The Problems that Arise from “Diversity”: New UC Admissions Policy and Prop 209, 13 Years Later

Recently, I read an article about the cash-strapped University of California system, and its problem with the idea of a “diverse” student body. I recently graduated from UCLA, and I know full-well the implications and backlash from using a “less-than-perfect” admissions system. That is to say: a system that does not allow for admissions to reflect the diversity of the city that the school is located in. UCLA had a backlash going into my sophomore year when they only accepted 49 African American students for the class of 2010. For much of the student body in the school year 2006-2007, this was the first time they heard the buzzwords of admissions, especially regarding the idea of representing the community. Some of these were: “Proposition 209” “Diversity” “Holistic” “Objective” “Subjective” “Race Based” “Quota”

Many of these words stir up emotion on both sides of the argument. These sides usually place themselves in favor of or against Proposition 209. Proposition 209, passed in 1996 was a ballot initiative that passed by a 54% vote that prohibited the consideration of race, ethnicity and gender for admissions to public schools, like the University of California system. Here is the text from section (a) of the proposition:

“The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

The aim of proposition 209 was right in its text. It tried to eradicate the age old problem of increasing presence and diversity amongst the graduating class of public schools in California, and thus trying to reverse the many years of social inequality felt by underrepresented groups. It has effectively increased the graduation rates of African Americans at universities like UC Berkeley and UC San Diego. These are statistics that pro-209 people will site to make themselves feel proud that they have put another nail in the coffin of inequality and provided another booster shot for diversity. The sloping rates of underrepresented groups gaining admissions to the University of California is something that opponents of prop 209 can site, saying that program will damage programs within the university that are aimed at recruiting underrepresented minorities for admissions, and giving them avenues to learn more about the advantages of college. Both of these arguments are valid.

Recently, Marc B. Haefele wrote an article about a new idea that the UC system had to increase diversity in its admissions. To some, Prop 209 has stifled the ability for the university to make itself a microcosm of California. An admissions rule for the University of California has been that the top 12.5% of all graduating seniors get a guaranteed admission to a UC school, and the top 4% of all schools have an assured spot. This new plan would combine those two to create a new rule that makes the top 9% of all students at all schools in the state guaranteed admissions considerations to a UC school. But, this is not guaranteed admissions; it is only creating a larger pool of applicants for consideration. According to Haefele, they must maintain a 3.0 and take the SATs, but do not have to take any SAT II subject tests, as they are less likely to be taken by underrepresented students like Blacks and Latinos.

But, like any decision, there is no free lunch. The top 4% guaranteed admission element would be eliminated, and along with it, a huge population of Asian students. Anyone who has gone to UC Irvine, UCLA, UC Berkeley, UC San Diego and most of the other UCs has seen the large population of Asian students. They are well qualified, and function well in the fields they enter. I agree with some of the opponents of the change, as it will not significantly change the admissions amounts for Blacks and Latinos and it will be an admissions burden on the Asian community. There should never be an ethnic or racial trade off when it comes to admissions policies. That is what Prop 209 was instituted to prevent, and unfortunately, that is what Prop 209 is doing well.

When you get into the “diversity” of admissions, you walk a thin line of rhetoric, emotion and tedium. That is, the ethical dilemma associated with “diverse” admissions is the behemoth, 300-pound gorilla called Affirmative Action. It was set in place, like prop 209, to try to create microcosms of the community in public institutions. The admissions to law schools, higher education, business schools and the completion of high school was low for minority communities, like Blacks and Latinos. This was, of course, in comparison to Whites and Asians, who were very much represented amongst the graduating classes of prestigious institutions like UCLA. This, as assumed, was from a legacy of segregation, oppression, racism, classicism and social inequality. The Brown v Board decision was only 24 years old when the Bakke decision regarding Affirmative Action was decided. African Americans have only had “equal” rights to public education institutions for about 55 years. Even after the Brown decision was announced, it took another Supreme Court ruling and decades of enforcement to actually desegregate (Think George Wallace, 1958, U of Alabama). This legacy of separatism and “less-worth” has psychological affects on children, as Thurgood Marshall argued in 1954, and those create an atmosphere of unequal access. It’s true that in years following the Plessy v Ferguson “separate but equal” decision, the conditions were certainly separate, but were not equal. This inequality has a legacy, which is something that Affirmative Action tries to stop.

But, when does “leveling the playing field” cause the field tip the other way? Is there a point where those in the majority are held to an unequal standard because there is too many of them? “Victims” of affirmative action, as they might call themselves, might be those White or Asians who are not considered for admissions because they fit the profile too well. They have extra-curricular activities, they have a good SAT score, good GPA and a strong personal statement, but their situation is not wanting. They have not overcome terrible obstacles, been in a gang, and lived under a bridge or anything that sets them apart from the rest of the “regular” applicants. Maybe it’s like what Berkeley uses in their admissions: They look at the “potential” for an applicant to succeed in the Berkeley environment. Is this why my friend, who got into MIT, Cornell and Duke, was rejected from UCLA? Was she too much like everyone else?

Here is where the “diversity” becomes hazy and way too subjective. But, why use “diversity” in the first place? Why don’t we just drop the word and consider the person? Who made race, ethnicity and gender a consideration in anything? Let’s make this a Rawlsian experiment, and put up the Veil of Ignorance over Race, Ethnicity and Gender and consider their social situation. As Walter Benn Michaels would say, the trouble with diversity is that we celebrate and cheer it, when, in this modern world, there are much more pressing matters. Yes, racism still exists in the United States. But, poverty and income inequality are more rampant than racial or ethnic inequality. The ethnic and racial component of this is that the highest represented races and ethnicity that live under the poverty line are those who are underrepresented, like Blacks and Latinos. In admissions, along with test scores and other objective criteria, there should be a consideration for social status and condition, but not for race, ethnicity or gender. You cannot help that you are black, white, Asian or Latino, and therefore those things should not be considered in your admissions, as they don’t LITERALLY hold you back. But, social inequality and unequal access to the ability to go to college is something that is often outside of the applicants control, something that will affect them psychologically and something that will hold them back from college admissions. So, the argument about admissions will always be circular. If you consider social status and condition, you will be targeting Blacks and Latinos, primarily. And, when pro-209 people see this, they will have a fit about how their proposition is being violated by considering race and ethnicity. As you see, this is a tedious situation with no easy answer. But, here is one anyways.

My solution: You must increase the presence of college admissions programs in secondary education, as early as kindergarten. Teach at high schools and middle schools how, no matter your financial situation, you will be able to come to the University of California. Teach that no matter your race, ethnicity, and gender or whether you live in a 1 bedroom apartment in East LA with 6 people or a McMansion off of Sunset in Brentwood, you have the right to go to an Public Institution. Give them the resources and tools to make an informed decision about their educational future. Persuade, prod and pull them out of their condition and make them believe that regardless of their social condition, they can succeed at a UC school. With money flowing to programs for these purposes, I would say with high certitude that you will have more Blacks and Latinos at public schools.

(SOURCES: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-haefele18-2009aug18,0,3817202.story)