The University of California Board of Regents and university
officials say a bill which would allow the consideration of race in
admissions would probably not affect the UC, even if it passed.
Assembly Bill 2387, which was passed from the California
Assembly to the state Senate on May 26, would allow public
universities to consider race, as well as gender, ethnicity,
household income, geographical origin and national origin, as
factors ““ but not preferences ““ in their admissions
processes.
In order to go before the governor for approval, a final version
of the bill would have to be approved by both the senate and the
assembly.
Even if it is approved, it is doubtful that the regents, the
governing body of the UC, would consider it.
“It seems like a pretty meaningless bill on the face of
it,” said George Blumenthal, vice chair of the UC Academic
Senate.
Blumenthal added that the regents would probably not want to
change the university’s policy toward race as the regents and
the academic senate address the already delicate issues of new
eligibility criteria and comprehensive review.
Under Proposition 209, which prohibits the use of race as a
preference in public university admissions, the UC collects racial
data but is prohibited from considering that information when
admitting students.
The recent bill, authored by Assemblyman Marco Firebaugh,
D-South-Gate, is carefully worded in an attempt to avoid conflict
with Proposition 209. But application of the bill could easily lead
to a legal battle.
The UC Board of Regents are an autonomous body and would not be
bound by the bill.
And Proposition 209, as a constitutional amendment, would have
legal precedence over the bill if a conflict arose, even if it
passed.
Some regents and university officials also wonder how things
like race and ethnicity could be used as factors in admissions if
they did not give preference to an applicant.
Jodi Anderson, student regent for 2004-2005, said though AB 2387
is symbolically important, it would have minimal impact on the UC
if it passed.
“It seems as though it is not going to give the UC any
more leeway in what we can truly take into consideration in a
meaningful way,” Anderson said.
Hanan Eisenman, a spokesman for the UC Office of the President,
said the UC has not taken a position on the bill and wants to
compare legal analyses with Firebaugh’s office, but UC
officials “don’t think it would have an effect on (the
UC’s) ability to consider race under Proposition
209.”
Darnell Hunt, a UCLA sociology professor and director of the
Ralph J. Bunche Center for African American Studies, said the bill
is valuable because it brings up the issue of diversity.
“In the current environment, with no challenges to
Proposition 209, we have few opportunities to ensure that the
people populating the public institutions in the state in any way
reflect its diversity,” Hunt said.
Hunt said race, among other factors such as personal struggles,
the quality of high school a student attended, and grade point
average, can be a valid indicator for admissions committees to get
a sense of whom an applicant is.
But some say AB 2387 seems to be throwing its weight in an
unproductive direction.
“Rather than arguing about the constitutionality of this
or that, the best thing the legislature could do would be to
provide outreach money so we could enhance the preparation of
people in high school and make sure they are prepared for the
UC,” Blumenthal said.