The University of California Board of Regents announced today that they support repealing Proposition 209, which would allow the university to consider race, gender and ethnicity in admissions and hiring.
“It makes little sense to exclude any consideration of race in admissions when the aim of the University’s holistic process is to fully understand and evaluate each applicant through multiple dimensions,” UC President Janet Napolitano said. “Proposition 209 has forced California public institutions to try to address racial inequality without factoring in race, even where allowed by federal law. The diversity of our university and higher education institutions across California, should — and must — represent the rich diversity of our state.”
The regents endorsed Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5, authored by Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, D-San Diego, which would repeal the affirmative action ban approved by voters in 1996. That constitutional amendment was approved by the Assembly last week, in a 60 to 14 vote, and currently is awaiting action in the Senate. If approved there with a two-thirds margin before June 25, it will then be placed on the Nov. 3 statewide ballot. Voters will have the opportunity to decide if affirmative action should once again be used as a tool to increase diversity in universities and other government agencies.
With their vote during a special meeting Monday morning, the regents reversed a position that their predecessors took in 1995 when they approved two resolutions banning affirmative action at the university, a move that was championed by Ward Connerly, a Republican businessman from Sacramento who was also a regent, and backed by then Gov. Pete Wilson. Connerly, who is of mixed race but described himself as black, held libertarian views when it came to affirmative action, which he labeled as “reverse racism.” He then led a drive to have a similar ban imposed on all government institutions in the state, including its public schools, in the form of Prop. 209, which was approved with the support of 55 percent of voters.
As the demographics of California have changed, as well as the political make-up of the Legislature, there has been much discussion about whether or how to reverse the affirmative action ban. But as the Black Lives Matter movement has grown along with awareness of police brutality and racial injustice, universities are taking an even closer look at the systemic bias within their own policies.
Despite attempts to increase diversity while keeping admissions “race-neutral,” UC’s student body does not reflect the state’s racial and ethnic diversity because of the ban, the UC regents said in a statement issued after the vote.
The proportion of underrepresented groups, including blacks, Latinos and women, attending the system’s nine undergraduate and one graduate universities, averaged 20%, then dropped to 15% in 1998, then slowly increased over the next 20 years, reaching a peak of 37% in 2016, according to the university. However, the percentage of underrepresented students graduating from high school doubled to over 56% in 2016.
The UC system said the ban has also hurt its efforts to diversify faculty ranks.
“UC has generally kept pace with the availability of underrepresented doctorate recipients in most fields,” according to a UC report on Prop 209’s effects. “However, UC has not kept pace with the availability of women PhDs in several fields, including STEM fields such as life sciences, physical sciences and mathematics.”
California State University Chancellor Tim White said he also supports repealing the affirmative action ban, in a letter to the Assembly last week.
“While the CSU takes great pride in the fact that our student body largely reflects the dynamic diversity of our state, we know that we could do more, particularly for African American students, if Prop 209 prohibitions were no longer in place,” White said, on behalf of the 23 CSU campuses. “It is critical that we have the ability to target resources and support structures for students to overcome institutionalized and systemic opportunity barriers.”
This isn’t the first time the Legislature has attempted to repeal Prop 209. The Senate attempted a similar amendment in 2014, but that proposal failed in the Assembly after Asian American advocacy groups said it would leave Asian students at a disadvantage when considering applications from underrepresented minority groups in university admissions.
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that schools can use race as an admission factor in certain circumstances. Still, Prop 209 has prevented California universities from taking race or ethnicity into account in admissions or hiring, even if there is a compelling reason for doing so, according to the UC System.
To get more reports like this one, click here to sign up for EdSource’s no-cost daily email on latest developments in education.
We welcome your comments. All comments are moderated for civility, relevance and other considerations. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy.
Fletch 3 years ago3 years ago
Here is the definition of racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
So by definition, affirmative action is racist, as affirmative action is prejudice, discriminatory and antagonistic against a person (in this case, a student), on the basis of their membership of a particular race or ethnic group.
Affirmative action is racism by a different name.
Michael 3 years ago3 years ago
If this is the case, I demand all sports teams from high school to professional level to have Asian athletes to represent the state. Skills and intelligence apparently don’t matter anymore. Quite blasphemous if you ask me.
Wanda 3 years ago3 years ago
This is flat-out racism to deny people admission into the U.C. system based on race.
Lisa 3 years ago3 years ago
Here come the people who “don’t see color.” It’s depressing to see how far we still have to go, even in light of all that’s happened recently.
Robin 3 years ago3 years ago
This move is to allow the selection based on race, not on merit, which by definition is racism. To rectify past transgression by allowing new ones, major or minor, can't be defended using the principle of universal morality if the goal is to treat everyone as equals. Adopting another morality is therefore made necessary, maybe one that justified the means by promising an undeniable good end. Still, even with such a practical and opportunistic morality, … Read More
This move is to allow the selection based on race, not on merit, which by definition is racism. To rectify past transgression by allowing new ones, major or minor, can’t be defended using the principle of universal morality if the goal is to treat everyone as equals.
Adopting another morality is therefore made necessary, maybe one that justified the means by promising an undeniable good end. Still, even with such a practical and opportunistic morality, it is racist the moment it allows for the selection or election to include race. But I’m not that surprised seeing which state this is taking place. How sad.
BC 3 years ago3 years ago
So basically hard-working Asians don’t matter.
Alexandra 3 years ago3 years ago
This is the best news I’ve heard since March 13th!!! So exciting- Sea Change – get out the vote for Nov 4rth ballot to reinstate affirmative action & rediversify our UC & State Campuses. We must learn together to grow together. Great article!
Harry 3 years ago3 years ago
There goes the incentive to study hard to get into school when those that do not will be accepted based on the color of their skin. Hard work will no longer pay off. This has been tried before and it gets worse each time. Entry spots into higher education classes should be merit based, not color based. If there are unlimited spots as in online classes, I am all for it, but don't restrict higher … Read More
There goes the incentive to study hard to get into school when those that do not will be accepted based on the color of their skin. Hard work will no longer pay off.
This has been tried before and it gets worse each time. Entry spots into higher education classes should be merit based, not color based. If there are unlimited spots as in online classes, I am all for it, but don’t restrict higher education from others if they are better qualified but the wrong color.
Same with employment. Should someone less qualified be hired based on the color of their skin? MLK would say no. We should be judged by our merits and qualifications, not our color. The color of ones skin is not a qualification for any job that I am aware of. I support the BLM movement and racial equality. Find a way to stop the circle of behavior I see everyday and everyone’s future will be better.
Bo Loney 3 years ago3 years ago
No need for Affirmative Action when we start using our technological blessing we now have to open up online class pathways for all to follow their dreams. Online has an unlimited amount of spots for people in their Constitutional right to follow their pursuit of happiness.
Bo Loney 3 years ago3 years ago
IMHO it is still restricting and limiting all potential until they open up unlimited spots through our current technological blessings for everyone to have a chance to take the classes, score where they score and follow their dreams.
John Wong 3 years ago3 years ago
Raising the bar for Asians to be admitted to UC, while lowering the bar for non-Asian minority to be admitted to UC. Is that fair ?
Scott 3 years ago3 years ago
Teating Asian people differently merely because they are Asian is not only unfair but inherently illegal as to discriminate based on race is racists by definition. There is a case on appeal against Yale for this racism against Asians and will likely go to the supreme court for justice against Yale’s racist student entrance policies.