California may revisit affirmative action fight for UC and CSU admissions

State Forums
1

<p>See the full story here:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_25033385/california-may-revisit-affirmative-action-fight#"&gt;http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_25033385/california-may-revisit-affirmative-action-fight#&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>SACRAMENTO -- The fight over affirmative action in California's higher education system is coming back.
Under a proposed constitutional amendment that passed the Senate on Thursday, voters would reconsider affirmative action programs at the University of California and California State University systems on the November ballot. SCA5 would remove certain prohibitions in place since 1996, when voters approved Proposition 209.</p>

<p>That initiative made California the first state to ban the use of race and ethnicity in public university admissions, as well as state hiring and contracting.</p>

<p>The amendment under consideration in the Legislature would delete provisions in Proposition 209 that prohibit the state from giving preferential treatment in public education to individuals and groups based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.</p>

<p>"A blanket prohibition on consideration of race was a mistake in 1996, and we are still suffering the consequences from that initiative today," said Sen. Ed Hernandez, D-Covina, who carried the measure. "You cannot address inequality by refusing to acknowledge it."</p>

<p>The proposed amendment does not mandate an affirmative action program or set a quota, Hernandez said. It also applies only to education.</p>

<p>Hernandez joined other Democrats in arguing that recruitment of minorities has slipped at the UC and CSU systems because of the affirmative action ban.</p>

<p>In 1995, minority students accounted for 38 percent of high school graduates and 21 percent of those entering as UC freshmen, Hernandez said. By 2004, they made up 45 percent of high school graduates but just 18 percent of incoming UC freshmen, he said, adding the gap is growing.</p>

<p>GOP lawmakers opposed the amendment and blamed the drop-off on poor performance by K-12 schools.</p>

<p>The measure passed on a party-line, 27-9 vote and now goes to the Assembly, which also is dominated by Democrats.</p>

<p>"Prop. 209 creates a barrier for people of color to access higher education," said Sen. Ben Hueso, D-San Diego. "With these prohibitions we have seen a stark reduction in access to higher education by people of color."</p>

2

<p>I believe this article is not very truthful. The incoming freshman classes at the UCs are most definitely not 82% white, they have a much lower than fifty percent white student rate and have for years. The demographics I just looked up show the white incoming freshman students, UCI 17%, UCB 30%, UCR 15%, UCSB the highest at 40%, UCD 32%, Merced 15%, UCLA 29%, and UCSC with 39%. I did not get UCSD but I know they are not over, or even close to, fifty percent. The way the admissions are now, if you are in the top 9% of your class or you meet the statewide standard you are guaranteed to get in. They also have a tag program at the community colleges that will guarantee your entrance as a transfer student. They already dropped the subject test requirements and I do not know how they could make it any easier unless they remove all requirements. </p>

<p>Prop 209 was voted in because very qualified top students were not getting into any of the colleges while lesser students, that did not always finish, were getting there spots. If we want to continue to be a great state we have to reward the best and the brightest with spots in our colleges to keep them here. </p>

3

<p>I never liked affirmative action based on race or ethnicity, however I am for colleges being able to give more favor towards students with poorer socioeconomic conditions. </p>

4

<p>Affirmative Action is just a load of ********. College shouldn’t be about diversity. I don’t know about you, but I’m not wanting to go to college because I want to get exposed to an x% of whatever ethnicity as opposed to y%. None of that is what truly matters, and it’s absolutely ridiculous how politicians are purposely disregarding this fact. I want to go to get a really good education because I’ve worked hard.</p>

<p>Higher education is not mandatory in the United States. Yes, everyone should have access to it, but that’s different from Affirmative Action. K-12 education is what needs to be granted to everyone, regardless of sex or race.</p>

<p>College, however, is for those of us who have achieved the most, worked the hardest, and gotten the best grades/recognition/honors/whatever. And these circumstances should not be bent because of perceived disadvantages for underrepresented minorities. Yes, Asian students in California take up a disproportionate percentage. What’s wrong with that? They clearly deserve to be there. The same cannot be said for those students who didn’t get in BASED ON THEIR OWN MERITS, regardless of their race or gender. </p>

<p>This is a simple concept; I don’t know why politicians are trying to make it more complicated than it needs to be.</p>

<p>It’s already bad enough that affirmative action is in place in private universities. But to implement it in public universities too is just absolutely ridiculous. If this trend continues, then Asians who’ve worked hard will be forced to attend subpar universities in order to give “disadvantaged” minorities a spot at a good public university. </p>

<p>This will also indirectly result in a discriminatory effect in employment. Why would I hire an Asian who got a 2400 on his/her SAT but who went to a community college, when I can hire a Hispanic who might have gotten 1700 on their SAT who, because of Affirmative Action, was able to attend UC Berkeley? Even though employment is supposedly unbiased? Do you see how that’s downright messed up? (And I’m aware that SAT is not the only factor… I’m just trying to make a point.)</p>