By Michael Schwartz (U-Wire)
Arizona Daily Wildcat
April 22, 1998

The ugly effects of California's Prop 209

(U-WIRE) LOS ANGELES - We now know the effects of Proposition 209, the initiative known as the California Civil Rights Initiative, which did away with affirmative action programs. The effects of Proposition 209 are ugly. African American and Latino admissions at UCLA and Berkeley dropped drastically from last year.

I know a lot of you are thinking that this may be a good thing, that the people who were turned down were unqualified.

I would like to try to re-educate you on what affirmative action was, how affirmative action worked here at UCLA, and what "preferential treatment" really is, as well as the effects of Proposition 209 and what can be done to remedy this situation. While I understand that everyone has a story about a friend with a 3.9 and a 1250 SAT score who was denied because of affirmative action, please allow me to try to re-educate you.

Affirmative action is not and never was about accepting someone because of their race. Affirmative action allowed race to be taken into consideration. When people apply to UCLA they are accepted in either the academic or the holistic review. Sixty percent of the admits are based on academic review. In the academic review only grades and SAT scores are taken into consideration; no other factors are looked at, not even the essay.

The remaining 40 percent of the prospective students are accepted in the holistic review. This is the point at which they look at essays, extra-curricular activities, sports, volunteer work, awards, where you are from and where they used to look at economic background, race, sex, ethnicity and national origin.

You get special consideration if you are from California since the regents mandate that most students accepted are from California. So this is where affirmative action came into play. When 32,000 people apply for 10,000 spots, admissions officers do and should look at a lot of factors.

There is a notion that any white person denied entry into UCLA can blame affirmative action. Again, this is untrue. There were 488 African Americans admitted to UCLA in 1997 (the class affected by affirmative action admissions policies), and over 10,000 whites were denied. Those numbers do not match up. Even if every one of those African-Americans were subject to the holistic review (in reality about 40 percent were) you have only 488 whites who could blame affirmative action for denial of admission. And again, that is not even how affirmative action works.

Remember, white males such as myself also benefit from affirmative action. More whites get in with socioeconomic affirmative action than minorities do with affirmative action's ethnic considerations. One of the groups helped by affirmative action is the white female. There were only four women in Berkeley's law class in 1969; there were over 170 last year.

Some believe that "unqualified people" are admitted to UCLA because of affirmative action. Also, some feel that there are students here at UCLA who received "preferential treatment" in the admissions process.

There is an idea on campus and in the state that there are a bunch of minority students with 3.0 GPAs and 900 SAT scores. There are no unqualified minorities here at UCLA. In the '97 freshman class, the last class admitted with affirmative action policies, African Americans admitted had an average GPA of 3.9 and an average SAT score of 1240. That is hardly unqualified.

We experienced a 43 percent drop in African American and a 33 percent drop in Latino admissions. Berkeley had even worse numbers; there was a 66 percent drop in African Americans and 59 percent in Latino admits. 1,200 African American, Latino and Native American applicants were denied entrance to UCLA and Berkeley, with an average GPA of 4.0 and an average SAT score of 1280. Again, that is hardly unqualified. These are the students who would have been here.

To bring a sense of horror to you, in 1953 (the year before Brown vs. Board of Education) 43 African Americans enrolled at UCLA; next year the expected number of enrollments is 50. There was one African American at Berkeley's Boalt Hall Law school this year; Little Rock had nine. And why is it that no one is mentioning the 7 percent drop in women's admissions? Or how about the 5 percent drop in white admissions (socioeconomic cases like myself)?

The truth is, we do have people at UCLA who received preferential treatment in admissions. The L.A. Times broke this story last year. These people are unqualified and shouldn't be here. These people have an average GPA of 3.2 and average SAT scores of 1000. The Times story cited that they were the sons and daughters of friends of the regents and the governor. The regents allow themselves the right to get people into UC schools and refuse to change this practice. How many of these students were allowed into UCLA and Berkeley? Three hundred. Three hundred students with an average GPA of 3.2 and average SAT scores of 1000 were admitted over the past three years. That is preferential treatment, and those are unqualified students. And that happened again this year, and again next year and every year after that.

We do not have to sit back and let this happen. We do not have to watch colleges resegregate themselves. We do not have to let Pete Wilson's friends get their unqualified friends' kids in through preferential treatment while many students with 4.0 GPAs and 1280 SAT scores are being denied.

There is an initiative to reinstate affirmative action being circulated around this campus and others. It is the Equal Educational Opportunity Initiative. It reads, "In order to provide equal opportunity, promote diversity and combat discrimination in public education, the State may consider the economic background, race, sex, ethnicity and national origin of qualified individuals."

We must not let California become what Mississippi was. Do not allow diversity to be destroyed. We learn more from each other then we do from some tests we cram for.