schools. By not having to compete against other
students from schools with more resources, the UC hoped to increase
the admission level of these students. But this has not happened at
the competitive campuses and we’re skeptical that increasing
the percentage admitted from each high school to 12.5 percent
““ as some have proposed ““ would help.
Using outreach as a substitute for affirmative action has had
minimal impact as well. Having to work within the bounds of
Proposition 209, under which race-based outreach is prohibited, has
left the university impotent in terms of increasing diversity.
The importance of diversity cannot be stressed enough. The
opportunity to interact with people from different backgrounds adds
to our educational development and to our tolerance of people from
diverse communities. A public university must be accessible to all
groups and represent the diversity of the public. The fact that it
doesn’t points to larger problems outside of the UC.
For instance, inequality remains rampant in California’s
school system. A student at a school in a low-income neighborhood
will not have access to as many advanced courses, smaller classes,
extracurricular activities and technology as those in schools
supported by wealthier communities.
In fact, according to the California Department of Education,
during the 1997-98 school year the Inglewood Unified School
District (98.5 percent African American and Latino) spent $5,250
per pupil while the Beverly Hills Unified School District (7.7
percent African American and Latino) spent $7,050. In other words,
25 percent less money was spent on minority students. This clearly
illustrates a need for affirmative action and reminds us that
opportunity is divided along racial as well as class lines.
Merit implies that everyone has as equal chance to succeed, but
the inequality in our school system shows that this is not the
case.
By not repealing SP-1, the regents failed to send a message of
inclusiveness to make minority students feel welcome in an
otherwise exclusive institution. This may affect the number of
minority admits who decide to enroll.
Instead of blindly admitting scores of students or continuing
futile outreach efforts in attempting to secure equal access to the
UC, more significant changes need to be implemented. Gov. Gray
Davis and the our politicians need to be more proactive in
addressing education in California, or the lack thereof, especially
for minorities and the poor.
Unless Davis demonstrates that education is his top priority by
implementing meaningful changes and advocating the return of
affirmative action, all levels of education will be negatively
affected. And unless these changes help correct the inequality in
our educational system so that everyone is on the same playing
field, the UC will remain an exclusive institution.