Students should lobby for repeal of SP-1, SP-2 mea

By Beth Caldwell

In a recent town hall meeting organized by the Undergraduate
Students Association Council and the Graduate Students Association,
Chancellor Albert Carnesale answered questions from the UCLA
student body. Many of the questions focused on recent hate crimes
on campus, the need for a general education ethnic/sexuality/gender
studies requirement and the lack of diversity that has resulted
from the loss of affirmative action.

During the meeting, I asked Chancellor Carnesale if he would
support the repeal of SP-1 by making a presentation at the next
meeting of the UC Board of Regents, detailing the disastrous
consequences the loss of affirmative action has had on the UCLA
community and the quality of education at this university. The
chancellor said that he would not do so, despite the fact that he
does not support SP-1. We did not have an adequate opportunity to
discuss this issue in great detail at the meeting, so I wrote to
Carnesale to further articulate some of the reasons for which I
believe it is critical that SP-1 and SP-2 be repealed. I would like
to share some of these thoughts with the student body as well.

Chancellor Carnesale said that he believed making such a
presentation could jeopardize money that the regents have allocated
to outreach. I find his concern that the regents would actually
withhold outreach money in retaliation for his advocating the
repeal of SP-1 to be quite disturbing.

In Section 9 of SP-1, the regents adopted the following
statement: “Because individual members of all of
California’s diverse races have the intelligence and capacity
to succeed at the University if California, this policy will
achieve a UC population that reflects this state’s diversity
through the preparation and empowerment of all students in this
state to succeed rather than through a system of artificial
preferences.”

The chancellor’s concern that the regents would withhold
outreach money if they were lobbied to repeal SP-1 and SP-2
indicates that their commitment to “achiev(ing) a UC
population that reflects this state’s diversity” is not
very strong. If they were committed, they would continue to
implement such “preparation and empowerment” programs
until all students receive equal educational opportunities, from
preschool through college.

It is undisputed that there are vast disparities in the quality
and funding opportunities for American youth, and students who
attend schools in low-income communities of color suffer the most
from the inadequacies of our educational system. Until the time
when all children have equal social, employment and educational
opportunities, measures such as SP-1 and SP-2, which eliminate
consideration based on race or ethnicity, are premature.

At the town hall meeting, Carnesale also stated that the repeal
of SP-1 would be merely symbolic because the law of Proposition
209, the 1996 state ballot measure banning affirmative action, is
the governing authority. But symbolic statements often have a
strong political influence and can bring about social change.
Repealing

SP-1 and SP-2 would also have practical results.

The repeal of SP-1 and SP-2 would be a strong public statement.
It would be an acceptance of personal responsibility for the
disastrous consequences the regents have brought upon the
University of California system and would be a public
acknowledgement of their mistake. It would inform the public that
the loss of affirmative action has greatly reduced the quality of
education that the UC system provides and that the drastic drop in
the numbers of underrepresented students of color is
unacceptable.

Furthermore, if the legal challenge to Proposition 209 is still
in the courts, the regents’ repeal SP-1 and SP-2 could
contribute to a political climate in which Proposition 209 would be
more likely to be defeated.

As was mentioned during the town hall meeting, repealing SP-1
and SP-2 would be the best kind of outreach the UC system could do.
Following the passage of SP-1, the number of applications from
underrepresented people of color dropped.

Repealing SP-1 would show a commitment to diversity on the part
of the UC system, encouraging more students from underrepresented
groups to apply and to accept admissions offers. Repealing SP-2
would likely have a similar effect on recruiting faculty. The
repeal of SP-1 would also allow for outreach to be more race
conscious, in an effort to increase the diversity of the UC
applicant pool.

The restrictions imposed by SP-1 are not exactly the same as
those of Proposition 209, and SP-1 can be interpreted to be more
restrictive than 209. SP-1 explicitly states that race cannot be
considered in admissions. Proposition 209 states that preferential
treatment may not be given based on race. With the elimination of
SP-1, the UC system could act under a narrow interpretation of
Proposition 209, such as that relied upon by Sacramento Superior
Court Judge Lloyd Connelly, who upheld three California state
affirmative action programs in November 1998.

The decision of the regents to implement SP-1 and SP-2 was
directly influenced by then-Gov. Pete Wilson, and as Regent Judith
Levin admitted after a debate about whether to rescind SP-1 and
SP-2 in 1996, “the long-standing tradition of shared
governance, the deliberative process, was ignored when we passed
SP-1 and 2. We failed to thoroughly consult with those who are the
essence and the very core of this university, those who interact
most directly and consistently with (the students).”

The regents, in the words of UC Professor Charles Schwartz,
“being commanded by the governor’s office,”
ignored faculty input in the decision and created a “state of
war” between the UC faculty and the regents. Given that the
actions the regents took in passing SP-1 and

SP-2 lacked student and faculty input, it is extremely important
that they be held accountable for the effect their decision has had
on students and faculty.

We are suffering the consequences of the loss of affirmative
action, and it should be the duty of our chancellor to inform the
regents of the crisis on the UCLA campus due to this loss.
Chancellor Carnesale’s failure to speak out against SP-1 and
SP-2 indicates an acceptance of the current crisis and sends the
message that UCLA is functioning as it should be. Alumni, students,
faculty, politicians and community members acknowledge that the
current admissions situation at UCLA is racially discriminatory and
is unacceptable.

In my letter to Chancellor Carnesale, I asked him once again if
he would make a presentation at the next meeting of the UC Board of
Regents (which will be here at UCLA) detailing the detrimental
effects that SP-1 and SP-2 have had on UCLA. I urge other students,
faculty, staff, alumni and community members to similarly lobby the
chancellor to communicate the harm

SP-1 and SP-2 have brought to this campus at the next meeting of
the Board of Regents.