Gender, sexual identity, immigration status, language, national origin and religion – these are all controversial topics that meander into discussions on college campuses. It appears that the issues of race and ethnicity at UCLA have the most controversial connotations.
The moderate to low number of black, Native American and Latino students, as well as students from some Southeast Asian countries, at UCLA reflects the sensitive sentiment that race has on our elite public university, which also hosts a large percentage of white students.
More specifically, the heated subject of affirmative action in higher education is about to take the national stage and catapult the question of whether state bans on race-conscious admissions programs are constitutional.
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States is hearing opening arguments from parties in a court case challenging the State of Michigan’s voter approved ban on affirmative action in public colleges and universities.
The case, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, affects California students in public institutions of higher learning since voters here also passed a similar ban, Proposition 209, in 1996. Students across all demographics, especially at UCLA, should understand the urgency for a decision that can help delegitimize the prohibitions on affirmative action and reinstate the use of race as one of many potential factors in admission.
Unfortunately, opponents of affirmative action sensationalize myths about college race-conscious admissions programs. A lack of a diverse academic environment serves to the detriment of our student body, and a ban on race as an admissions factor hurts students of color who might graduate from neglected school districts that do not always offer exceptional curriculums as they would in more affluent neighborhoods.
In my UCLA courses and through informal discussions, the most pervasive argument against affirmative action is that it hurts fellow college applicants as a form of “reverse racism.” At UCLA, white and native-born Asian or Pacific Islander students make up a majority of the student body.
Some say that a race-conscious admissions process would penalize the success of these students. However, a 2008 research study conducted by a California State University, Northridge professor found that white student enrollment at UC Berkeley and UCLA declined after California banned affirmative action. Furthermore, a 2012 legal brief by Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus mentions that after Texas briefly prohibited affirmative action in 1996, Asian and Pacific Islander enrollment remained “constant” at flagship institutions.
And, while on the subject of Asian and Pacific Islander groups, this attempt to drive a wedge between racial minority groups is concerning since ethnic groups like Filipino students saw their enrollment numbers take a steep drop after 1996’s Proposition 209. Moving forward, students should also realize the benefits of a more diverse student body, since the transition into professional careers will demonstrate the diversity of the workforce and does not reflect UCLA’s racial demographics.
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed several times that a diverse student environment is a “compelling interest,” which only adds to the evidence that students at prestigious public universities might not be culturally competent to function in the professional workplace. A wide array of diverse groups at UCLA benefits our development as individual thinkers and as a collective population. While there may be a diverse pool of students from different states or with different musical capabilities, our top public universities, UC Berkeley and UCLA, demonstrate a disappointing curve in enrolling racial minority students.
Affirmative action programs can provide an opportunity for the admission of more students of color admission into our elite institutions, which can then help create stronger cross-cultural understanding from inside and outside of the classroom. In addition, race-conscious programs accelerate the deconstruction of stereotypes that have often perpetuated bigoted incidents across colleges in our public universities, like racially themed parties. As citizens of the world and UCLA scholars we deserve a better future and that requires a more accurate representation of our state’s ethnic makeup.
Bruins should do their part in perceiving this issue beyond the hyperbolic statements and narrow vision of race. Affirmative action does not seek nor actually results in any negative repercussions for students of any background. Race-conscious programs also help enhance our perception of the world and improve our chances of interacting with our future co-workers.
In a final plea, all affirmative action programs – whether at Harvard University or the University of Michigan – do not use quota systems. There is no ill intent to admit students of lesser standards or restrict students of a different racial group from being admitted to a school. Rather, this is an attempt to recognize our nation’s past of educational injustice and use race-conscious measures to cultivate a realistic representation of our country’s transforming demographics.