Standing policies have led to drop in minority admittance

Pascual is a fifth-year economics student with a minor in public
policy. He currently serves as the president of Samahang
Pilipino.

By Merrick Pascual

On March 15, 2001, the University of California Regents will be
returning to UCLA faced with the looming issue of a possible revote
of SP-1 and SP-2. With the passage of SP-1 in 1995, the regents
established the Outreach Task Force to assure that the university
is accessible to students of diverse backgrounds. As specified in
SP-1, the task force is there “to develop proposals for new
direction and increased funding for the Board of Regents to
increase the eligibility rates of those disadvantaged economically
or in terms of their social environment.”

To this date, the money of millions of taxpayers has been spent
on university outreach programs which have yet to produce an
increase in minority enrollment. Currently, there is an established
statewide Affirmative Action Coalition at all UCs addressing the
drop in minority enrollment with our current campaign to repeal
SP-1 and SP-2.

There is often a perception that affirmative action only grants
increased representation for certain communities. Among these
communities, many fail to mention Asians because of their failure
to recognize the diverse communities that comprise this racial
classification, in particular, Pilipinos. Because of our
classification as Asians, Pilipinos have actually been victims of a
multitude of policies.

When Pilipinos were taken off affirmative action in 1988, the
university continued the trend of repressive policies that have
denied us equal access into institutions of higher education. Our
numbers significantly dropped and vital resources were taken away
from Pilipinos because we were no longer considered an
“underrepresented” group. The year after the passage of
SP-1 and SP-2, the number of Pilipinos admitted into UCLA from the
applicant pool dropped 15.9 percent. Since the entering class of
fall 1996, the number of applications has increased by almost 300,
while the number of admits has at best, remained stagnant.

For the past four years, Pilipinos have had the highest GPA (an
average of 4.18) among all ethnic groups for undergraduate
applicants along with competitive SAT scores. Despite this fact,
there has not been a correlated increase in the number of Pilipinos
admitted into UCLA. This past fall, only 21.4 percent of the total
number of Pilipino applicants (357 of 1,668) were admitted,
according to the UCLA Office of Academic Planning and Budget
(www.apb.ucla.edu).

This was second only to African Americans, who had the lowest
percentage of admits (21.1 percent) within their ethnic pool. It is
evident that Pilipinos have displayed the ability to excel at
institutions of higher education; the number of Pilipino students
admitted to UCLA, however, does not reflect that fact.

These statistics prove the negligence of our struggles to gain
access into the flagship schools in the UC system and validates the
increasing disparity between the number of Pilipinos at UCLA and
the continued growth of the Pilipino population in California. The
ratio of whites to Pilipinos admitted to UCLA is roughly 10:1. This
clearly shows the increasing disparity between the number of
Pilipinos at UCLA and the continued growth of the Pilipino
population in California.

According to the U.S. Census, Pilipinos are the largest
“Asian American” minority group in California. In the
fall of 2000, undergraduate Pilipinos represented nine percent of
the Asians admitted to UCLA while the number of Asians totaled
4,035. Although some may not consider Asians an underrepresented
group, it is important to deconstruct the model minority myth that
has been a social construct created by America.

Ethnic subgroups that are comprised in society’s
classification of Asians have major differences in culture and with
the struggles that they have historically faced. Although these
struggles and similarities can be connected, it is vital that we
also recognize the differences in experiences among these ethnic
groups.

Specifically, the Philippines is a developing nation whose
biggest export is human labor. These exports which are exploited by
a multitude of U.S. corporations, limit the opportunities of the
people in the Philippines. Therefore, knowing that the Philippines
was a once commonwealth of the United States, along with the
American influence brought through colonial rule, it caused the
surge of immigrants to America in search of economic refuge.

But because of the inequalities in our educational system,
Pilipinos are just one of the many communities that have been
victimized by the policies which continue to limit our pursuit of
higher education, personal growth and economic opportunities. So
how can justice exist when institutions of higher education deny
underrepresented communities the basic right of access to
education?

These facts create a grim future for Pilipino representation at
the institutional and academic levels. Opportunity has been
diminished due to the implementation of SP-1 and SP-2. This will
serve as a correlation to the decrease in our presence at
institutions of higher education as students and professors.

Our invisibility at these institutions of higher education has
only validated our growing conviction that UCLA is not interested
in providing the educational services necessary for the
socioeconomic growth in our communities.

The UC Regents have already been responsible for creating an
institutional roadblock for Pilipinos, white women and other
underrepresented communities of color in their quest to achieve
equal access at the flagship schools of the UC system. We have felt
firsthand the effects of SP-1 and SP-2, as victims of their
decision more than five years ago. We can no longer stand to exist
at an institution that prides itself in its efforts to promote
racial diversity, but neglects to mention that their plan does not
include Pilipinos. Our population continues to decline to the point
of virtual nonexistence.

Therefore, we recommend and call upon the regents to repeal SP-1
and SP-2, for they have had detrimental effects on the Pilipino
population seeking access to institutions of higher education.
Justice will never be attained if the regents continue to uphold
SP-1 and SP-2, for it has denied underrepresented communities the
basic right of access to education.