In a move likely to re-ignite a recurring debate, the state
Assembly passed a bill Wednesday which would allow public
universities in California to consider race in their admissions
processes.
Assembly Bill 2387, which will be sent to the state Senate
Education Committee by June 9, would allow the University of
California and California State University to consider factors such
as race and gender in undergraduate and graduate admissions as long
as no preference is given based on those factors.
The bill passed the state Assembly by a vote of 45-30 without
any debate.
Opponents of the bill say it violates Proposition 209, a
constitutional amendment passed in 1996 that banned the
consideration of race and gender for state-funded hiring,
contracting and admissions practices. Beyond that, some argue that
it is impossible to consider race without giving preference.
Tom Wood, one of the co-authors of Proposition 209,
characterized the new bill as “ridiculous” and said the
bill would be overturned in court if it is ever used by the UC or
CSU. He also said he does not believe the UC would consider race
even if the bill allowed it to.
“It’s inconceivable that the University of
California would comply with this,” Wood said. “If the
University of California complied with this, it would be sued and
would lose.”
But Leo Trujillo-Cox, the executive director of the Academic
Outreach Resource Center in the UCLA law school, said the UC would
welcome the options afforded by the bill.
“I would assume that most segments of the university would
welcome any additional flexibility in terms of being able to
establish its own goals in the admissions process,” he
said.
Assemblyman Marco Firebaugh, D-South Gate, was the primary
author of the bill. Ricardo Lara, communications director for
Firebaugh, said the bill stems from a decision by the U.S. Supreme
Court last June that upheld the right of the University of Michigan
Law School to employ “a narrowly tailored use of race in
admissions decisions.”
That decision has been used by supporters of affirmative action
as justification for its use in California.
On the basis of the Michigan decision, the California Teachers
Association supports the bill.
“We support it, and we don’t endorse bills
lightly,” said Mike Myslinski, a spokesman for the
association. He declined to comment on the implications of
Proposition 209 for the bill.
Lara said the bill does not violate Proposition 209 because it
“does not allow for any preferential treatment,” and
merely advocates the consideration of more than academic
factors.
The American Civil Rights Coalition opposes the bill because it
violates the Michigan decision and Proposition 209, said Diane
Schachterle, director of public affairs for the coalition.
The Michigan decision denied California the right to use
race-based admissions policies if there are ample race-neutral
alternatives available, which there are, she said.
Schachterle also said the bill’s intention of considering
race without giving preference was unrealistic.
“I would argue that it is impossible for a human being to
consider race without it becoming a plus or minus factor,”
she said.
“Any consideration, if it’s brought into the
equation at all, is violating Proposition 209,” she
continued.
While immediate opposition to the bill has largely fallen on
legal grounds, support has fallen on ideological grounds.
Much of the support for the bill has derived from the desire to
make opportunities more equal for students of all races.
The Rev. Jesse Jackson supports the ideas in the bill because he
said the consideration of race is necessary to achieve the ideals
of equality American culture has traditionally resisted.
“Using race as a factor is a good and necessary idea to
make crooked ways straight,” Jackson said.
“Race inclusion leads to growth. Growth expands
opportunity,” he said.
With reports from Adam Foxman, Bruin staff.