Public Education Myths Fuel the Push for Prop. 209
- LOS ANGELES TIMES EDITORIALS
- OCTOBER 28, 1996
- Proposition 209 would codify, through state constitutional amendment,
the University of California Board of Regents' controversial decision to
eliminate gender and race as
- factors to be considered in admitting students to the state's prestigious
public university system. The justification for this ballot initiative to
end racial and gender "preferences" is undergirded by many myths
about affirmative action and education. Three of the most important follow.
- Myth: Proposition 209 would eliminate a system that promotes the admission
of unqualified minorities.
- Reality: Ninety-six percent of the students admitted into the UC system
are among the top 12.5% of the state's graduating high school seniors. About
4% of students accepted by UC normally would not be eligible but are admitted
by special exception; many are athletes, of all races and ethnicities. Most
high school graduates, regardless of gender, race or ethnicity, don't make
the 12.5% cut. Those who do are high achievers.
- Another part of the myth: By taking up UC spots, African American
and Latino students are squeezing out whites. Wrong again. Blacks make up
slightly more than 4%, or 5,016, of all fall 1995 undergraduates(of all
the students in the statewide UC system). Latinos made up about 14%, or
17 024. (The systemwide undergraduate student body numbered 121,738.) Further,
all UC eligible California students are offered spots within the nine-campus
system. Most cannot be given spots at Berkeley or UCLA but are accommodated
at other UC campuses. As UCLA Chancellor Charles Young said, " . .
. UCLA enrolls the highest qualified students from all ethnic groups, all
income levels, all family backgrounds, all life experiences-broadly representative
of the state. And, all of them are qualified to be here "
- Myth: Unfair "preferences" would be eliminated under Proposition
209.
- Reality: The regents, by way of their decision last year, already
have eliminated race and gender "preferences" from admission consideration,
effective in the spring of 1998. But preferences remain for special talents,
musical or artistic ability low socioeconomic status rural location, leadership,
community service and physical disability-these all are factors that can
be considered in admission decisions. And there have been some unofficial
preferences for the children of influential Californians, major donors and
friends of UC regents disclosed by The Times earlier this year. Proposition
209 would not touch most preferences regularly used in state education,
hiring and contracts-it targets only women and minorities.
- Myth: Poverty, not race, is the key factor for determining disadvantage;
thus if 209 eliminated gender and race considerations but didn't prohibit
socioeconomic considerations, it wouldn't hurt disadvantaged minorities.
- Reality: There is broad agreement that all poor students have tremendous
disadvantages to overcome and that therefore economic factors should be
taken into account. Proposition 209 would not prohibit economic considerations
in college admissions, and the measure's supporters say they believe socioeconomic
preferences are justified. But when it comes to race and gender, 209 makes
the false assumption that these two factors are no longer relevant in public
schools, state contracts, state hiring or in life. If only it were so.
- African American, Latino and Asian American college graduates still
face employment discrimination. Just five years ago Urban Institute researchers
sent white and black college students posing as job applicants, identical
in almost all characteristics except race, to answer classified job ads
in Chicago and Washington. The whites received favorable treatment three
times more often than their identically qualified black counterparts. Similarly,
a 1989 Urban Institute audit in Chicago and San Diego that compared Latino
and white job seekers found an even higher rate of job discrimination against
Latinos. And in a great irony, considering the high achievement of so many
Asian American students in higher education Asian Americans with college
degrees earn almost 11% less than whites with college degrees, according
to U.S. census data.
- Minorities in each case received unequal treatment not because they
were poor but because they were African American, Latino or Asian American.
Unfortunately, race still matters.
- Gender still matters too. A landmark 1992 report by the American Assn.
of University Women Educational Foundation documented that most standardized
tests are biased against girls and that public schools often discourage
girls from careers in science, mathematics and engineering. Proposition
209 could outlaw special programs that encourage girls to pursue math and
science in high school and college.
- Affirmative action provides a necessary tool to broaden access to
public education in California, which by the year 2000 will be almost evenly
populated by whites and minorities. That the most diverse state in the nation
is actually engaging in an argument over whether 259 African Americans and
790 Latinos are too many in UCLA's 1995 freshman class of 3,523 is astoundingly
self-defeating. Proposition 209 is contrary to the mission of public education,
and contrary to the best interests of California. Vote no on 209.
(Back to top)
- (AAD Homepage)
- Carl Gutierrez-Jones,
- Department of English
- University of California
- Santa Barbara, CA 93106
- E-mail: carlgj@humanitas.ucsb.edu