Affirmative Action Debated at UC

Is it fair? Will it survive?

Yet the present programs that reserve space for African Americans and Latinos appear to be doomed. Polls predict that a large majority of California voters will endorse an initiative banning racial or ethnic factors in affirmative action hiring or admissions. The measure is expected to appear on the ballot in November 1996. Even before that vote, university policies may be abandoned or drastically revised by the UC Board of Regents.

Backers of the present policies deplore the consequences. "Color blind admissions at UCLA would mean 60 percent Asian American and 40 percent white students," warned UC Regent Ralph Carmona. "What kind of scenario is it if half of the high school graduates are Hispanics and less than half of one percent are at UC?" Admissions officials interviewed for this article agree, saying that even middle-class African Americans and Latinos would be shut out if the initiative becomes law.

But others say it is time to abandon a process that has been subject to increasing abuse, and argue that it conflicts with traditional ideals of rewarding merit and hard work without regard to race. "In my heart I want a color blind public world," said Berkeley professor Martin Trow, former head of the UC Academic Council, the statewide faculty organization.

The facts are clear: Compared with their young statewide populations, UC continues to have an acute shortage of African American and Latino students. Thus, under present UC affirmative action policies, the most popular campuses and professional schools concentrate on these two groups. They give little or no special consideration either to gender or economic need in deciding who can get into UC.

This seems fair to those who want to help create a stable future in an increasingly diverse California population. But perceptions that this blocks admission for thousands from white and Asian backgrounds fuels debate inside and outside the university.

The so-called California Civil Rights Initiative would bar present racial and ethnic admissions formulas. It says that no state agency may use "race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin for either discrimination against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group in the operation of the state's system of public employment, public education or public contracting..." Polls indicate strong early support.

The issue quickly entered national politics after strong endorsements from Governor Pete Wilson and other Republican presidential candidates, and statements from the White House about cleaning up affirmative action abuses. African American leaders-who have plenty of sympathy and understanding at UC campuses-promise to oppose vigorously any change in what they believe will be needed indefinitely to make up for 200 years of persecution.

Within this politically charged context, members of UC's Board of Regents have discussed privately and publicly in recent months whether to change campus admissions programs. A formal debate may take place at the regents' meeting in June. At present, UC's general guidelines, approved by the regents in 1988, provide that campuses should enroll students who are "geographically, culturally, racially, economically and socially diverse as the state itself."

Those defending the present admissions system point out that Latinos (including Mexican Americans and others with Hispanic backgrounds) comprised 30.08 percent of California public high school graduates last spring, but only 15.7 percent of those enrolled in UC freshman classes last fall. Similarly, African American high school graduates last spring totaled 7.34 percent compared with 4.4 percent of UC freshmen. In contrast, Asian Americans, primarily Chinese Americans, totaled more than 30 percent of UC's resident freshmen this year, nearly three times their proportion in the state's high schools. Whites made up about 41 percent of the UC freshman class, compared with 47 percent of the high school graduates last year. Those who claim Native American ancestry comprised .8 percent of high school graduates last spring, compared with .9 percent of the UC freshmen enrollments last fall.

Because of UC's higher standards of admission-accepting only the top 12.5 percent of California's high school graduates-the numbers trail those compiled in a recent national study by the American Council on Education, in which 33 percent of African American and 36 percent of Latino high school graduates attended college in 1993, compared with 42 percent of whites.

Critics contend that UC affirmative action applicants should be judged by proven abilities-grades and test scores, plus interviews that find future promise-as well as need, without regard to race or ethnicity. They cite abuses of the present system in which UC administrators generally take the word of applicants as to their racial or ethnic backgrounds, and place African Americans, Latinos and Native Americans at the head of the line regardless of economic or social circumstances. They fear that the present system encourages wider segregation socially, culturally and academically. It is time, they say, to drop what had been intended all along as a temporary effort to rectify the past, but has by now labeled affirmative action students as inferior to those admitted on the basis of grades and test scores.

"We cannot ignore that fact that half of us get what is perceived as preferences, and the other half seethes with anger," Regent Ward Connerly said at a recent debate at the Davis campus.

"Ask any admissions officer, 'What do you do if they check those (racial) boxes?' and the answer is 'nothing.' The system is rife with fraud," said Trow, a member of Berkeley's school of public affairs. The growing number of children born to interracial marriages raises further questions. Further complicating the matter are low-income students from overrepresented groups, such as Asian Americans.

"Why should the black son of a doctor get preference over the child of the Cambodian woman who cleans out the bedpans in the hospital?" asked an editorial in the Sacramento Bee.

Jerry Cook of San Diego, who has lobbied the UC regents against the present affirmative action system, found after obtaining and analyzing admissions records, that Vietnamese graduates from UC Irvine had 66 percent less chance of being accepted at any of UC's five medical schools, even though their grades were far higher, than did graduates from the three groups favored by affirmative action. "It would be difficult to claim that Vietnamese American applicants are from a favored racial or ethnic group," Cook wrote in his analysis. "They are very likely to be the children of immigrants, burdened by language, poverty and other hardships."

But defenders of the present system cite American history as a prime reason for continuing to set aside space for qualified African Americans and Latinos who have lower grades and test scores. UC sociologist Troy Duster, who is African American, attacks what he considers an overemphasis on scores and grades, because of the unequal quality of high schools and continuing racism. "Society is not color blind, and to have admissions policies not reflecting society is kind of an ostrich-like attitude," he said.

Debating Connerly at UC Davis, Regent Carmona, who is Latino, insisted that he shared Connerly's vision of a color blind world. "But that pushes realities into the closet," he added. That outlook receives ardent support from many campus leaders, including UCLA Chancellor Charles E. Young, who contends that "the notion that we're doing it for 'them' is wrong. This is something that we do for all of us."

Berkeley Chancellor Chang-Lin Tien also strongly supports the present affirmative action program, but fears that his campus may once more become a center for what is rapidly become a national issue. "We must not allow this to pull our community apart," said Tien.

Forty to 60 percent (50 percent at UC Berkeley) of California freshmen undergraduate applications now are accepted on the basis of top academic scores-grade point averages from high schools and SAT scores (a small percentage take ACT tests, which are integrated into SAT scores).

Campuses also may accept up to six percent "special admissions," students who lack high grades and/or test scores, but who have special talents. The largest number in this group, especially at UCLA and UC Berkeley (the latter limits this group to four percent), excel in athletics. Others in this category may be gifted in certain areas such as music or the arts. Some of the special admissions are African Americans and Latinos who show academic promise. All the rest, to qualify for UC admission, must be in the top 12.5 percent academically, have studied a number of required subjects, and have maintained a minimum high school grade point averages of 3.3.

UC Berkeley

Because it is the most popular campus, UC Berkeley admits the lowest percentage of freshman applicants-currently about 40 percent-compared with 49 percent at UCLA, 64 percent at San Diego and larger percentages at Davis, Irvine, Santa Barbara, Riverside and Santa Cruz. Of 20,814 applicants for last fall's Berkeley freshman class, 8,419 were admitted and 3,344 actually enrolled. (Students usually apply simultaneously to several campuses, both within and outside the UC system.)

A 40-percent drop in white applicants over the past decade helped ease the pressure, but that may have ended. White freshman applicants for next fall increased ten percent-part of an 8.6 percent increase overall in freshman applicants who want to enroll at Berkeley. "That means 14,000 applicants (almost all of them UC-eligible) must be rejected," said Admissions Director Bob Laird.

Berkeley reflects the heated, and less visible, competition for space created by steady increases in Asian American applicants, which tripled in the past decade. Asians-mostly Chinese Americans-currently account for 39.4 percent of Berkeley's undergraduates-seven percent more than whites, 34 percent more than African Americans, and 26 percent more than Latinos.

Patrick Hayashi, associate vice chancellor for admissions and enrollment at Berkeley, believes that dropping the present racial and ethnic factors in affirmative action could sharply increase Asian American enrollments, because more of them come from poor backgrounds and have higher grades and test scores.

"I would expect a substantial drop of the two other minority groups," he said. "We select from a pool of highly qualified students. We can expect 1,000 UC-eligible African Americans this year from California high schools. We expect 500 of them to apply here, competing against 22,000 other students. Absent racial preferences, it is hard to maintain a significant number of them. Especially since a majority come from weak high schools, and must compete with graduates from top high schools. Sometimes we give preference to middle- or upper-middle-income African Americans and Mexican Americans. The dominating motive for affirmative action, after all, is racial integration. Substitute socioeconomic factors (for race), and that would not happen anymore."

Records going back to 1979 for freshmen admitted to Berkeley show that the two groups (African Americans in particular) have made substantial gains in test scores and high school grades, but that white and Asian scores also have moved up during the same time period. African American and Latino mean test scores and grade point averages at Berkeley today rank close to those of Asian students in 1979.

In 1994, for example, African Americans had mean SAT scores of 994, and Latinos had mean SAT scores of 1032. By comparison, whites averaged 1256, and Asians averaged 1293. Last year, preliminary data compiled at Berkeley revealed that the mean grade point averages of the four groups continue to show a gap: 3.43 for African Americans, 3.65 for Latinos, 3.95 for Asians, and 3.86 for whites.

Scores furnished by the UC Davis admissions office show similar differences. But Davis had fewer freshman applicants than did Berkeley, and accepted 70 percent of them last fall, compared with less than 40 percent at Berkeley. The average SAT score for African Americans at Davis was 898 in 1994, compared with 928 for Latinos, 1045 for Chinese Americans and 1134 for whites. The mean grade point averages for new freshmen in 1994: 3.48 for African Americans, 3.86 for Chinese Americans, 3.6 for Latinos, and 3.78 for whites.

The two Berkeley admissions officials, Laird and Hayashi, claim that "fallacies" obscure the truth about affirmative action. In particular, they point to: exaggerated notions that many highly qualified whites and Asians have been rejected to make room for Latinos and African Americans (In fact, increased academic success by Asian Americans is the single most important reason why white enrollments declined at Berkeley); and fables that UC lowered admissions standards to make room for minorities (Standards actually have been raised five times in 15 years by requiring a third year of high school math, a fourth year of English, a second year of lab science, four college pre-electives, and higher eligibility index for grade point averages).

Professional Schools

UC Medical and law schools face even greater challenges in admissions programs, as thousands apply for only a few hundred openings.

As part of its affirmative action efforts, the Davis Medical School took in disproportionately large numbers of Latinos and African Americans over the past decade until last fall, when it suddenly cut their numbers in half. The school had been under siege by Cook, a computer and statistical expert, who had questioned admissions procedures at Davis and the university's four other medical schools after his son was rejected by UC San Diego two years ago. Although his son was later accepted by Davis, Cook continues to lobby against race as a factor in affirmative action. He argues that lives depend on skilled physicians and that college grades and medical board exams should be paramount in deciding admissions.

Davis Medical School had 5,202 applications for 390 first-year openings last fall. Although officials deny any link to Cook's protests, the school last fall enrolled only 12 African Americans (compared with 28 the year before) and 22 Mexican Americans (down from 40 the previous year). Combined undergraduate grade point averages plus Medical College Aptitude Test scores for Chinese American medical students enrolled at Davis last fall showed they had substantially higher grades and test scores in all four fields (verbal reasoning, physical sciences, writing and biological sciences) than did African American and Latino students. The medical school did not make scores available for white students.

Dr. Ernest L. Lewis, associate dean for student affairs and professor of clinical urology at Davis, strongly disagrees with Cook's arguments that admissions officials should be more strictly guided by academic achievements.

The search for good doctors, Lewis said, means giving priority to applicants' personal qualifications: "evidence that the student has looked outside of him or herself to do something for the good of people around them. It is a basic flaw in thinking that a person with a low (test) score won't be a good doctor. We know California has a bad distribution of doctors-not very many in Compton, South Central Los Angeles or Oakland. If our job is to help provide high-quality medical care for all the people in California, then we must accept more of Hispanic and black ancestry or ethnicity. It's very rare for a Phi Beta Kappa from Berkeley, who grew up in Hillsborough (a prosperous San Francisco suburb), to go to South Central to practice medicine."

Berkeley's Boalt Law School must choose from among more than 5,000 applicants each year, for about 270 openings. Unlike the Davis Medical School, Boalt consistently picks about the same percentages from each of the four racial and ethnic groups. Just after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., Boalt became one of the first of the nation's law schools to undertake affirmative action. In 1992, after an investigation by the U.S. Office of Civil Rights initiated by Representative Dana Rohrbacher (R. Huntington Beach), Boalt agreed to stop considering racial or ethnic backgrounds as a sole criterion.

But Dean Herma Hill Kay said Boalt never considers admitting "marginal" students. While there is some difference in taking and passing the bar exam on the first attempt, Kay said abilities are not polarized between affirmative action groups and the other students. All of the current group of African American graduating law students passed the bar the first time around this year. Without this kind of affirmative action, according to Kay, students would have come from a "quite narrow" background.

Kay believes diversity to be vital for enrollment because differences raise questions about how consumers interpret the Constitution, criminal law, buying and selling. "The question is: What are we trying to accomplish? The present policy is to work with a critical mass of underrepresented groups," said Kay.

Boalt's present admissions goals are enrollment of eight to ten percent each from among African Americans and Latinos. Kay said this could not happen if color blind admissions replaced the present system. "Middle class blacks still wouldn't get in," said the dean. Test scores made available by Boalt support this. Combined university grades and law school aptitude test scores for those admitted last fall-ranging from 202 to 260-showed that 75 percent of African Americans and Latinos scored below 239 points, while 92.5 percent of whites and Asians scored above 239.

But polls showing overwhelming opposition to the present affirmation action systems, fanned by the heated election campaigns already underway for president of the United States, seem to underline the inevitable. Some who had strongly supported affirmative action will not be entirely sorry.

One such person is Pedro Noguera, an assistant education professor at Berkeley, and a former student body president, who is African American.

According to him, most Latinos and African Americans on the campus now come from better schools. It is time, said Noguera, for affirmative action to focus on the poor, without regard to race. Abuses have grown, and Californians should not have to pay for "Latin Americans from very wealthy families in Argentina, (or) for a large number of students who aren't really Native Americans, (or) for minorities from wealthy people who can afford to go to Stanford."

Former Berkeley faculty leader and administrator Neil Smelser believes that what has been a very important, positive phase in our ethnic history must now draw to a close, in part because of "a massive backlash." Smelser, a prominent sociologist who now heads the independent Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, on the Stanford University campus, said, "It may be time to say, 'let's end it.' Institutions have permitted themselves to get into numbers games...When they point with pride to an increase in disadvantaged groups, that immediately tells other groups there will be less for them...The system has become very brittle, so solutions become brittle, and that's not a very constructive approach to a long-standing problem in our society.

"In the longer haul, half a century from now," Smelser added, "affirmative action will be regarded as a very important, positive phase in American ethnic history, the way immigration in the late 19th and early 20th century now is regarded, even though at the time there was tremendous polarization, and people said we were culturally doomed. So, too, with affirmative action. We were riding along with an unexamined and potentially very damaging racial situation. (But) I don't believe that affirmative action in its most extreme form will persist. It must be moderated."

Carl Irving is a former education and political writer for the &160;San Francisco Examiner.