California voters took to the polls on Nov. 5, 1996, and passed Proposition 209, which forbade state government organizations from considering race, ethnicity or sex in areas that include public education and employment.
Suffice it to say, Prop 209 banned affirmative action in the state. Despite constant protest and legislative proposals to amend the law for public education, it still stands 16 years later — and that’s the way it should be.
Affirmative action is in the news again, this time after UC President Mark Yudof and the 10 UC Chancellors submitted an amicus curiae “friend of the court” brief to the U.S. Supreme Court last Monday in support of the University of Texas at Austin. In the case, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, a white student argues that the university discriminated against her based on her race, as Texas has a policy of considering race in its admission process.
More curious for us than the actual suit is the brief itself. Yudof and the chancellors are symbolically going against the wish of the voters by siding with Texas. They are not standing for California and its voters, and they are not representative of the state and system for which they work. California voters should make it known that they disapprove of this about-face — assuming they still do.
We certainly do. While we appreciate and hope for more diversity on campus, affirmative action is not the appropriate avenue. Affirmative action is an attempt to fix racism by being racist, and it would be detrimental to what is already an oftentimes hostile campus climate. Moreover, it does not attack the deep structural problems of diversity in college admissions.
There is always talk of funding for higher education, but K-12 education must not be forgotten. Primary and secondary education, rather than schools like UC Berkeley, should take center stage. Teachers are not paid enough, kids don’t receive enough attention and the curriculum — with the nonsensical No Child Left Behind Act and its ill-suited emphasis on test scores — is insufficient. The problems are endless. How can we expect Californians to attend UC schools when they are struggling in elementary school?
Affirmative action is not a solve-all. Our university has structures in place to maintain a diverse student body, specifically our holistic review policy in admissions, in which an applicant’s entire file is read as a whole and not in parts. Academics and test scores are criteria, along with essays, extracurricular activities, personal qualities, opportunities and chances. UC Berkeley and UCLA have used holistic review since 2001 and 2007, respectively, and the others UCs are on the path toward implementing it.
Holistic review brings in people with different ideas and and interests. UC Berkeley has an intellectual diversity that is perhaps unmatched across the country.
This system looks at an applicant as an individual, not as a person of a certain race or ethnicity. Despite limitations individuals have faced due to race or economic background, they should be evaluated in terms of what they have done with the opportunities they had.
Economic opportunities and primary education are the roots — putting a new coat of paint on the house does not fix its problems in the foundation.
Comment 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.
“You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to
go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you
please. You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by
chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and
then say, ‘you are free to compete with all the others,’ and still
justly believe that you have been completely fair … This is the next
and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights.” —Lyndon Johnson, U.S. President, 1965
Out of action?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVRxdPWV3RM
What Black & Hispanic parents need to model, according to one Yale professor:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html
I’m about ready to start calling my kids “garbage” and start forcing them to master piano and violin from the age of 4. This lady is my role model for getting my kid into Berkeley. She truly knows what it means to raise a child to study HARDER:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE_QgZMYU1E
Would you rather push your kids to practice pitching and sprinting in extreme summer heat to win an athletic scholarship? Or maybe you can force them to break dance and sing explicit lyrics to get a recording contract? You do what you gotta do to get them ahead in life.
The only reason we see so many black kids doing so well in sports is because very often a sports scholarship is the only way out of the ghetto and the only safe after-school activity these kids have available to them is basketball, running and flag football. Still the chances of you becoming the next Kobe Bryant or LaBraun James are about the same you becoming the next Michael Phelps or Ryan Lochte. About one in ten million. Odds of success after college in a math or science field are greater, but even those programs are being put out of reach. I remember when UC got sued merely over its minority outreach programs that encouraged black and Latino kids with solid grades and scores to apply. Somebody thought it was “racist” to show these kids they had more options than the ones offered in their limited neighborhoods.
I basically agree with your observations, but disagree with the passive voice in your analysis. When you say “but even those programs are being put out of reach”, you are implying institutional forces beyond a student’s control are directing the fate of minority students. However, what’s really going on is that the student’s single parent is too busy, the siblings are dealing drugs, the neighborhood kids are in gangs, and anyone who dares to get good grades is called an Uncle Tom or “acting white”. No mysterious consortium of rich white men is causing minority kids to fail in school. No consortium of Tiger Mothers is conspiring to keep Asian kids smarter than Black kids. It’s time to stop blaming mysterious oppressive forces, and just blame the culture of dependence and mediocrity prevalent in the Black and Latino communities. Things would be better if Blacks and Latino U.S. citizens had jobs. But…you know where this is going… Obama is failing miserably in creating jobs.
No Obama has created plenty of jobs. He created over 60,000 in Detroit alone. You just have to have a master’s or Ph.D. to get them. Now, who’s whining?
Sources and cites?
The leading figures in opposition to affirmative action, Ward Connerly and John McWhorter, are both in favor of the police racial profiling “so long as it is not abusive”. It seems men like them are not really opposed to racial preferences, so long as they are applied to the “right” contexts. Recent surveys say that this is also the way the majority of Americans feel. Most Americans are also against discrimination against gays, but still wish- washy on the marriage issue. Time for me to move to country where the people are less fickle and less self-centered.
This may be off the subject, but as long as we’re at it, let me add my view. Short term racial profiling should be allowed because police and TSA agents need to match a visible exterior characteristic to an incident whose eyewitnesses could only list race and perhaps body markings. If all terrorists and drug dealers agree to fill out a lengthy application listing their recent criminal activities, to the same level of detail as a college application, then we won’t need racial profiling.
So, we can have affirmative action, so long as the pathway is to prison. Do I hear you correctly?
No, you missed my point. Affirmative Action is looking specifically at race even though there are no eyewitnesses to a student who can ONLY identify him by race. A high school transcript doesn’t say “oh yeah, we don’t know what this kid’s GPA or classes were, we just know he’s Latino and wears a kangol”. The SAT results don’t say “this kid took the SATs and we don’t know his score, but we know he’s biracial and limps, so you ought to give high marks to all biracial applicants with a limp.”
Racial profiling, on the other hand, should be used where an eyewitness to a shooting or robbery only caught a fleeting glance at the perpetrator(s) and can only identify them by race, tattoos, or color of hoodies. The police then should use that information to search for possible perps. Racial profiling should not be used to pull over all drivers of a certain race on suspicion of DUI, or even to hire all members of another race under the assumption they are good at math and computer programming.
How is the UDHS No-Fly List not racist? What do they mean by “Arab-sounding nae?” A friend of mine literally had to change his name from Mohammed Atta. That name in the Arab Muslim community was pretty much as common as Jack Johnson is here.
And why is it that most suspects are profiled in such a far range as to encompass as much as 90% of a demographic area?
“Suspect is a black male, aged 19 to 29, 5’6″ to 6 feet, and may be wearing a ballcap, a hoodie with jeans or a tank top…”
Well, that was like 90% of the black males that would be out after 6pm.
So what do you want the police to do if an eyewitness only sees “black male wearing a blue hoodie and DC shoes”? Give up and let the victim suffer in silence? Even when the victims are Black women and children? Guess which community suffers most when racial profiling ends?
Well, if the profile is a “white male wearing a pink Ralph Lauren polo and beige khakis” and they search states in the Northeast.
Sounds like a helpful APB to me and nobody would actually think that the suspect is being racially profiled.
The university’s main Austin campus is required by law to admit the top 8 percent of each high school graduating class in the state of Texas. (All other campuses must offer acceptance to the top 10 percent.) They also employ the holistic method there. So, the argument that the minorities being given consideration are somehow “less qualified” or subject to relaxed standards is dead wrong in this case. Leave it to this opinion piece to conveniently neglect to mention that.
The 8 percent solution is unfair because not all high schools are equal. The student with a 4.0 GPA in one school may be less prepared academically than students with 3.0 GPA in a neighboring school. That is why GPA alone should not determine college admission, but the race-based advocates are desperate. The only reason this type of solution exists is to hopefully admit minorities from predominantly Black or Latino schools. Unfortunately for those race-based advocates, many low income Asian parents have caught on to this deception and are sending their kids to those lower achieving schools. Sure the Asian kids may be bullied, but their kids are getting into top colleges.
Actually the 8 percent solution is perhaps the most fair, if we are to base affirmative action off of socio-economics and not race. That’s right, not all high schools are equal. The East Compton High definitely gets less funding than Beverly Hills High. Why should East Compton High kids be forced to compete with Beverly Hills High kids, if they aren’t afforded the same kinds of schooling?
Aliright, I get you. We should do away with economic-based affirmative action as well, because it is “unfair” to kids brought up in super-rich families.
Where your analogy fails is that East Compton High kids can choose to attend Los Angeles community colleges for advanced classes, just like Beverly Hills High kids who find Calculus too easy. Los Angeles School District buys the same books for all high schools so that’s no excuse either. Sure Beverly Hills may have extra art classes or more varieties of sports, but how come Asians from East Compton can still satisfy all the UC requirements while Blacks and Latinos have so much trouble? Like I said, you can keep finding excuses but you can’t ignore the inconvenient truth that Asian students in the SAME settings and SAME level of poverty can still beat Black and Latino students, and in fact can beat whites and Asians from affluent communities like Palos Verdes and La Jolla.
Actually, you can’t “choose” to just attend a school. doing so may get you arrested, fined, and imprisoned, as too many black and Latino mothers have learned in this country:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzTiXwmulqo
Perhaps I was unclear. Many Asians who live in lower class to middle class communities know that their local junior high and high schools are full of aggressive thugs. These Asians can choose to send their kids to those low-API schools, or choose private schools at great expense. Lately many Asians choose the low-API route because they know the top 9% of any California high school is guaranteed entry into a UC campus. This beats out the Blacks, Latinos, and assorted other groups who had hoped to benefit from the change in admission standards. This is causing great consternation to Democrats and UC chancellors, but that’s what they get for trying to play games with college admissions.
There are no “aggressive thugs” on junior high school campuses. These “thugs” drop out before they even get to 7th grade. Oh, but wearing a hoodie or backward ballcap qualifies a black kid as a “thug” in most white people’s eyes these days.
Just as “need blind” financial aid policies have already been hurting poor students in greater number than ever before, a move to a “colorblind” (read: racially naive, socio-historically ignorant) world of admissions will hurt racial and cultural diversity. In the name of political correctness, this new liberalism will turn back the clock on the civil rights movement as we know it.
As every major nation on earth is moving forward on issues like affirmative action (see the news in Brazil) and same-sex marriage, America is still steadily moving backward. No surprise really. We were practically one of the last nations on earth to abolish slavery, one of the last nations on earth to give women the right to vote, and one of the last Western Nations to abolish our sodomy laws. As other nations become more open, more democratic, and more egalitarian, we are becoming more oligarchical, more separatist, more classist, and more plutocratic.
Also up for repeal before the Supreme Court this year is the Voting Rights Act. Yep, they’re after the right of minorities to vote too.
Well, you’re right about one thing. Liberalism can be completely illogical. I think it’s just fatigue. America was at the forefront of affirmative action but after decades of hand-holding and racial preferences America’s liberals realized they were creating a culture of dependency. A “colorblind” policy really is the most fair way to judge college applicants, since Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. hoped people “…will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” A colorblind selection system is how we handle the NFL draft, NBA selections, symphony hires, and Victoria’s Secret model selection. Teachers already use the colorblind policy to grade weekly quizzes and grade No Child Left Behind tests. Why must college admissions be an exception?
No one complains about the affirmative action white and Asian students get to attend historically black colleges.
Maybe that’s because so few Blacks can match the academic scores of white and Asian students at those colleges. The situation is not at all analogous to what we see at competitive UC campuses.
Actually, the black students at some of these colleges outperform even the whites and Asians at Cal. They’re also more likely to get jobs on Wall Street.
Why is it that a black kid who attends Morehouse or Spelman or Howard is more likely to do better than a black kid who attended Cal, Stanford or Harvard?
http://www.bet.com/news/national/2011/04/16/hbcus-grads-outperform-black-graduates-of-white-colleges-.html
Your link only shows that students at Howard “…do better financially than Blacks who graduate from traditionally white colleges and universities”. It says nothing about those students having higher GPAs, SAT scores, or even sports awards than whites and Asians at Cal, Stanford, Harvard, or any other top research university. But you do bring up an interesting point. If historically Black universities are so great for Blacks, why would Blacks want to use Affirmative Action get into sub-par “white” universities like Cal and Yale?
Maybe you should actually read the study the article refers to and not just the news blip.
I don’t have time to read entire studies or entire books every time someone says “here’s a link, go read it…” I’ll let you provide me a quote and then I’ll check it out. In any case, you’re obviously proud of your achievement and I’ve got nothing against that. That still doesn’t change the fact that most African Americans who want to get into UC schools have lower grades and test scores than Asians and whites, including Asians and whites who grew up in the same neighborhoods as the minority applicants.
Maybe they should do like Martin Luther King and I and go to an HBCU. We went to the same school.
Picture is worth a thousand words…
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ls97p2UIdE1qzmjfp.jpg
It is too common a sight for me to see people object to affirmative action as “racist” and “sexist” while in college and then change their minds later when they enter the work world and notice how things really turn out. Yeah, you see all of that diversity sitting beside you now, but wait until graduation when you wake up to the reality of what the real world offers.
The women who called it “sexist” find out what real sexism is like when the only job they can get in the private sector is that of desk secretary or administrative assistant, despite having an honors bachelor’s degree. The Asians who called it “racist” find out what real racism is like when they notice that they are continually passed over for lesser qualified whites, because the good ‘ole boy network could give a crap less of how smart you are or where you studied, if you’re not the right “fit” for their firm’s “culture”.
Yep, when they step outside of happy ultra-liberal California and Michigan and bother to venture into the other 48 states, they’ll learn why so many people still say affirmative action is still necessary and not enough has changed in the past 40 years to abolish it entirely.
Why would anyone step outside of California? We’re here because it doesn’t suck shit like the rest of the country. Citizens of other states are not our concern.
You speak too soon…
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/education/2012/08/csu-graduate-programs-pass-over-californians
In that case, California and Michigan don’t need affirmative action so this California university’s newspaper editorial is correct in opposing it. You are free to comment on the web sites of the other 48 states.
“The Asians who called it “racist” find out what real racism is like when
they notice that they are continually passed over for lesser qualified
whites, because the good ‘ole boy network could give a crap less of how
smart you are or where you studied”
No, the “good old boy network” doesn’t care how smart you are or where you have studied. They care if you can get the job done. In fact, a lot of those good old boys have hired a lot of Asians over the years. You would certainly know that if you worked in Silicon Valley or any high-tech industry, where your co-workers are as likely to be from China or India or Vietnam as from middle-class white America. You’re clearly spouting a bunch of crap about things you know NOTHING about, which of course makes me doubt you have every had any job in the private sector other than retail, food service, or manual labor.
Exactly! Mr. Jackson may not have read BusinessWeek, where white IT workers often complain about how many jobs are given to Asians and H1B visa holders.
They could care less about the fact that they’re Asian so much as the fact that they’re foreign and being paid less and thereby making Americans here unemployed.
The primary directive of all businesses is to make money. Any old-boy network that survives still has to ensure a profitable business. No white manager worth his Brooks Brothers shirt is going to turn down a Cal engineer because he’s not white. Blacks should work towards the same credentials as Asians and whites, instead of majoring in Ethnic Grievance Studies, Sociology, or Sports. (And before you say anything about Sports, I know it’s not a major, but when athletes go to college just to get an NFL draft it means they are basically majoring in Sports).
Oh, they’ll hire anybody, regardless of race. They’ll hire Mexicans to work for pennies and blacks to do heavy lifting. No problems there. They’ll hire Asians as number crunchers.
But, watch and see who they put into management slots. Nearly all of them are still white and male. You could have an honors degree from MIT or Harvard, but that white guy who went to SUNY is ten miles ahead of you. It doesn’t matter if he can get the job done, so long as he can be a great guy at the country club and is good at telling those Asian number crunchers to work harder.
“But, watch and see who they put into management slots. Nearly all of them are still white and male.”
Most people put in management slots in the higher end companies (i.e. Fortune 500 level) get there for demonstrable tangible skills, including the ability to lead and accept responsibility. In fact, many of them are ex-military who have demonstrated their ability to lead as either officers or senior NCOs. They come from a culture and mindset far removed from the type of whining, scapegoating, and excuse-making of the affirmative action crowd, because unlike civil service, they are judged on tangible results. Once again, you have shown us how small-minded and ignorant you really are in the ways of the real world.
If you want a model for how to use race-based preferences to eradicate poverty and racism, and improve diversity, look at the nation of India. Affirmative action has done wonders there.
If you want to see what banning it does, count the number of African Americans at UCLA or UC Berkeley before and after the ban. Then look at the growing wage gap between them and whites/Asians over the last 16 years.
“If you want a model for how to use race-based preferences to eradicate
poverty and racism, and improve diversity, look at the nation of India.
Affirmative action has done wonders there.”
You are obviously ignorant of the level of religious and ethnic strife in India. When was the last time in America when hundreds were killed over ethnic/religious rioting?
“If you want to see what banning it does, count the number of African
Americans at UCLA or UC Berkeley before and after the ban. Then look at
the growing wage gap between them and whites/Asians over the last 16
years.”
You can thank liberal welfare state policies for that “growing wage gap”, including the perverse incentive for the dumbest of the dumb (unwed teenage girls who can not or will not finish high school) to reproduce by giving them Section 8 housing, food stamps and EBT cards. When 2/3 of the children of a given racial or ethnic group are the offspring of uneducated, below-average IQ mothers with no father present in the home, you can’t act all shocked when they fail to perform on par with people whose culture values hard work, education, and personal responsibility. Why don’t you deal with THAT issue instead of dumping the collateral damage of your failed social policies on higher education?
“You are obviously ignorant of the level of religious and ethnic strife
in India. When was the last time in America when hundreds were killed
over ethnic/religious rioting?”
You are obviously ignorant of the history of America. Millions were killed here over religious/ethnic reasons. Our nation was founded over this kind of bloodshed. We fricken had a civil war over it.
“You are obviously ignorant of the history of America. Millions were killed here over religious/ethnic reasons.”
You’re clearly clueless, and the product of left-wing brainwashing. Millions were NOT killed. Get a clue, and stop blaming the rest of society for your own g*ddamned failures.
I agree. He could have looked up Wikipedia for the number of dead during the Civil War. Estimated at around 750,000, not “millions”. In any case, the war pitted whites against whites. And it proved that whites cared enough about the rights of Blacks to go to war and die for their freedom, although whites also were willing to die for the right to keep Blacks as slaves.
I’m not just talking about the Civil war. That’s just part of it. I’m also talking about all of those people that used to be living on the land you are sitting on before the white man came. Millions of them turned into thousands, and now kept on reservations like an endangered species.
I know all about the argument for state’s rights vs. federal rights. However, the point is that the American Civil War did not involve “religious/ethnic” strife that you mentioned. Blacks and whites did not riot and kill each other in Virginia or Wisconsin the way Hindus and Muslims kill each other to this day in India. During our Civil War whites from the North probably were all racists, but the abolitionists among them truly believed in freedom for slaves.
You’re apparently not bright enough to realize that you just refuted your own argument in the same paragraph. For whatever complex reasons that the Civil War was fought, the fact of the matter is that it did set the chain of events in place that ended slavery in the US.
The wage gap between Blacks and whites (and Asians) has a lot to do with the high number of Black males in prison. Getting into UC does not mean they can overturn their convictions. Many Black women found good-paying jobs, but because they picked government jobs they bore the brunt of the recent government cutbacks, thanks to our Black President not focusing on jobs and instead focusing on Obamacare, gay marriage, war in Afghanistan, and granting amnesty to illegal alien students.
Well, let’s see. Your parents have no college degree and you live in a poor community where the schools are crap because schools are funded based on local property taxes. There are no jobs, as businesses refuse to open where you live. You cannot even get a job at McDonalds. You still have to eat, pay rent and clothe yourself.
Do you:
(a) Join a gang and rob people who appear richer than you. (lots of money, but VERY risky)
(b) Sell drugs to other people just as depressed as you. (easy money, but high risk)
(c) Sell counterfeit goods to people who appear richer than you.
(d) Rob a grocery store to cover the difference between what food stamps/welfare provides and what people really need to eat and pay rent.
(e) Prostitute yourself.
(f) Get pregnant and live off the welfare system
Not too many options, as the schools are crap and the rich people in the town next door want the county to continue to fund schools via property taxes.
Since we are in California, you should know that schools are not funded based on their local property taxes. The state takes our taxes and allocates money to all schools according to a complex formula that does not take local property values into consideration. Some communities may impose additional parcel taxes or may have enthusiastic residents who donate time and money to school programs, but these are steps any community can take if it is willing. The question is, in your hypothetical situation, why aren’t the poor communities willing to help the schools? They can’t all be tired from working three jobs each since you said “there are no jobs.” They have time to clean up schools, volunteer as aides, tutor struggling kids, and discipline their disruptive children. But do they do that? No, they’d rather collect welfare and watch Netflix all day long. When they win modest lottery games, they send money back to Mexico or buy 24-inch rims but they don’t donate to the schools. Why? ‘Cuz that’s a white man’s burden. Even when the President is a Black man and Latinos dominate California politics, somehow funding schools is still a white man’s burden.
You have never hard of local bond measures and their exemption from this process, have you?
If you read my post above, you’ll see that I already specifically mentioned parcel taxes. If you don’t own property in California you probably don’t know what that means, but it typically raises money for schools and public services exactly the way a local bond measure would. Unlike bonds, the parcel taxes don’t have to cover real estate in an entire city or state.
This idea of the “white man’s burden” is not ours. A white guy actually came up with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man%27s_Burden
No kidding. I used that term to point out the irony of the situation.
“Well, let’s see. Your parents have no college degree and you live in a
poor community where the schools are crap because schools are funded
based on local property taxes. There are no jobs, as businesses refuse
to open where you live. You cannot even get a job at McDonalds.”
If you can’t get a job even at McDonalds, you clearly have more fundamental issues affecting you than merely not being accepted under some AA/diversity program.
Actually, it’s easier to get into Harvard than get a job at McDonalds these days. If you did your research, you’d know that…
http://rt.com/usa/news/mcdonalds-applicans-america-middle-class/
Well, you could become an “aspiring rapper”, which may be somewhat difficult for you, because in all honesty, your flow is really weak, y’know what I’m sayin? :O|
A rapper? I do that as soon as you become a proud redneck busting doughnuts in his ford F-150 and singing country boy licks.
Actually, my musical interests lie more along the lines of Latin, Bakan/Mediterranean and Middle Eastern music. In fact, I have enough of a background in Afro-Latin percussion to sit in from time to time with a couple of local jazz and salsa groups in my area. Not to claim to be any great musician (I’m not) but I do know my beats and have a little bit of street cred in those circles. Now, if you wish to compare notes on some of my particular faves such as Jesus Alemany, Hisham Abbas or Georgi Yanev and Orkestar Orfei, we might have a more productive conversation. However, despite all your insistence that we pursue more “multiculturalism” and “diversity”, I get the impression that you’re a hell of a lot more closed-minded and ignorant of other cultures than most of the people you criticize around here.
Greling, you must be joking about India. Even with India’s form of AA attempting to assist lower castes, it has done little to dint to misery and degradation of lower caste Indians and their numbers are actually increasing as is their poverty. All it has done is advance economically the prospects of a chosen few. If your comments were not meant to be sarcastic, you have doubtless garnered your information from one of the inane minority studies departments previous AA has engendered: a waste of the university’s money and students’ time…
Actually, I majored in Continental Philosophy and learned just how extensive racism goes in the heights of the ivory tower.
You mistake your poor treatment as being “racism”. As much as I don’t care for academic, I’m willing to bet most of that was merely the result of you being an insufferable whiner.
Liberals in academia do have a hypocritical way of supporting diversity for undergraduate admissions yet not applying the same standards to themselves. Just look at the list of UC chancellors. Only one Black, no Latinos, no Native Americans. I’ve never heard of a liberal white or Asian professor in the humanities giving up tenure or even a short gig to an equally qualified Black or Latino professor.
If race-based preferences are “racist” in affirmative action aren’t economic-based preferences just classist? Why should admissions committees give poor people special treatment? Doesn’t this “lower standards”? Shouldn’t we just focus on GPA and standardized test scores. Only the most qualified should apply. Right…?
I don’t agree with giving preference to poor people either, but at least there’s a purpose to the madness. Poor people by definition have fewer resources so if they can achieve academic success despite their adversity then one could say they worked harder and should be rewarded. Blacks and Hispanics cannot say they have fewer resources, since you already admitted that many middle and upper class Blacks get into top universities. Thus there is no proof Blacks and Hispanic applicants worked harder than anyone else, if all you know is their color. If you play the race card anyways and say all Blacks and Latinos are disadvantaged, then admissions offices ought to give no preference to the applications of middle class and upper class Blacks and Latinos. In that case they would lose out to higher scoring white and Asian middle class students who had Tiger Moms.
Well, considering that this is a paper for what is now campus of over 40% Asian students, the outcome of this editorial is not too surprising. But, will these students still oppose affirmative action when the debate reaches into the employment arena and crosses into the private sector. Asians do disproportionately have a presence on college campuses, but they are far and few in upper-level management and supervisory positions, where Blacks and Hispanics still outnumber them, despite not having a college degree, and nearly every manager is white and male.
You are so ignorant on so many levels that it is difficult to respond. Have you ever had a real (private sector) job in your life?
Yes, I began in the private sector and I had a racist/sexist boss.
And Stan, I see you are from San Diego. I am too. Don’t kid yourself into thinking the world world is like that little ethnic utopia. Take some time to travel. How about the Deep South into states like Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia or Tennessee.
Actually, I spend most of my time traveling, not in San Diego. In fact, I’m currently working in Australia on a biofuels project in New South Wales. In the past, I have worked in Mexico, Asia, Europe and Israel. I’m willing to bet I have been to far more places and seen more of the real world than some whiner who’s making excuses for his own academic mediocrity.
So, you’ve seen my grades. Really? Then you’ll know why I passed up Cal voluntarily.
Then what are you whining for, other than to be a freaking pest?
Blacks can be racist/sexist too. Clarence Thomas was accused of harassing Anita Hill. So what’s the argument for letting race be a factor during college admission or hiring? Asians may not be well represented in upper management across corporate America, but they do get many technical jobs and they are not complaining about upwards mobility the way Blacks and Latinos complain. As corporate America becomes more and more global, many more Asians will become managers to administer activities in China, Korea, Japan, India, and Singapore. But even if not a single Asian becomes a manager, so what? A college degree does not guarantee a managerial role for anyone, not even MBA graduates. Asians strive to improve themselves in the face of discrimination so that their qualifications cannot be ignored, while Blacks and Latinos stop trying and claim The Man is out to get them. Whites are tired of being accused of favoritism even when they work just as hard as Asians.
“Clarence Thomas was accused of harassing Anita Hill”
Actually, Anita Hill accused him.
With that level of reading comprehension, no wonder you’re having trouble getting ahead…
the daily cal is not interested in helping people. what is new?
Wrong. They are helping to bring in the best students to Cal. They are helping to bring actual diversity to the university. While I was at Caltopia, I met men and women from all over with all kinds of backgrounds. The only diversity that was not in evidence was that from students who had not worked hard and earned their way into Cal. Every Cal person can be proud of each and every student that gets admitted to the university.
I totally disagree. Affirmative action worked much better than what we have now. We have lost depth as the student population becomes less diverse. As for being lauded for being brave, it doesn’t take much bravery to support a side. It does take bravery to admit the current system is NOT working and racism/sexism still exist. You can run but you can’t hide.
Define “better”. If you mean more students with dark skin, how is that “better”? We are not trying to breed a melanin-enhanced race, we are trying to create an enriched learning environment with different cultures, experiences, and points of view. That is why the holistic admission system is the way to go since it gains insight into whether a dark skinned student actually can provide true diversity of ideas while maintaining academic success. I happen to think Cal and UCLA should put more emphasis on academic achievements, but since the administration’s stated goal is to emphasize diversity over absolute merit then the holistic approach is the best, and race should not be a factor. Ironically not even the chancellors believe in their own holistic approach, so you are right, in their view the system is not working. However, the holistic system is the least broken way of enhancing diversity while honoring the wishes of California’s voters.
The only ones hiding are the race-based advocates. They don’t see Cal as a learning institution created to open the minds of its students. Rather, they see Cal as an entitlement to wealth and happiness, and members of their race are failing to grab their slice of the pie in sufficient numbers. They hide behind words like “equality” or “diversity” without ever addressing the inconvenient truth that those who hope to score points from their skin color are not as academically qualified as those who get in on merit alone. Unfortunately the chancellors fall into this category also, but in their defense they probably have to deal with fierce political pressure from California’s Democrat legislators.
Well-put.
Quote:”We are trying to create an enriched learning environment with different cultures, experiences, and points of view…”
Yep,and when Black, Latino and Native American enrollment fell 90% to mere nothingness after the passing of Prop. 209, we learned just how enRICHed the campus became, as only upper-class and upper-middle-class minorities got accepted and others went back to their ghettos.
“and when Black, Latino and Native American enrollment fell 90% to mere nothingness after the passing of Prop. 209″
Then it was clear that those students weren’t making the grade (no pun intended) and didn’t belong @ Cal in the first place. I busted my butt to get admitted to Berkeley, why should others get a free pass merely because they have the same skin color as you?
Well, a lot of them were making the grade, but when Prop. 209 passed, their affirmative action based financial aid dried up and so they were forced to drop out of school, regardless of how well they did.
If you haven’t noticed, nearly all of the blacks and Hispanics in elite colleges today come from already wealthy and connected families.
You’re peddling bullshit. Prop 209 and financial aid are two different issues altogether.
It seems you are arguing that not only must diversity fulfill the quotas of minorities, but it must also fill a quota of lower-class minorities. In that case why admit any upper class minorities at all? They don’t bring any experiences worth sharing so they may as well compete on merit alone. We should only lower admission standards for minorities from single parent families who grew up in ghettos, joined gangs, got locked up in Juvie Hall, and produced gangsta rap CDs. Is that what you want?
Racism and sexism are exacerbated by Affirmative Action as it discriminates vs better Asian and Caucasian students, including women, in favor of lesser “minority” males and females…
Yep, and let’s dump all of the special treatment we give poor students. We should only accept people who are able to pay up. None of this “financial aid” socialism nonsense. It is classist!
It’s one thing to give financial assistance to those who have the grades and test scores to get into the university, it’s yet another to keep those who are better students from attending the U because they are not black, brown, or Native American. Affirmative Action is just a PC form of bigotry, short and simple.
BTW, many deserving students of Asian heritage have earned their place in the university by merit despite coming from just as deprived-or worse-situations as blacks, Hispanics or Indians…
Nothing is keeping so-called “better” students from attending. Asians already make up over 40% of Cal.
The reality is many more Asians and whites would be admitted if the system had been truly color-blind. And if all applicants had to compete against each other in an international comprehensive standardized test, most students would be coming from Finland, China, and India. So something definitely is keeping “better” students from attending.
How is the current system not working? UCB’s class of 2015 is comprised of 51% women and 40% minorities. Check out that percentile of women.
Just being black doesn’t mean you grew up in poverty. Just being hispanic doesn’t mean you are an illegal immigrant. Just being a woman doesn’t mean you are a victim of sexual assault.
People should be admitted based on their merits and challenges overcome, not because of their skin color or gender.
Well, should we just ignore 250 years of enslaving blacks, placing Latinos in brutal forced labor haciendas and uprooting them from what was their land, and mass genocide toward Native Americans? Affirmative action acknowledges the yet-to-be-rectified disparities created by our ugly history. We can’t expect it to be magically washed away and forgotten in less than 40 years time.
No, being black, Latino or Native American doesn’t mean you’re poor. Race shouldn’t be the sole factor, but it should definitely be looked at. To ignore the impact of race and racism is to simply turned a blind eye and act like it’s all honkey-dorey, when it’s not. Still to this day, a typical black male with a bachelor’s degree earns less than a white male with just a high school diploma. Still to this day, studies are showing that you’re more likely to have your resume trashed if your name is Jamal, Tyrone, or Keisha than if your name is Kyle, Brittany, or Stewart, even if the resume contents and job qualifications are exactly the same!
Colleges should also give more weight to economics. A dirt poor white kid from Appalacia should definitely be given more consideration than a Native American kid whose dad owns a casino. But, when it comes to having 5,000 4.0 GPAs compete for the same spot with the same or nearly the same qualifications, we should consider diversity and the benefits it brings.
“Well, should we just ignore 250 years of enslaving blacks, placing
Latinos in brutal forced labor haciendas and uprooting them from what
was their land, and mass genocide toward Native Americans?”
Were YOU personally enslaved, placed into forced labor, or a victim of genocide? If not,then GO F*CK YOURSELF and stop blaming the rest of us (who never did any of that to you) for all your g*ddamned problems. Seriously now, we’re getting tired of people like you (not referring to minorities, but whiners) blaming woes that YOU never personally experienced (and for which nobody living today was responsible) for the fact that most of the people of your chosen group are neither cut out for college, nor make it enough of a priority to make the effort to do what it takes to get accepted @ Cal. Stop your freaking whining and GROW UP, instead of acting like a big f—ing baby.
Why do we say…
Sept. 11 – Never Forget
The Holocaust – Never Forget
Pearl Harbor – Never Forget
Hiroshima – Never Forget
Slavery of Blacks & Genocide of Natives – Get Over It.
Oh, I get it now….
“Slavery of Blacks & Genocide of Natives”
Three points that escape your small mind:
(1) Nobody born in the US today was a victim of “slavery” or “genocide”, nor were their American-born parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents, and in all likelihood, their great-great-grandparents as well. The abject failure of certain groups (collectively) to excel academically has NOTHING to do with “slavery” or “genocide”.
(2) Nobody born in the US today was responsible for it either, nor were their parents, grandparents, et. al. In all likelihood, I’m a generation older than you, and even in my family tree which I have researched extensively (and goes back 40+ generations on some branches), I have found only 4 individuals who were slaveholders, the youngest which was 5 generations back. Even as a child, my 2 living great-grandmothers never knew anyone in their family who owned slaves. Why should we be punished for things we did not do, had no control over, and happened well before we were born?
(3) You act as if slavery and genocide were one-way streets, which they were not. Blacks sold plenty of their own into slavery, and in fact slavery is still practiced in Africa to these days. To this day, blacks kill more blacks in our inner cities than whites do. In fact, the number of blacks killed by other blacks in the last 5 years is greater than the total number of blacks AND whites ever lynched in the south. As for the Native Americans, they did their fair share of killing and butchery as well.
Your ignorance is clear on a number of issues. Try taking a real US history class instead of the PC multi-culti bullcrap that has stuffed your mind full of nonsense.
Sept. 11 – We punished the guilty and encourage Americans to treat Muslims as equals.
The Holocaust – We punished the Nazis and encourage Jews to treat Germans as friends.
Pearl Harbor – We punished the Japanese and encourage everyone to be treated as equals.
Hiroshima – We bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki but now treat Japanese visitors as equals.
Slavery of Blacks and Genocide of Natives – White men killed each other in the Civil War (up to 750,000 died) and now ask that people of every color be treated as equals during college admissions.
Don’t forget that Chinese were discriminated against and Japanese American citizens were actually imprisoned. Surely they deserve as much preference as Blacks and Latinos? Italian, Irish, and many Catholics were also discriminated against, so should we have affirmative action for descendants of white European Catholics too?
Well, when over 90% of those “minorities” are of the same “model minority” ethic group and black, Latino and Native American students are virtually non-existent, you really have to wonder if things can’t be better handled.
“Latino and Native American students are virtually non-existent”
Maybe Latinos and Native Americans should study harder, instead of pissing and moaning that colleges won’t accept them.
I keep saying define “better”. What you really mean is there ought to be more dark faces. Asians are not dark enough for you. An Asian who can beat-box and break dance while dunking a basketball somehow doesn’t count in terms of diversity because he’s not Black.
Oh, and that number for women comes from them spending nearly a century under the old system that provided them affirmative action practically everywhere. In fact, though considering race is illegal in California, we still consider gender. Considering gender is mandated by federal law under Title IX, but I don’t see any men screaming “REVERSE DISCRIMINATION! FOUL!! NO FAIR! MEN WERE 99% AND NOW MAKE UP ONLY 49% OF THE CAMPUS!!!”
The analogy with Title IX is flawed because we don’t have separate universities for Blacks, whites, Latinos, Chinese, and lesbians. We have just one UC system for everyone who can make the team. If every sport such as Division 1 football were coed and women’s lacrosse teams allowed men to join, then Title IX would not even apply.
You have not interacted with Cal students lately. Only a person who is not on campus would not see the amazing amount of diversity in the student population, and would not recognize that there is more depth to that diversity today than there ever has been. Most Cal students are women and the percentage is larger than in the population of available students. Over the last decade only 30% of the student population has been white, which is far below the 45% of eligible white students coming out of high school.
The crux of the matter is: You don’t end discrimination by discriminating. And this is precisely what Affirmative Action policies do…
Yep. Affirmative action failed so miserably, that its biggest recipients are still suffering invidious discrimination and still make up less than 1% of the college population. Of course, we know who they are… women.
Word up: the lack of AA, “diversity”, or whatever you want to call it is NOT keeping qualified minority applicants out of college. Why don’t you stop blaming everyone else for the collective failure of your own racial or ethnic group, and ask them to get off their asses and make an effort for a change?
Hmm… Let’s see. I graduated from a Tier 1 private college and had a 3.5 GPA, and yet I got beat to offers of employment and admission by white frat boys because my daddy wasn’t an alum. Until we get rid of the systematic hegemony on their end, I don’t see why we shouldn’t allow other tip factors that equalize the chances for minorities and poor people.
If you are Black you could have joined a Black fraternity and networked with the alumni. And we have gotten rid of the systematic hegemony. When you need a letter of recommendation, why not ask the most respected man in America, your President, Mr. Barack Obama? No Berkeley alumnus could beat that.
What are you talking about?
“f you are Black you could have joined a Black fraternity and networked with the alumni.” Sorry, I couldn’t pass the paper bag test.
” And we have gotten rid of the systematic hegemony.” Two words : George Bush..
“When you need a letter of recommendation, why not ask the most respected man in America, your President, Mr. Barack Obama?”
Couldn’t pass the social class test. My father wasn’t an international ambassador married to a politically-connected white woman and I didn’t go to private prep schooling in Hawaii. But, you know, that;s just typical of the average American black person who has as much in common with Barack as the average white person has in common with Mitt Romney or Bill Gates.
I guess I should be a little more blunt. You complained that you are not white, not in a fraternity, and couldn’t get a job through connections. I merely pointed out that you could have joined a Black fraternity like AΦA to meet its alumni, despite your phobia that the racist Black fraternity members would consider you too dark. I mean, are Whites and Asians to be blamed for the racist attitudes of Black fraternities against darker skinned Blacks, if in fact the paper bag test exists? Are you saying we need separate race-based admissions criteria for dark-skinned Blacks and light-skinned Blacks? Furthermore, if you believe even the most powerful man in America, a Black man named Obama, won’t help out an educated brother in need, how does throwing away academic standards for UC admissions help? You would still be passed over by white and Asian graduates from Cal State universities. You would have to argue for simultaneous hiring quotas in all businesses and agencies large and small.
Obama is not “black”. he;s African American. There’s a difference. His ancestors never had to go through slavery and Jim Crow. His father was a wealthy immigrant.
If you’re making the distinction that Obama is not truly Black, then by your reasoning African American students should not be allowed to take advantage of affirmative action on college applications? Since many light skinned African Americans are descended from Southern and Carribean slave owners who had sexual relations with their slaves, does this mean none of the light skinned African Americans should benefit either?
Obama’s father was an immigrant. His father was an ambassador. he went to a private prep school in Hawaii. Surely, his life reflects that of most black Americans.
And you said it yourself… “slave owners”. Not Obama’s family history.
Unlike 99.9% of black America, he can trace his heritage back to a country and not a continent.
You’re very focused on Obama’s true roots without realizing you’re helping me make my point. Remember, I am against affirmative action based on skin color, and you’re basically agreeing with me. I am against bi-racial privileged African Americans like Obama getting admission preferences and again you are agreeing with me. In that case, we really should abolish affirmative action based on ethnicity, and instead ask universities to look deep into each student’s individual struggles for academic excellence and make a determination that way. This is the holistic system in a nutshell. I don’t like it because there should be more emphasis on academic achievements, but it’s all California’s voters will allow.
It’s not just about skin color. It’s about history and injustice. Even John Rawls, Robert Nozick, and Plato talked about rectifying past injustices. It is not enough to break a working man’s legs, have his children starve in squalor and simply apologize.
You don’t “rectify” past injustices by inflicting new ones. Your logic is the same as the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland who spent generations trying to re-fight a war that ended over 300 years ago. I know something about particular conflict, having lived and worked there at one point in my life and seeing the violence and hostility firsthand. Grow up!
“You don’t ‘rectify’ past injustices by inflicting new ones.”
Please do explain.
I’ll explain. Those whites and Asians you seek to punish to atone for the sins of people who couldn’t be bothered to make the effort never did a damn thing to hurt you OR your ancestors. Stop using the past as a crutch, and learn to walk on your own 2 feet.
Explain how helping black and Latino students get an equal playing field “punishes” white and Asian kids.
And that has exactly what to do with keeping black students from studying?
And to suggest that I join a black fraternity,, rather than expect acceptance to the fraternity of the most dominant cultural group is rather separatist, wouldn’t you think?
Still, I if were to do so, I get the feeling that people from your viewpoint would still somehow find a way to flip it around and call black fraternities “racist”, not knowing why they were started.
I would never recommend that you join a white or Asian fraternity because you already decided they are racist, so I suggested AΦA. However, you decided even an African American fraternity can be racist against dark-skinned African Americans, so at this point you really can’t blame any white institutions for holding back your career.
I never joined any fraternity, nor did I have any interest in doing so. I got where I did by working for it. You really should try the same approach, because when push comes to shove, nobody wants to deal with a whiner.
AA does not serve the interests of the university or the students. This diversity nonsense is BS. You can’t prove educational quality is increased by relaxing standards.
No one is asking that we “relax standards”. But, when you have 10,000
4.0 GPA Asian applicants and five 4.0 Black applicants, do we want to
consider campus diversity or just numbers? odds are 0.05% that those
Black applicants will get in if randomly selected from this applicant
pool.
and what exactly constitutes a basis for set standard?
Which would you rather admit?
(a) a middle-class Asian Student who plays piano and has a 4.0 GPA,
perfect SATs and no life outside of studying. Father and mother are
immigrants. Mom is a nurse and father runs a dry-cleaning store. They
have saved 25% of the cost of school and will take out loans for the
rest if big scholarships don’t come through.
(b) a poor Black track athlete that has a 3.7 GPA, poor SATs and
volunteers cleaning up beaches with the local YMCA, is a
first-generation college student and can pay 0%. Mom is on welfare. Dad
is in prison on drug possession charges.
(c) a wealthy white student who has a 2.7 GPA, very middle-average SATs,
is student body president, and has parents who are alums of the school
that can pay 100% upfront with cash. Dad is a U.S. Senator and mom is a
homemaker. Student doesn’t volunteer outside of minor campus events, but
has been overseas to Egypt, Paris, and Rome.
As it stands, UC Berkeley will most likely take (a), Harvard will take
(b), and Yale will take (c).
As usual, you are trying to peddle the myth that there are white students with lower GPAs being admitted as “legacies” over more deserving minority students. Bullcrap. Many black and hispanic “diversity” admittees dont’ just have slightly lower GPA’s, but in fact many of them are significantly lower, in fact well below 3.0. If there is a shortage of “people of color” with adequate GPAs to make it into the UC system, then perhaps some of those people of color need to get off their asses and study harder.
I find it rather telling that you forget our last U.S. president.
I find it telling that you can’t figure out that you refuted your entire argument with that particular piece of info.
Not a myth. Documented and researched hardcore fact:
“Researchers with access to closely guarded college admissions data have found
that, on the whole, about 15 percent of freshmen enrolled at America’s highly
selective colleges are white teens who failed to meet their institutions’
minimum admissions standards.”
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/28/at_the_elite_colleges___dim_white_kids/?page=full
Your question “do we want to consider campus diversity or just numbers?” already shows you think of diversity only in terms of skin color or ethnicity, and not diversity of ideas and insights. If you think diversity is good for a college, then do you believe underrepresented minorities should be required to pick majors with low representation of minorities, such as math, engineering, and sciences? That way they can serve their purpose, which according to you is to provide diversity.
And a kid from the streets of Detroit or Compton has a lot more insight than some kid who grew up in San Diego or Greenwich.
Well, that is why we have programs that encourage minorities in these fields by outreach and financial scholarships, but if we make them illegal, as California has done, we’ll have even less representation in these fields.
If I take your definition literally, then a Vietnamese kid raised in Detroit, helping his parents run a liquor store, should have more insight than a Black kid raised in Berkeley whose parents work for the government? I think that is why Cal’s holistic admission system still admits so many Asians. Blacks and Latinos can’t manipulate the admissions criteria to their advantage even when they raise the weighing of poverty and geographic location. You’ll have to try again to find some other way to admit Blacks and Latinos to UC without specifically asking them for their race.
“I think that is why Cal’s holistic admission system still admits so many Asians. Blacks and Latinos can’t manipulate the admissions criteria to their
advantage even when they raise the weighing of poverty and geographic
location”
Actually, affirmative action has already been illegal in California for the last 16 years. Read the article again.
Nowhere did I say affirmative action is in use by the holistic system. Read my comments again. I am saying even when universities boost the relative importance of an applicant’s poverty and geographic location, favoring distressed communities over wealthy communities, the Asians still come out ahead because they are willing to work on academics even as they deal with the same hardships of their Black and Latino neighbors. You can’t find an excuse for this fact. It’s time you directed your disappointment at the Black and Latino cultures instead.
You forgot the Native Americans. Blame them for their “culture” problems as well.
I didn’t forget the Native Americans, I just didn’t want to type a whole list of minorities with grievances in every sentence. Since you brought up Native Americans, let’s examine their history. Yes they came to America before modern Europeans (evidence suggests Europeans from ancient France started the Clovis culture in America). Each new wave of nomads found their niche or went to war to claim hunting grounds. Europeans came and subjugated the Native Americans. Does that mean the U.S.A. owes a debt to Native Americans forever? Remember, Europeans and Asians faced a millenia of adversity and persecution too. White indentured servants were treated worse than slaves. Saxons were crushed by Roman legions. Scots were subjugated by the English. Catholics and Protestants killed each other. Spaniards were overrun by Moors. Chinese peasants were basically slaves of the warlords. Hindus were subjugated by Mughal Muslims, and in turn created a caste of subhuman untouchables. Yet all these Europeans and Asians came to America and rose above their ancient grievances to excel at academics. Why can’t the Native Americans use some of their casino money to build better K-12 schools? Why can’t the Blacks and Latinos take advantage of the resources the state gives them to do better in school?
Well, not all of the are lucky enough to live in liberal sunny California, where the clouds are pink an the oceans are blue.
And the few Asians and Europeans that we get here as international students tend to be of the wealthy castes. i have yet to hear of a kid from the deepest slums of Mumbai or Brazil making it here on their own without special assistance, apart from racist major Hollywood movies.
Your latest argument is that Asian and European students excel in America because they were wealthy to begin with, while the poor chai wallahs and rickshaw coolies stayed in their home countries. There is some truth in that. However, take the example of the Vietnamese boat people. They lost whatever money they accumulated in Vietnam. Yet they came to America knowing no English, worked on shrimp boats and in nail salons, and focused on educating their children. Now those children and grandchildren score higher than many Asians and whites born in America. International students from Asia and Middle East also tend to value their opportunities in American universities even if they are rich, unlike the wealthy European and Australian students who treat America as yet another playground. I know I’m over-generalizing, but the bottom line is if some people can start poor and work their way up without racial preferences then why can’t the Blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans?
Nice opinion piece. It is good to see the editorial staff point out how Cal’s admissions program brings in actual diversity to the university.
Congratulations Daily Cal editors for once again showing the bravery to stand up for what is right.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Daily-Cal-s-23-000-copies-disappear-after-angry-3115115.php
Thank you. I go to UT Austin (as a grad student) and many of us are against Affirmative Action, despite the UT Administration’s position.