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

Photo

Police hold back students in a May 18, 1998, protest against Proposition 209. Some say the state

With a recent decrease in minority enrollment at UCLA, some students and educators are wondering if the state made the right decision when it voted to end affirmative action in 1996.

After the passing of the California Civil Rights Initiative, commonly known as Proposition 209 – which ended the consideration of race in admissions and state employment – the number of minority students on University of California campuses, most notably black students, has declined as a percentage of the student body.

Though various other methods of increasing racial diversity, such as outreach, have increased in response to Proposition 209, statistics indicate that none are as successful as affirmative action in bringing minority students to UCLA.

Additionally, as enrollment levels of minorities are dropping, outreach funding is being cut.

These statistics have caused many students and educators to say the passage of Proposition 209 was, at the least, premature.

“Ideally we wouldn’t have affirmative action,” said Dennis Arguelles, the assistant director of the Asian American Studies Center.

“Ideally, you don’t want programs that are making up for problems of the past. But if those inequities still exist, something needs to be done about it,” Arguelles said, noting he thinks admissions officials should still be allowed to use race as admissions criteria.

“In a state that’s majority-minority now, it doesn’t make sense that we don’t see them in our educational system,” he added.

Tom Wood, co-author and official co-proponent of Proposition 209, said he would also like to see an increased number of minority students at UC campuses – he just does not think using race as part of the admissions criteria is the best approach.

“Using race as an admissions criteria is a very superficial, inadequate way of dealing with larger problems,” Wood said.

He said he thinks the statewide education system needs to be improved overall.

Wood also noted that Proposition 209 only prohibits the preferential use of race in admissions; it does not prohibit the use of other criteria.

“(Proposition) 209 is not an anti-affirmative action initiative. It doesn’t affect most forms of affirmative action,” Wood said.

Admissions officials are still free to use other criteria, such as economic status, parental education level, English language ability and geographic location, in determining which prospective students to admit to the university.

Many people think these other factors are more indicative of previous life hardship than of race.

“The problem with affirmative action is that it automatically assumes that if you’re a minority, you’re disadvantaged, and that’s not how it is,” said Jennifer Otter, chairwoman of California Students for Bush.

“If you want to look at something indicative of hardship, look at economic status,” she added.

Otter also said that while there is not a low acceptance rate among minority applicants, there is instead a low number of minority applicants.

But studies have shown that even within the same socio-economic status, different races often have different education levels and different experiences.

With this is mind, many people still feel that race should be taken into account in admissions and employment, either by itself or along with other factors.

“I don’t think California was ready for Prop. 209, because when you take race out of the admissions criteria, you’re assuming that everyone has the same opportunities,” said Siddhi Saraiya, a third-year political science student.

“As long as they’re making up for differences in opportunities available, it’s a good thing, but they need to take into account that race and opportunities available are really correlated,” she added.