Prop. 209 doesn’t deserve compliance

Friday, April 17, 1998

Prop. 209 doesn’t deserve compliance

UCLA should lead by example, refuse to adhere to law

By Noluthando L. Williams

Recently, we have all been hit with the not-so-surprising, but
nevertheless unacceptable, statistics on admission rates for people
of color at UCLA. I am outraged at the decline, particularly as it
pertains to my African community.

When these statistics came out I felt a lot of things, but
shocked was not one of them. At first, I toyed with the idea of
pushing for an intricate re-evaluation and redefinition of
admissions policies. I thought to myself, there must be other
applicable categories which can be taken into consideration when my
brothers and sisters apply, so there must be a way to work within
the law. But there isn’t. Period. Let me explain a few reasons why
this is the reality we are facing.

First of all, when Proposition 209 eliminated affirmative
action, it eliminated the consideration of blatant – as well as
institutionalized – racism as challenges that students of color
must overcome during their preparation for a university education.
It did not, however, eliminate other criteria which are considered,
such as socioeconomic status. For this reason, the population of
students admitted – offensively small as it may be – consists
largely of those outstanding students of color from disadvantaged
backgrounds. How? Why?

This is because, if the choice must be made between two students
with identical GPAs, test scores and other achievements, the
student from a school with fewer AP classes and few or no textbooks
and a disadvantaged economic background will be chosen. Obviously
this student had to work three times as hard with half of the
resources than the student from a middle-class or privileged
background, or one who came from a school where the quality of
education is higher. Clearly, this is fair.

On the other hand, when the choice has to be made between two
students with identical test scores, GPAs, personal achievements,
economic backgrounds and high schools, a choice must be made at the
university’s discretion. This is crucial. If one student is black,
African American, Afro-American, Afro-Caribbean or Continental
African, for example, and the other student is, perhaps white or
Asian, nine times out of 10, the latter student is admitted.

Yes, this is key, because while Proposition 209 eliminated the
consideration of blatant and institutionalized racism as challenges
that students of color must overcome during their preparation for a
university education, it did not eliminate blatant or
institutionalized racism as they exist in our society today. Thus,
while our middle-class brothers and sisters (who, by the way, are
the historical majority for students of color at UCLA) still have
to deal with the dehumanizing reality of racism and must work
harder to achieve academic success, they are not recognized as
having to do so. Consequently, they are more vulnerable to legal,
systematic exclusion.

Certainly admissions rates for African students prove this
reality. If you were an academic administrator and you had to
choose between Kevin Wong, Brad Higgenbauer and LeRoy Jenkings, who
would you choose to enjoy the privileges and priceless
opportunities available at your institution? Who would you think
had the best chance of bringing great fame, money and prestige to
your university by making a brilliant contribution to society after
earning a degree with your institution’s name on it? Be honest.

This, among a few other key reasons, is why Proposition 209 must
not be enforced on this campus. It is not so ridiculous to call for
the re-implementation of affirmative action and non-compliance with
Proposition 209 at UCLA.

Proposition 209 is only a law, and laws are only meaningful when
they are honored and respected. This is why we, the people, are so
powerful. At one time slavery was the law in this country. To help
slaves escape from the South to the North was illegal; it was
breaking the law. Many people, such as Leonard A. Grimes, Jacob R.
Gibbs, J. Miller McKimm, Robert Purvis, Passmore Williamson,
Gerritt Smith and Theodosia Gilbert, broke this law. All of them
were, in some way or another, connected to the Underground Railroad
– a very illegal network for such a time. And all of them, in their
influential positions, operated under the leadership and in support
of African American leaders such as Frederick Douglass, Hiram
Wilson, J.W. Loguen, Stephen Meyers and David Ruggles. The laws
against transporting "fugitive" slaves from the South to the North
were not obeyed by these individuals. Today, however, these
law-breakers are not seen as criminals, but as heroes.

I am calling for non-compliance with Proposition 209 on this
campus. Let us set the example for the rest of the state and the
nation to follow. Each of you must urge the chancellor and his
administrators not to honor such a heinous law on this campus and
to re-implement affirmative action at UCLA – no matter what the
costs.

I am committed to this becoming the reality, so prepare
yourselves for the same. I cannot accept Proposition 209 as the
law, so I am challenging the value of its very existence. Brothers
and sisters, the law put in place by Proposition 209 means nothing
to me.

Let us put pressure on Chancellor Carnesale and his
administrators to ensure that Proposition 209 will mean nothing to
our communities, either. Our power, combined with the forces which
support us, is immensely strong, influential and effective. Nothing
in me doubts this – nothing.

It is necessary to put this power to use – now.