UCLA symposium addresses future of affirmative action

UCLA symposium addresses future of affirmative action

By Rachanee Srisavasdi

Daily Bruin Staff

Top legal analysts from throughout the country gathered at UCLA
Saturday to discuss the impact of politics on race- and
gender-based preferences, and its potentially limited future.

The day-long symposium, ‘Affirmative Action: Promise and
Problems in the Search for Equality,’ was held by the UCLA Law
Review, in part because affirmative action has become a national
topic, according to Andrea Russi, editor in chief of the
bi-quarterly publication.

Government policy on using preferences in university systems was
addressed by Yale law Professor Akhil Reed Amar. Recent Supreme
Court decisions on contracting have ruled that hiring quotas for
minorities are unconstitutional, Amar said.

Yet, the Supreme Court has yet to set a precedent on college
admissions. In the 1978 UC Regents v. Bakke case, a Caucasian
applicant rejected by UC Davis’ medical school filed a suit
contending the school’s special admissions minority program
excluded him on the basis of his race.

The court reprimanded the Davis program but ruled that the
university could use race as a factor in admissions. The mixed
ruling leaves unclear what role race should play in university
admissions, Amar said.

"It really is an open question right now whether state
universities can take race into account," Amar said. "I hope the
Supreme Court reaches that decision … that it is OK to take race
into account and bring Americans from all different walks of life
and backgrounds together to teach and learn from each other."

However, panelists like Jim Chen, a law professor at University
of Minnesota and an outspoken critic of race and gender
preferences, argued that affirmative action has preserved racism
through its policies. Chen said that a colorblind society can be
achieved, but affirmative action policies only keep it from being
possible.

He added that persons of color are unfairly targeted if they
oppose preference policies.

"Affirmative action has injured free speech freedom that a
person of color can exercise in an academic environment relative to
a white person," Chen added.

Chen cited UC Regent Ward Connerly, who spearheaded the regents’
ruling to rescind affirmative action in admissions and hiring, as
an example of a person of color who has been accused of ‘selling
out.’

Other speakers focused on different types of affirmative action
and diversity versus race preferences.

Harvard law Professor Richard Fallon lectured on economically-
based affirmative action, which he said has its benefits. Though
many institutions and universities are opting for
economically-based affirmative action, it is not an adequate
replacement for race- and gender-based preferences, Fallon
said.

"There are a fair amount of universities that use
economically-based affirmative action," Fallon said. "Yet in the
long run, there is more of a societal payoff for race- and
gender-based affirmative action … it seems to have the distinct
advantage that the people it benefits later make a special
contribution to society in light of their race."

The concept of diversity was also a critical issue addressed by
UCLA law Professor Eugene Volokh. During his lecture, Volokh said
that the term "diversity" is being used as a justification for race
preferences.

"All these people are after things different from diversity,
such as racial remedies or disproportional representation," Volokh
said. "There are people who believe in racial diversity … but
sometimes diversity is just something someone says in order to
justify race-conscious preferences."

Volokh also argued that preferences other than race should be
considered, such as religious affiliation, which could be another
way to achieve diversity.

The symposium did not conclude without some dissension. The
makeup of the panel, consisting predominantly of Caucasian males,
was targeted by some audience members as lacking different
viewpoints.

Additionally, several audience members said that the speakers
ignored gender preferences, instead focusing on race and racism.
The symposium’s coordinators maintained that two women speakers had
been invited, but for different reasons could not attend.

Other topics of the symposium included South African politics
and affirmative action, presented by Christopher Ford, a practicing
lawyer and author of several racial policy books. Yale law
Professor Ian Ayres discussed the benefits of a quota system.

Cited by many as the most moving part of the symposium was the
opening address by U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt.
He addressed the recent reversal of government policy on
affirmative action and the need for race and gender preference
policies to continue in the future.

"Is this country going to go backwards and turn back the clock,"
Reinhardt asked during his address. "Why are we outraged after our
history of slavery and intolerance? … (Affirmative action) is a
tool to help integrate our society that is too segregated, to do
what needs to be done."

FRED HE/Daily Bruin

Christopher Ford, a practicing lawyer and author of several
racial policy books, spoke at the symposium.

Comments to [email protected]