Prop. 209 increases competition for minority employees

Wednesday, November 4, 1998

Prop. 209 increases competition for minority employees

INDUSTRY: Companies use diversity to serve needs of
community

By Zach Seal

On the eve of the third anniversary of the passage of
Proposition 209, minority high school seniors are finalizing their
lists of prospective colleges. No doubt they are staring at the
purple University of California application with the tiny, yet
terrifying portentous eight squares, each representing a decision
to apply to a UC school. And no doubt, these recruits are
contemplating the dwindling number of minority college students who
are walking the halls of UC campuses.

It was foreseeable that the approval of Proposition 209, which
would repeal the 1971 mandate that UCs institute a race-sensitive
admissions policy, would diminish the number of minority students
at UCs.

Nevertheless, the proposition became popular with many
Californians. As a state that lacks racial solidarity, Californians
argued, race-sensitive admissions standards only further exacerbate
the cleavage between whites and non-whites. Thus, Californians
approved Proposition 209 because it seemingly cultivates a
colorblind society by endorsing a colorblind admissions policy.

Last week, as UCLA professors conducted their first strike in
support of race-sensitive admission policies, contentious
discussion about the repercussions of Proposition 209 once again
abounded on campus. It is appropriate then, that Proposition 209,
which caught fire with California voters three years ago by
popularizing the catch-phrase "students should be evaluated on
merit only" would have its own merits evaluated.

Challengers of race-sensitive admissions argue that individual
merit should be the exclusive determinant in UC admissions.
Conversely, supporters of race-sensitive admission standards
usually defend their position by denouncing the use of merit as the
sole means of predicting high school students" future success and
worth to college campuses.

But it is no longer imperative that proponents of race-sensitive
admissions defend their point of view by suggesting that merit as
well as non-merit factors should be considered by UC admissions
personnel. Instead, advocates of race-sensitive admissions should
operate on the same premise as their adversaries: merit, and merit
alone, should determine acceptance into UCs. This stance is
effective because it doesn"t imply that "special" favors or
preferences need be furnished or apportioned for minorities.

This "merit only" stance is practical because minority status is
no longer a separate entity from merit.

Because of California"s increasingly diverse population,
businesses require from their employees not only education and
experience, but also the ability to relate to and persuade their
diverse customer base to buy their products.

Thus, if UCs aim to churn out college graduates who are
desirable in the job market, then UC admissions offices must
consider minority status as well as academic achievement.
Therefore, it is appropriate that UC admissions define merit as
grades and tests scores, extracurricular activities, the ability to
overcome adversity and minority status.

One must consider that in 1996, minorities and women purchased
$30 billion worth of consumer goods from the 500 largest US
companies, compared to $22 billion in 1990. This explains why the
California private business sector, which is not mandated by the
government to implement affirmative action programs, has increased
its outreach programs in order to locate skilled, educated minority
employees. Firms believe they can maximize profits if their
salespeople reflect the company"s multicultural customer base.

Professions also demand diversity. The American Medical
Association and the American Bar Association, for instance,
continue to inform UC schools that there is a lack of minority
lawyers and doctors to serve diverse communities across
America.

Minority lawyers, physicians, accountants, executives and school
teachers are such hot commodities in certain areas of the country,
that employers engage in bidding wars, pursuing the services of
professional minorities as if they were free agents in professional
sports.

In Detroit, for example, where only 2 percent of its school
teachers are African American males, prospective black male
teachers are enticed by schools who offer to pay for down payments
on homes and cars. Many cities in California are as ethnically
heterogeneous as some of Detroit. Consequently, many of
California"s companies try to lure minorities to come work for them
by offering such fringe benefits as a promise to pay off student
loans.

William Bowen and Derek Bok recently published "The Shape of the
River," the first comprehensive statistical analysis of affirmative
action over the past 30 years. They write that affirmative action
"was inspired by a recognition that the country had a pressing need
for well-educated black and Hispanic men and women who could accept
leadership roles in their communities" and that black and Hispanic
professionals, especially physicians, are more likely to practice
in minority neighborhoods.

Now that UCs have reinstituted race-neutral admissions
standards, will the number of minority UC graduates who serve
racially diverse communities lessen? It is likely the answer is
yes. Bowen and Bok"s statistical analysis of the effects of
affirmative action show that minorities who graduate from less
prestigious colleges are less likely than minorities who graduate
from more prestigious colleges to become prominent professionals,
businessmen or political or community service leaders.

Sadly, the number of minority students accepted to UCLA and
Berkeley dropped from 22.8 percent in 1997-98 to 12.9 percent in
1998-99, the first year race-neutral admission standards affected
the racial makeup of the UC student body.

California industries" demand for college educated minorities is
higher than ever before due to the metamorphosis of California"s
economy over the past thirty years. Technological advances such as
computers and machines have lessened the demand for physical
labor.

Hence, beginning in the 1970s, big businesses began to shift
their labor force from the manufacturing sector to the service
industry. As workers were displaced out of factories and into
offices, face-to-face interaction became the primary source of
customer relations in many American industries. This is why owners
of businesses all over the country ­ especially in California
­ are embracing diversity in hiring.

Businesses believe that minority employees, when compared to
non-minority employees, can more effectively pitch goods and
services to minority customers. This wisdom is grounded in
old-fashioned business sense: the more an employee can relate to
and empathize with the customer, the more likely it is that a sale
will be consummated.

By simply updating the antiquated definition of merit, advocates
of race-sensitive admissions can position themselves to support
affirmative action programs without injecting rhetoric such as
"racial preferences" and "special favors" into their dialogue.

In other words, by arguing that race-sensitive admission
policies are crucial to the advancement of our state"s economy,
proponents of race-sensitive admissions can incorporate the merit
only doctrine while still maintaining a foundation to argue in
favor of race-sensitive admissions standards.

Yes, merit should be the only criteria judged by UC admissions.
In today"s racially diverse business environment, employers often
value a college graduate"s minority status at the same level as his
or her education and work experience. Therefore, one"s academic
achievement and one"s status as an under-represented minority on a
UC campus both reflect merit.

Comments, feedback, problems?

© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]