Ward Connerly

This November, California residents will vote on Proposition 16, a proposition that would overturn the earlier Prop. 209, which outlawed the use of race- and sex-based affirmative action in public institutions, including state employment and public universities.

Chancellors continually find themselves caught between the rock of student opinion and the hard requirements of their job description.

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a significant victory to supporters of affirmative action June 23 when it upheld the consideration of race in the admissions policy of the University of Texas at Austin. But the decision won’t impact the university’s admissions policy because California state law supersedes the verdict.

In a pluralistic society with citizens who originate from all around the globe, how are students to be selected, government workers hired and public contracts awarded?

California voters may soon have the opportunity to decide if race, gender or ethnicity should be used as factors of consideration in admission, retention and recruitment programs in the state’s higher education systems, including the UC.

A state constitutional amendment that would allow California’s institutions of public education to give preferential treatment based on race and ethnicity, passed the state Senate Committee on Education July 3.

The role of affirmative action in the university admissions process will once again be brought before the U.S. Supreme Court and into the national spotlight this week, representing the next step in a long history of debates that has often found itself played out at the University of California.