In the national debate over affirmative action, both sides are
using the University of California to justify their arguments.
Opponents say the UC has a higher minority enrollment now with
its race-neutral admissions policies than it did in 1997, the last
year affirmative action was used.
But while under-represented minority enrollment has increased
slightly, the state’s minority populations have grown at an
even faster rate.
This has led supporters to say current race-neutral programs
have limited potential for raising diversity, and cannot meet the
needs of California.
The UC has not used affirmative action in its admissions since
the fall 1997 entry class. The policy was banned by SP-1, a measure
passed by the UC Regents.
Joining the ranks who cite post-SP-1 California as evidence
against the need for affirmative action, President Bush filed a
brief against the University of Michigan’s affirmative action
policy two weeks ago.
He called race-neutral admissions plans an alternative that
promotes diversity.
“The adoption of such policies,” the brief argued,
“has led to racially diverse student bodies.”
Bush referred specifically to the UC’s four percent plan,
which guarantees admission to a UC campus for all students in the
top 4 percent of their high school class.
Bush cited university data which show that under-represented
minority enrollment has increased by 0.3 percent since the end of
affirmative action.
With these race-neutral alternatives available, policies such as
the University of Michigan’s ““ which gives bonus points
to underrepresented minority applicants ““ are both
unnecessary and unconstitutional, Bush’s brief argued.
The Supreme Court will hear the case of three white students who
are suing the university, alleging they were denied admission based
on their race while less qualified minority applicants were
accepted.
But some people within the UC say the only way to promote racial
equity is through affirmative action.
UC student regent Dexter-Ligot Gordon said the slow rate of
growth in under-represented minority enrollment shows the state
cannot keep up with its changing demographics without it.
“We’re really handcuffed right now with trying to
meet the educational needs of the state,” Ligot-Gordon said.
“We’re not meeting needs of the people of
California.”
The UC has a responsibility to reflect the ethnic and racial
diversity of the state through its admissions and there is no way
the UC can achieve this on it own without affirmative action, he
said.
Several UCLA law professors said the lack of diversity is clear
in UCLA’s law school.
There were only two African-American graduates in the law
school’s last graduating class, while there were over 30
before the end of affirmative action.
This lack of diversity makes the university less likely to
receive or produce new ideas, said Cheryl Harris, a UCLA law
professor specializing in critical race theory.
The race-neutral policies the university uses have reached their
potential to increase diversity, so it is still a major problem for
the university, she said.
But UC Regent Ward Connerly, who led the movement to end
affirmative action in California, said the current race-neutral
system is more fair.
If the university’s admissions policy benefits anyone, it
should help low income applicants rather than students of a
particular racial or ethnic group, he said.
These students are the ones who need help and the UC’s
current policy does a better job of helping them than did
affirmative action, he said.
“If you want to see how you can find an admissions policy
that assures access to people without regard to their race,”
Connerly said, “then you probably can’t find a better place
than the University of California.”