Race inherently shapes society’s attitudes, actions

  Chris Diaz Diaz is a second-year
political science and Asian American studies student with a minor
in English. E-mail him at [email protected]. Click
Here for more articles by Chris Diaz

In Gratz v. Bollinger, Judge Patrick Duggan upheld the
constitutionality of the University of Michigan’s current
undergraduate admissions policy, which still considers race as
additional criteria during the selection for the university’s
incoming freshman classes.

Although Gratz v. Bollinger represents an obvious ruling in
favor of existing affirmative action programs, the University of
Michigan faces yet another challenge in the form of Grutter v.
Bollinger ““ the case currently challenging the University of
Michigan’s Law School race-sensitive admissions policy. As
illustrated in both court cases, the University of Michigan
continues to acknowledge the importance that exposure to other
races plays in the growth of all students.

Affirmative action programs such as the one at the University of
Michigan prevent our society from ignoring race and the persisting
inequalities created by historical discrimination. Here at the
University of California the scene is exactly opposite. The passage
of SP-1 and SP-2 ““ the policies that prevent the
consideration of race, gender or ethnicity in admissions and hiring
throughout the nine campus system ““ in 1995 by the UC Board
of Regents has led many individuals to perceive the UC system as
anti-minority and anti-diversity. In turn, this image has led many
students of color, offered admission, to enroll elsewhere,
weakening the racial diversity that campuses such as UCLA and
Berkeley were once admired for.

Although Proposition 209 may prevent affirmative action from
being fully implemented at the University of California, repealing
SP-1 and SP-2 would help improve the lack of racial diversity at
UCLA. It would act as a symbolic gesture and illustrate the
University of California’s commitment to civil rights and the
equal advancement of disadvantaged communities of color.

Many students at UCLA and elsewhere, however, disagree. They
contend that repealing SP-1 and SP-2 would be a step backward, not
forward, in the struggle for a more equal society. They say
allowing for the consideration of race in admissions and hiring
only perpetuates inequality by “reverse” discriminating
against better “qualified” individuals. They purport
that we need to operate under the guise of color-blindness to
ensure that future generations no longer feel the burden of racial
discrimination.

  Illustration by RODERICK ROXAS/Daily Bruin In addition,
opponents of race-based admissions argue that the very need for a
racially diverse student body and faculty has no educational
importance whatsoever to them; it signifies only superficial
diversity that doesn’t really add to the substantive
diversity on college campuses.

What these people fail to accept is that race itself represents
a socially constructed characteristic, which was institutionalized
at our nation’s birth and consistently reinforced throughout
its development. A quick examination of our history illustrates
this fact: we have written texts and court rulings such as the
three-fifths clause in the Constitution, the Chinese Exclusionary
Act and Plessy v. Ferguson that added to the institutionalization
of the subordination of colored communities.

Even our modern-day educational system ““ which tends to
highlight the history and development from a Eurocentric point of
view ““ continues to implicitly teach our youth that the
progress of “other” races is not equally important as
those descended from Europe. The lack of education relevant to all
communities is one of many examples of how our system still subtly
operates under preferences.

Clearly, those arguing that race no longer affects an
individual’s success succumb to the fallacy that our society
is capable of operating without such racial biases. How can this be
true when racial biases are inherent in the nature of our social
institutions?

Although we have progressed greatly since the 1960s, current
mistreatment of ethnic groups, either through racial profiling by
the police or through derogatory portrayals of emasculated Asian
males in the media, illustrate that we have not yet overcome our
nation’s legacy of racial discrimination. Race continues to
influence everyone, and play a role in the personal growth of the
individual regardless of what one may choose to believe. Pretending
skin color no longer carries with it additional burdens or
challenges prevents us from resolving the racial issues that
constantly permeate our everyday existence.

Because race continues to play an integral role in the way we
define ourselves, or the way others view us, it ultimately shapes
our character and perspective. Many who claim that racial diversity
does not contribute to true substantive diversity forget this very
fact. Race goes beyond the superficial nature of our skin, it
affects us greatly as human beings and becomes manifested in how we
deal with certain situations or interpret the ideas passed onto us
in class. This is extremely important to the issue at hand. If we
understand that race intrinsically shapes our belief system, then
the physical presence of minorities on campus will not only make
sense, it will offer a unique perspective.

With that in mind, the consideration of race in admissions and
hiring isn’t necessarily to “right the wrongs” of
historical discrimination. Although it would be an added benefit,
race-sensitive policies are not necessarily established to create
some form of proportional representation or give entitlement to a
historically disadvantaged ethnic group.

The entire point of considering race in admissions and hiring is
to validate the existence of historical and present-day
discrimination. Doing so illustrates that we accept that the life
experience of a minority ““ in a social framework inherently
biased against them ““ affects the development of that
specific person. It signifies that we understand how their life
experience results in the formation of a unique perspective and
emphasizes how we consider such a unique perspective equally
important in a high quality education.

With decreasing minority matriculates and a paucity of racial
diversity at the two University of California flagship campuses,
many have demanded that the UC Board of Regents take a more
realistic stance on the issue of race and affirmative action
programs. The repeal of SP-1 and SP-2 would be a validation of
historical and modern-day discrimination as well as a sign that the
University of California regards racial diversity integral to the
educational experience. Although it won’t directly bring back
affirmative action, the repeal would illustrate a commitment to
bringing back the strong racial diversity all our campuses once
had.

Our nation’s history is replete with situations in which
those in power used race as a means of excluding or subordinating;
and, as a result, continual inequalities may be traced back to
institutional roots. The failure to recognize the fact that all
institutional origins of inequality have not yet been completely
dismantled avoids one of our society’s biggest defects.

SP-1 and SP-2 represent a growing national problem stigmatizing
affirmative action programs as unjust; they only assist in further
institutionalizing racial inequalities throughout higher education
and employment. When we ignore this problem and encourage the
leaders of our institutions of higher education to follow suit, we
see the direct effects: a lack of physical presence of historically
discriminated communities of color on campus, and, in the end, a
lack of their voice.