Important evaluative tool denied to UCs

Tuesday, April 21, 1998

Important evaluative tool denied to UCs

LEADERSHIP: Affirmative action needed to enhance university’s
environment

By Anna Wang

Our backs are against the wall. With the dramatic plunge in
admissions rates for African American and Latino/a students, many
current UCLA students are rightfully feeling threatened. What kind
of university has UCLA become?

With the university’s failure to publicly depart from the
official line, we find ourselves with little recourse but mass
protest.

Thursday’s protest is probably one of many to come. The fear of
further reductions in the admission of students from
underrepresented groups haunt me and many others. We cannot sit
back and watch our university revert to the days of the pre-civil
rights era.

Some may wonder why I take these admissions numbers so
personally since I am a woman of Asian descent. After all, my
racial group is almost a majority on campus and it is certainly one
of the larger constituencies here. In addition, the mass media and
many of the opponents of affirmative action delight in championing
the rights of Asian Pacific Islander students in the heated
discussions surrounding the anti-affirmative action movement.

The generally accepted story seemed to be that it was mainly
Asian Pacific Islander students who were the losers because of
affirmative action. This is poorly supported rhetoric that has
distorted the discussion and moved it from one of rational debate
to an emotional confrontation rife with resentment. Some Asian
Pacific Islanders have bought this argument and succumbed to the
"divide-and-conquer" strategy that pits people of color against one
another. It is ignorance of our shared history that has led to
this. The failure of mainstream academia to educate all students on
American history – that of groups other than the primarily
European-descended, male elite – has contributed to the
polarization of some extreme elements of our population and
perpetuation of false stereotypes.

Throughout the battle against Proposition 209, as we walked
precincts and conducted voter education campaigns, I found myself
repeatedly explaining to puzzled strangers why I support
affirmative action. I felt the pressure to deconstruct the false
images of Asian Pacific Islanders that had been promoted in the
mass media. In addition, I saw how Asian Pacific Islander groups
that support affirmative action were conveniently ignored during
the discussion of Proposition 209 in favor of maintaining this
image. We had little opportunity to challenge these images except
on a small, localized level.

Supporters of Proposition 209, including UC Regent Ward
Connerly, used Asian Pacific Islander students as a wedge to divert
attention from the real issues. This debate is about access to a
valuable resource – a university education. A university is not
just a stepping stone to the middle class. It is intended to be an
environment where one is challenged on both an intellectual and
social level. Here we are faced with situations that conflict with
the ideas and lessons we grew up with. In this setting, we face
issues that we may have previously been sheltered from.

In the university setting, affirmative action seeks to admit
qualified students from a range of different backgrounds, further
enhancing this academic and social environment. The question at the
center of this controversy has almost always been one that asks
what the standards are in determining a candidate’s
qualifications.

It’s commonly accepted, even by admissions officers, that SAT
scores can be artificially increased with the help of expensive
preparation courses. So how can we use this as an indicator of
one’s ability to succeed in college? Doesn’t it say more about
one’s socioeconomic background? I won’t even begin to discuss the
implications of race and gender bias in the SAT.

I think we all know that the college admissions process is never
completely fair. There is a problem of supply and demand that
doesn’t require an economics degree to comprehend. The fact is that
more people apply than can be accepted due to limited resources. So
how do admissions officers evaluate thousands of students from so
many different schools and backgrounds? Ideally, these guardians to
the gates of higher education will use every available means at
their disposal.

So then I must ask, why are we crippling our admissions office
by removing a tool with which it can evaluate candidates? By
arbitrarily tying the hands of our admissions officers in
prohibiting the consideration of race and gender, we are depriving
them of every tool possible by which they can assess candidates.
Race, class and gender are all significant aspects of our public
identities, consequently affecting our lives. Thus, candidates need
to be evaluated in context, with consideration of all factors that
have influenced an individual’s life experiences.

I believe Proposition 209 was a poorly worded document that
relied on manipulation and misinterpretation to dupe the voters of
California. The phrase "affirmative action" has been stigmatized by
the misrepresentation perpetuated by its opponents. Affirmative
action does not utilize quotas. Few people are supporters of
arbitrary quotas. I have never been an advocate of quotas and never
will be. But I will always be in favor of thoughtful consideration
of all factors before making important decisions. This is something
the voters of California have mistakenly stripped from our college
admissions officers.

So it remains a challenge for us to ensure the diversity of
opinions and experiences on this campus. The students, faculty and
administration of this campus face a formidable task. We need
leadership to move us toward realistic solutions. The question
remains, who will be that leader?