<p>"Fewer issues inflame political passions in my home state of California than affirmative action. Since Proposition 209 was adopted in 1996, the state has been prohibited in using an individual’s race, sex or ethnicity in public education, contracting, and employment decisions.</p>
<p>Depending on your point of view, this was either emancipation from state-sponsored discrimination based on race, or a return to the days when qualified minority and women candidates were excluded from consideration. I won’t re-litigate the issue in its entirety here, but the passion and emotion shown by proponents and opponents of the law have remained strong for nearly 20 years."</p>
<p>Read more:
<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/racial-support-race-ban-094500167--politics.html">http://news.yahoo.com/racial-support-race-ban-094500167--politics.html</a></p>
<p>Thoughts?</p>
<p>It is probably too big and scary a can of political worms to open.</p>
<p>Before race and ethnicity stopped being used in UC admissions, they did affirmative action rather clumsily, almost as if it were meant to generate resentment and backlash, with large preferences just for checking specific race or ethnicity check boxes. And the irony of it all was that the main effect was racial redistribution among the various UC campuses, since almost all applicants had to meet a hard minimum UC eligibility standard (GPA and test score based); the failings and inequalities of the K-12 system in pre-college preparation were noted, but not given the same attention as the admissions process. Of course, the symbolic effect of the ban was much greater than the actual effect, since it discouraged black and Latino applicants for a while, although it eventually led to some reduction of “affirmative action stigma” for those who did attend (although such stigma has not completely gone away).</p>
<p>That UC has gone holistic in admissions readings means that considering race and ethnicity will likely mean endless political battles based on assumptions that may or may not be true. I.e. even if admissions readers were instructed only to consider race and ethnicity in appropriate context (i.e. where overcoming experience with racial discrimination is relevant to the applicant’s experiences and achievements, rather then merely the check box), that won’t stop people from assuming the worst. Even with consideration of race and ethnicity not allowed currently, lots of people still believe that it is.</p>
<p>Oh gosh! They said too many Asian students were admitted to the East Coast and now they say too many are admitted to the West Coast. Where should they apply then?</p>
<p>After Prop 209, the percentage of URM kids graduating from CA public colleges increased significantly, and more attention was paid to giving an admissions boost to kids from low socioeconomic status.</p>