In response to growing student concerns regarding student diversity on campus, the ASUC unanimously passed a bill in support of SB 185, which authorizes the University of California and California State University to consider race, gender and ethnicity in undergraduate admission decisions and is currently awaiting Gov. Jerry Brown’s signature.
The UC Board of Regents has so far taken a neutral stance on SB 185 in fear of lawsuits because the passage of the bill would not necessarily mean the repeal of Proposition 209, the ballot proposal that prohibited public institutions from considering race in admissions decisions.
Though Proposition 209 bans awarding admissions decisions based on race and ethnicity alone, SB 185 would allow admissions officers to view ethnicity as part of the student’s background as a whole, according to Jesse Choper, a UC Berkeley law professor who specializes in race.
The bill would only authorize UC and CSU to consider race, gender, ethnicity and other relevant factors in admissions decisions, but will not mandate them to do so.
“Even if Jerry Brown does sign this into law, we will still need to push the regents to implement this bill,” said CalSERVE Senator Sydney Fang, who co-authored the bill, at the meeting. “The bill is a push for admissions to be even more sensitive to how race, gender, ethnicity as well as socioeconomic status, sexual orientation and disability affect our opportunities.”
Students said at the meeting that the passage of the bill would be a major step in reversing the effects of Proposition 209, which they said has served to reduce the number of minority students attending public universities in California.
“Prop 209 prohibited the use of affirmative action in admissions policies and meant that institutions like Cal are not able to legally implement practices of tutoring, mentoring, outreach and recruitment of women and minorities in California universities,” said CalSERVE Senator Brisa Diaz, who co-authored the bill.
Diaz said she hopes that the passing of SB 185 will spread awareness about affirmative action and clarify misconceptions.
“We want to clarify what it means to have affirmative action policies that broaden — not lower — the criteria to get admitted to an institution like ours,” she said. “Students that are admitted through affirmative action policies come from diverse backgrounds, have overcome a variety of obstacles, and deserve to be here. The notion that they take the seat of another student is not only elitist, but also is contradictory to Cal’s values of diversity and accessibility.”
U.C Berkeley community members who are active with minority groups on campus, such as the Black Student Union and Bridges— a coalition of of the Black, Raza, Asian and Pacific Islander and the Native American recruitment and retention centers, as well as Pilipino Academic Student Services, which was formed in 1996 as a direct response to Proposition 209 — spoke at the meeting in order to galvanize support for the bill.
“These centers and the communities they represent are doing the programming, outreaching and planning that used to be the job of the university,” Diaz said. “We are over-extended, many of us are first-generation college students with jobs, but we see the urgency in going out to our communities and getting more of us in here.”
The ASUC bill requests that ASUC President Vishalli Loomba and Executive Vice President Christopher Alabastro write a letter demanding that UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau take a stance on the issue and urging Brown to sign the bill into law.
“If the chancellor put his stamp on this bill I think it would make a world of difference,” said Kirk Coleman, who works at the UC Berkeley Black Recruitment Center.
According to Salih Muhammad, the president of the Black Student Union, the UC Berkeley campus has seen a dramatic decrease in the people of color since proposition 201 was passed.
“We should have commitment to inclusion and diversity and without that commitment we can’t consider ourselves a top tier school,” Muhammad said.
— Alex KopelComment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
Student governments are put in place to teach student’s about politics, and being in leadership positions- that doesn’t mean follow the examples of corruption. There’s know way this should have been unanimous. Is the student government an independent click? Or a true representation of the voice of the entire Berkeley student body? ASUC- Figure out what your responsibilities are.
A state statute cannot overrule a constitutional amendment. End of discussion.
Here are the numbers:
UC CA
White: 33.1% 40.1%
Asian: 26.44% 13%
Hispanic: 15.33% 37.6%
African-A. 3.4% 6.2%
So Whites, Africans and Hispanics (by the largest margin) are underrepresented at UC campuses across the state, Asian students are overrepresented. To attain diversity then we must deny better-qualified Asian applicants admission in order to admit more of the other groups.
Stossel is on the mark with affirmative action – race has no place in today’s society.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4413086/stossel-sells-affirmative-action-priced-cupcakes/
” the ASUC unanimously passed a bill in support of SB 185.” This just goes to show that the ASUC is a complete joke
these comments are ignorant. . . but hey, i forgot! racism’s over and everybody’s equal now. . . ??
Those who advocate state sponsored discrimination based on race are racists and/or simply looking for an advantage not available to others. Nobody claims that everyone is equal. Inequality is based on varying levels of intelligence and financial resources not race or ethnicity. Those who have the intelligence should not be thwarted in their pursuit of a higher education due to being members of the middle class without the resources to pay for a higher education at a land grant public university that now costs half a middle class families after tax income, but yet locked out of financial aid due to purportedly having insufficient financial need, and classified as dependents until age 24 under fafsa guidelines for financial aid purposes, making financial aid unavailable, even though adults and regardless of not having any legal claim to their parent’s financial resources to the extent they even exist and regardless of whether the student is totally self supporting from the day he turns eighteen. This graphic….
http://i52.tinypic.com/2qjzt5v.jpg
….. speaks volumes about what is wrong with the current higher education model in California. Over half of UC eligible students are members of middle class families in the $80,000 – $120,000 range, yet students from families in this income range are priced out of a UC education due to not being eligible for financial aid and only make up 7.5% of the undergraduate population at the University of California. The current model essentially awards a free or very low cost education to those students coming from families making below $80,000. This free education is then partly financed by increasing the costs to students from families making above $80,000 by at least 50%. A public university should not be redistributing income from families of students of varying income classes. A public university should provide an education at the lowest price possible to all students regardless of income class. If the people of the state wish to further subsidize the education for students from certain economic classes then that is their prerogative but that is not the task of a public university and the burden should fall upon the citizens of the state not upon university students who themselves have to take out loans , which is exactly what is currently happening. Students from families making over $80,000 are directly subsidizing the education of students from families making less than $80,000. This increased cost makes a UC education even further out of reach for middle class students.
Wow, I hadn’t seen that graphic before. That’s sickening.
Boy am I sure glad I got my UC education before the prices went insane. I certainly couldn’t have afforded it at today’s costs.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Racial discrimination is still racial discrimination, whether practiced for or against the majority. The fact that the ASUC is in support of this bill doesn’t say much for their moral or intellectual character.
sources and cites for your silly assertion?
Saying that racial discrimination is a bad thing is a silly assertion?
I see you cut and pasted my reply to you, which was a question about info you presented as allegedly factual. You fail to notice that what I was posting HERE was an OPINION, not a claim of fact, which does NOT require additional substantiation or reference. If you really can’t tell the difference between something stated as fact (your comment) and something offered as an opinion (my comment above), no wonder you’re confused about a number of things…
It’s interesting that the Cuban refugees in Florida, the Asian refugees, the Hispanic refugees, and all of the refugees from countries foreign and near, did not need, nor did they ask for, an affirmative active program. Just out of curiousity, what segment of our society is still whining about diversity and affirmative action?
Refugees accepted by the United States tend to be from the higher classes and get automatic benefits (early Cubans escaping “communism”), or if the refugees are escaping a war (probably caused by the US) they are given asylum protection. Not much else beyond that, and they are active in the struggle for representation as well.
I don’t know what you mean by “Hispanic refugees”, so I’m not even going to touch your ridiculously blanketed statement.
And btw, European immigrants have been one of the largest benefactors of American welfare policies. Ya’ll didn’t get to where you are by yourself. Don’t flatter yourself.
[Refugees accepted by the United States tend to be from the higher classes and get automatic benefits]
Sources and cites for your silly assertion?
“Following the 1959 revolution that unseated Fulgencio Batista and brought Fidel Castro to power, most Cubans who were living in Miami went back to Cuba. That soon changed, and many middle class and upper class Cubans moved to Florida in masse with few possessions.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Miami#First_Cuban_wave
Later refugees were poor, hence U.S. policies towards Cuban immigrants alter. Let’s not forget that Cuba also has its own racialized history, Afro-Cubans are also part of a history of disenfranchisement.
You are cherry picking your information, Duh. Most of your comments are an inconsequent argument.
The plain language of Sec 31(a) of Article 1 of the California Constitution as amended by Prop 209 specifically outlaws the use of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin as a factor in admissions and there is no question that outlawing said use at all rather than “alone” as suggested by Professor Choper was clearly intent of the Proposition.
“(a) 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.”
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1
Hence, SB 185 if passed will be found to be unconstitutional.
No shit sherlock. The goal of this bill is to start the process of repealing prop 209.
SB 185 allows, but does not mandate, UCs and state schools to take into consideration race, gender and ethnicity.
You must have felt really accomplished with your research.
What part of unconstitutional do you not understand?
SB 185 cannot “allow” UC’s and state schools to take race, gender or eithnicity into consideration because doing so is against the California Constitution. The Legislature can pass laws in contravention of the Constitution but they will have a very short life and no effect since they will be found to be unconstitutional. The whole notion of state sponsored discrimination is repugnant and always has been and there being any need for state sponsored discrimination at a a time when there is a black President is completely absurd. Does the fact that whites have historically been the most underrepresented group on most UC campuses including Berkeley mean that whites should be admitted in place of asians under a new state sponsored discrimination policy.
[No shit sherlock. The goal of this bill is to start the process of repealing prop 209.]
Why don’t you tell us why a law that bans racial discrimination should be repealed? I find it ironic that so-called “progressives” are the ones who think favoring one racial group over another is a good idea, while the same conservatives and libertarians who they diss as “racists” are actually the ones who believe that merit and performance should be the factors used to determine college admission, not race or ethnicity.
Maybe it wouldnt be shocking if you picked up a history book Tony. progressives are equal opprotunists. To understand their stance on prop 209 one must realize the history of discrimination and marginalization that has pushed many black and brown people into lower preforming schools, crummy neighborhoods, and bad jobs.
and… I know this can be shocking to your dimwitted mentality.. but NOT, I repeat NOT, through any fault of their own. but through the fault of white supremists actions of the past. If you dont believe me pick up a book. or better yet enroll in a introductory ethnic studies course. or any history course that discusses race and ethnicity.
Do your research on 209 and youd find that the only group that openly supported the proposition was the KKK. seriously. the Ku Klux Klan.(in case you dont know wha that is) now take your conservative hogwash and stuff it.
[Maybe it wouldnt be shocking if you picked up a history book Tony. progressives are equal opprotunists.]
“Equal Opportunity” means all individuals have a chance to compete on their own abilities and merits, not having the system gamed to support one group or the other.
[Do your research on 209 and youd find that the only group that openly supported the proposition was the KKK. seriously.]
You lie. Seriously.
Actually, since the majority of students in most UC
Merit should determine what school you should get into, not the color of your skin or your gender. If someone is truly qualified, it should not matter if they are white, black, latino or eskimo. It is hypocritical to take such things into consideration. Truly, it destroys the notion of equality that these campaigners seek to champion because it adds new racially charged factors into the discussion of college admissions. This is inherently unnecessary and wrong.
UC Berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau makes instate Californians second class applicants to Cal.
Birgeneau displaces qualified for public university at Cal Californians for $50,600 FOReigners.
opinions to UC Regents [email protected]