Affirmative action vital to equality at UCLA

Afzali is a second-year political science and history
student.

By Sameira Afzali
I view affirmative action, specifically the repeal of SP-1 and
SP-2, as an institutional acknowledgement that racism and sexism
still exist in the American society.

Sadly, UCLA has no problem advertising its false sense of a
multicultural community while many cultural groups struggle to be
heard on this campus. The main issue affirmative action should
address are the societal benefits of granting all students equal
opportunity.

American society considers equality its most precious ideal. We
are raised to believe that a strong work ethic can get you to the
top regardless of race or gender. Unfortunately, this is impossible
when the tools needed for achieving success are not available. UC
schools measure student’s aptitude with SAT scores and other
standardized tests.

Illustration by CLEMENT LAM/Daily Bruin Can we expect that all
students have the same access in preparing for these biased exams,
especially when considering that female students seem to have
historically performed poorly compared to males? Should we accept a
single test that has become a major business in the United States
to accurately measure traits necessary to succeed at UCLA such as
creativity, imagination and values?

The quality of education applicants received reflects
socioeconomic conditions. Not every student’s family has
access to an “extra” $1,000 in order to pay for SAT
prep classes. Not every student has access to AP classes. And not
every student should have to compete for the right to education
through the auctioning of spots in public institutions.

But I think the distribution of education quality reflects the
notion that academics are a limb of the American capitalist
machine. You cannot compare a high school in Beverly Hills to a
high school in East Los Angeles. Not all students have access to
computers, after-school tutoring and summer camps. Opportunities
are the luxury of the wealthy.

By educating members of less advantaged communities, we can in
fact ameliorate this condition. Furthermore, the progressives must
realize that accepting affirmative action is a sign that we should
all practice equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

Our university seems more willing to divest millions of dollars
in mutual funds than to fund ethnic studies and various
non-American history classes. I realize that there is a fear that
admitting students based solely on race will destroy UCLA’s
academic integrity.

A few weeks ago, Thomas Soteros-McNamara (“Drive
to repeal SP-1, 2 misunderstands contemporary UC,”
Viewpoint, Jan. 30) argued that the UC system is only looking to
protect its interests. But affirmative action was a part of the UC
system for three decades before SP-1, SP-2 and Proposition 209 were
instituted. Was the quality of education poorer when the UC was
admitting more minorities through affirmative action?

In 1970s, California passed several resolutions aimed at
speeding up diversity on UC campuses. Diversity on campus is
essential as we realize the value in understanding the perspectives
of people from different backgrounds. We need a multicultural
community to continue the heated arguments on BruinWalk, the
debates in our classrooms and the cultural events hosted by a
plethora of groups on campus.

All ethnic groups should be able to maintain a sense of ethnic
identity and this should be reflected in the admissions process and
in the courses the school offers. Affirmative action will make sure
that multiculturalism is no longer a banner but a reality at UCLA.
To say we can move toward equality without consideration of race
and gender is a farce.

We live in a very heterogeneous city, yet I notice that the
majority of professors on campus are Caucasian and male. I also
notice that the percentage of Black and Latino students on campus
has declined dramatically since 1997.

We still live in a discriminating society as well. There is no
tolerance for difference, although we try to ignore this by
participating in “ethnic” hip-hop, our Indian-inspired
dress patterns, and the occasional lunch at Panda Express or Baja
Fresh.

Students mock professors who have accents or who have
“funky” names. And yet we maintain the notion that
racists are only found in the South. We can never dispel racism and
preserve equality if only the “progressive folk”
Soteros-McNamara mentions are playing key roles in reforming
education. We must have diversity on campus in order to open
ourselves to the realities of life that exist outside middle
America. That is the only way we can get to the source, and then
remove the “crutch” known as affirmative action.

There are two issues that concern me in regards to affirmative
action that have not received much attention. Many Viewpoint
articles have neglected to point out that SP-1 and SP-2 also
condone discrimination against women and discrimination against the
invisible ethnic groups on campus. Women still need fair
consideration when applying to UC schools. Even though women may
have gained some equality in education, faculty and administrative
positions are still dominated by men.

What also concerns me is the absence of Middle Easterners in the
UC school system. According to UC Regents, Middle Easterners are
considered Caucasian. But Muslim Student Association, the Iranian
Student Group and the Arab student groups on campus haven’t
been recognized as equal counterparts to Anglo-Saxon
Protestants.

Americans still discriminate against the Middle Eastern
community in the hiring process and in educational institutions.
The only reason the Iranian community, for example, has been
successful in creating a niche in Los Angeles is due to the large
population of Iranians. Sadly, the treatment of Middle Easterners
in cities outside of LA is dire. They are not even considered
white; they are considered the cultural “Other.”

The UC system has destroyed our identity on campus by misplacing
us. When I walk down Bruin Walk, I can point out fellow Iranians. I
only wonder if we will continue to have any presence on campus if
we continue to hide behind the “white” box and are
unable to gauge our improvements to integrate in California’s
public education. Furthermore, this notion of filling ethnic groups
into the “Other” is arbitrary. Who decides what
ethnicities should be represented and what groups will remain
invisible? Is there a reason for this?

Don’t let the fears get the best of you. I know we are all
inherently concerned for our own well-being. But, as
Soteros-McNamara preaches we must “accept that a few must be
sacrificed for the sake of the many.” Don’t consider it
a sacrifice, because many of us fortunate enough were admitted to
more than one school. Let us celebrate multiculturalism in the
presence of diversity, not in memory of it.