• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

Photo

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of affirmative action last Monday, citing a compelling need for racial diversity in American education.

The Court, which had been looking at two separate cases dealing with the University of Michigan, handed down a split decision. The justices ruled 5-4 in favor of Michigan’s law school admission process, which considered race to a limited degree, but ruled 6-3 against Michigan’s undergraduate admissions policy which, according to the Court, unconstitutionally favored minorities.

The rulings implied that race can be a factor in the admission process, but cannot be the overriding factor, such as it was at Michigan’s undergraduate school. The university based admissions on a 150-point scale, giving a 20-point advantage to underrepresented minorities.

But in California, the Court’s decision has no immediate or direct effect because of Proposition 209 – an amendment to California’s constitution banning state agencies’ use of affirmative action.

Yet despite the effects of Proposition 209, the Court’s statement resounds throughout California, as pro- and anti-affirmative action groups prepare to attack or protect the amendment to California’s constitution.

Though the Supreme Court’s ruling permits the use of affirmative action, it does not mandate that public or private schools consider race when evaluating an applicant.

“The question is whether, down the road, it may alter the terms of the debate as to whether Prop. 209 should be repealed,” said UCLA Law Professor Clyde Spillenger.

If Prop. 209 is going to be stricken from the California constitution, it has to leave the same way it came – by voter approval.

According to numerous affirmative action groups – such as the Americans for Democratic Action and By Any Means Necessary – the Supreme Court’s decision was a major victory serving as a catalyst for bringing affirmative action back to the UC.

“We are officially against 209. A coalition aimed at taking that off the books is something the ADA will be involved in,” said Susan Shannon, executive director of the Southern California ADA chapter.

The ADA is not alone in its fight against Prop. 209. The day the Court ruled on Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger – the individual cases in last week’s affirmative action ruling – BAMN released a statement praising the Court’s decision as a start in the battle to implement affirmative action in public universities around the country.

“Today’s decision opens the way to bring down Proposition 209 in California,” the press release said.

But many conservative groups think that repealing Prop. 209 is a liberals’ pipe dream.

“The majority of people still feel that people should be judged according to merit and accomplishments,” said Justin Jones, director of policy and planning for the American Civil Rights Institute, a conservative group that has vehemently opposed using race in college admissions.

He said if affirmative action supporters intend to use the Supreme Court’s ruling as a catalyst to remove Prop. 209, “they are in for a rude awakening.”

“They can try, but it’s not going to succeed, and we will make damn sure of that,” he added.

The UC has been acting in accordance with Proposition 209, which has applied to all state institutions since 1998.

When Proposition 209 took effect, the UC Regents had already implemented a ban on affirmative action – Standing Policies 1 and 2. In a move that was little more than symbolic, SP-1 and -2 were repealed in 2001.

The day the Supreme Court recently ruled on affirmative action, UC President Richard Atkinson applauded the decision, but nodded to its limited affect on the UC.

“The University of California will continue to comply with Proposition 209, and we will continue to work through other, legal means to achieve excellence and diversity on our campuses,” he said in a statement.

Catherine Lhamon, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the legislation of Proposition 209 has not crippled the UC in its goal to admit a representative student body.

“There are things the university can do to encourage students of color and low-income students to come to the school – without engaging in affirmative action,” Lhamon said.

One tool the university has used since 2002 is comprehensive review – allowing the UC to evaluate a student with more weight added to non-academic criteria. In addition to GPA and SAT scores, comprehensive review considers academic accomplishments in light of an applicant’s experiences and circumstances – including disabilities, disadvantaged social or educational environment, and low family income.

But some have felt “experiences and circumstances” is code for “underrepresented and minority,” wondering if the university is lowering its admissions standards in preference of minority applicants.

“‘Comprehensive review’ de-emphasizes academic qualifications ... and favors more subjective criteria ... it’s clear in this case they are meant to serve largely as proxies for race,” a Dec. 31, 2001 Wall Street Journal column said.

In addition to the criticisms, Hanan Eisenman, the UC admissions spokesman, said comprehensive review’s results “have been mixed.”

At the macro-level, the university has succeeded in admitting more underrepresented students systemwide. But at the micro-level, admissions officers are telling a different story.

The same day the Supreme Court ruled on the University of Michigan case, the UC reported a UC Berkeley and Princeton University study investigating the correlation between affirmative action and the number of qualified minority students who applied to UC Berkeley, UC San Diego and UCLA.

Though the study found that the number of top minorities applying to the UC’s most selective campuses has not declined since affirmative action was banned in 1998, the number of black, American Indian, and Latina/o students who have been admitted has – at UCLA, from 906 students in 1997 to 691 in 2002.

“(Proposition 209) puts us at a competitive disadvantage,” said UC Regent Tom Sayles.

Sayles said the UC is losing top-minority students, not just to prestigious out-of-state schools that by law can actively recruit exceptional minority students, but also to private California schools, such as Stanford and Pomona College, that use race-based scholarships to lure students.

But for now, Sayles said, “(The regents) are committed to increasing diversity at the University, while within the bounds of 209.”