Friday, March 29, 2024

AdvertiseDonateSubmit
NewsSportsArtsOpinionThe QuadPhotoVideoIllustrationsCartoonsGraphicsThe StackPRIMEEnterpriseInteractivesPodcastsBruinwalkClassifieds

Article misrepresents Academic Advancement Program

By Daily Bruin Staff

Feb. 27, 1996 9:00 p.m.

Article misrepresents Academic Advancement Program

Discrimination allegations hold little water, contradict mission
of tutorial program

By C. Adolfo Bermeo

I am writing to express my very strong displeasure and
disagreement with the Daily Bruin article of Feb. 20 ("Tutorial
program accused of discrimination") on Academic Advancement Program
(AAP) hiring practices. The article is replete with inaccuracies
and contradictions, all of which insinuate that the program is
culpable of discrimination.

Needless to say, I was not quoted accurately; and the reporter
did not, after two lengthy interviews with each of us, accurately
represent the conversations she had with program tutorial director
Donald Wasson or with me.

I suggested to her that, prior to publishing her article, Donald
Wasson and I would be glad to meet with the two Law School faculty
members who, I pointed out, were commenting on a hiring process
they had never discussed with us, had no direct experience with and
no direct knowledge of. Of course, no meeting was ever
arranged.

Quite honestly, I am bothered that any faculty member would
simply assume the validity of what s/he is told by a Bruin reporter
and then, without any evidence other than hearsay, assert that "it
doesn’t sound quite right, to require tutors to support diversity"
(Volokh) and protest that "the fact that (AAP is) asking the
question is discriminatory and violates an individual’s rights" (La
Rocha).

One has to ask why this article was published at all, and
especially why it was placed as the lead article on the front page.
After a headline that says the program’s tutorial program is
"accused of discrimination," the reporter goes on to say that "The
Bruin was unable to locate anyone who was denied a job on these
grounds" (referring to our alleged political litmus test on
affirmative action).

Despite this acknowledged lack of evidence, she nonetheless
alleges that "the program might have discriminated in the past" and
that the program "possibly infringes on privacy and First Amendment
rights."

The only student mentioned in the article (Kevin Grazier) who,
according to the article, filed a complaint with the Ombudsman
Office, was hired in spite of giving what he himself is quoted as
saying was a "nebulous answer to the question" about affirmative
action.

In the article, Grazier alleges that the tutor supervisor who
interviewed him told him that "she only hires applicants who
support affirmative action." In fact, it was that same tutor
supervisor who offered Grazier a position as a program tutor. And,
as we told the reporter, the Ombudsman Office never contacted the
specific tutor supervisor, Donald Wasson, or me about any alleged
complaint by Grazier. If it had, we would have followed up
immediately.

The thrust of the article assumes the accuracy of both what
Grazier says he was asked and that a candidate’s view on
affirmative action is the determining factor in our hiring
decisions. The faculty members with whom the reporter spoke respond
as if both points are true. In our conversation with the reporter,
both Donald Wasson and I emphasized that the tutorial program looks
at a number of different issues in evaluating whether a candidate
has the qualifications to be an excellent tutor.

We specifically said that we look at a candidate’s academic
record and ask questions that will enable us to determine the
candidate’s knowledge of the course material; ability to
communicate the information and ideas; and sensitivity and
sensibilities to the wide range of issues affecting program
students, only one of which is affirmative action.

We made it clear that all candidates must submit a current
transcript and be able to discuss what makes the subject they wish
to tutor important to study, how the subject contributes to the
academic mission of UCLA and why they think undergraduates should
study it.

We also made it clear that, as part of the interview, candidates
are asked to simulate a tutorial session with the interviewers on
an issue central to the subject they hope to tutor.

The reporter ignores all these points and instead selectively
quotes Donald Wasson as saying that the program "looks for tutors
who understand the strengths AAP students bring to UCLA, who value
diversity, and who can listen carefully and actively to the
students they serve." In fact, we do look for tutors who understand
the strengths of the progrm students and are sensitive to their
life experiences, but these are certainly not the only qualities
for which we look.

I will give Volokh the benefit of the doubt and assume that he
is misquoted when he asks, "And what does valuing diversity
necessarily mean?" For Academic Advancement Program, it means
providing a physical and intellectual space that lets each of the
7,100 students we serve – a significant portion of the campus
commitment to diversity – know that they belong here, that they
have earned their right to be here and that they are fully capable,
not only of surviving, but of excelling at UCLA.

We know that even before underrepresented students arrive on
campus, they have gotten the message that they do not really belong
at UCLA – that they are not academically qualified, and that they
will not succeed.

The reality, however, is that more than 99 percent of Academic
Advancement Progam’s students have met the academic requirements
for admission and have demonstrated the academic potential to
succeed, excel and graduate. The tutorial program is a multiracial
and multicultural program. Our population and our purpose require
that we look for tutors who see diversity as a strength, not for
those who, as Donald Wasson so well puts it, see diversity as a
weakening of the academic gene pool.

Donald Wasson and I made it clear to the reporter that tutors
who would see program students as unqualified to be at UCLA or as
academically inferior to other students, would likely have low
expectations of those they are tutoring, and not demand, expect,
teach and represent excellence. We will not tolerate that behavior
or those attitudes. Anything less would not serve the best
interests of Academic Advancement Program students and the mission
of the program, and would be a disservice to the goals of the
university.

Chancellor Young has put it quite well: "Diversity … has
benefited each and every one of us. It has made UCLA a better
place; it makes the education we deliver better."

Bermeo is director of the Academic Advancement Program.Comments
to [email protected]

Share this story:FacebookTwitterRedditEmail
COMMENTS
Featured Classifieds
More classifieds »
Related Posts