Proposed system distorts original aim

  Karren Lane Lane is the 2001-2002
Undergraduate Students Association Council President.

By Karren Lane

Over the past few months, there has been extensive discussion
around comprehensive review. However, the proponents and opponents
of the measure fail to address a critical fact. That fact being
that each University of California campus became engaged in
discussions around admissions reform as a direct result of the
repeal of SP-1, the measure that banned the use of affirmative
action in admissions at the UC.

In May of 2001, the UC Regents unanimously repealed SP-1 and
implemented RE-28, which charged each campus to review its
admission policy.

Therefore, we must examine comprehensive review within the
context of the struggle to repeal SP-1 and the broader struggle for
educational justice. SP-1 was engineered by former Gov. Pete Wilson
and conservative interests in the state to undermine equal access
to higher education for communities of color. The result of the
implementation of these policies devastated each UC campus
community.

During the six years of the policies existence, the numbers of
students of color admitted dropped nearly 60 percent at UCLA.
Students, community leaders and the State Assembly remained
critical of the UC because of its failure to serve underrepresented
communities as a land grant institution. The Regents deemed SP-1 a
bad policy because of the devastating conditions the policy
created. Therefore, the most important question that needs to be
asked while assessing the effectiveness of comprehensive review is
whether the manner in which comprehensive review is implemented
will correct the conditions that SP-1 created. More specifically,
will comprehensive review increase the number of underrepresented
students admitted into the UC?

The manner in which UCLA proposes to implement comprehensive
review distorts the very nature of the concept. While the idea of
comprehensive review emphasizes the holistic review of a student
based on a variety of factors, UCLA’s admission proposal
continues to place a gross emphasis on false indicators of academic
performance, namely standardized tests, AP courses and GPAs.

Secondly, the proposal affords a superficial consideration to
the realities of the educational system and the social experience
of communities of color. It has been proven by statistical evidence
that students of color disproportionately experience higher
drop-out rates, are served by a higher number of teachers without
credentials, are targeted for disciplinary action while in the
classroom, and are impacted by higher rates of unemployment, crime
and poverty.

Furthermore, these conditions cross class boundaries within
communities of color.

As an educational institution charged with the responsibility of
serving the Los Angeles community, it is not acceptable to continue
to develop admission criteria that does not take into consideration
the condition of the educational system that is producing UC
applicants.

UCLA’s proposal lacks the teeth needed to be considered
real admission reform because the Academic Senate excluded
community representatives from the discussion. It was the community
along with students who initiated the discussion through their
efforts to repeal SP-1, yet they were not included in the
discussion about how to correct the devastating impacts that SP-1
had on the campus and the greater community.

While students should support the idea of comprehensive review,
we must continue to challenge our university to fulfill its
responsibility to the Los Angeles community and its repeated
commitment to diversity. We must encourage the Academic Senate to
continue to engage in a real discussion about admissions that
include community and students. These discussions must face head on
the realities that students of color have been and continue to be
denied access to quality education, culturally relevant curriculum
and are impacted by continued institutionalized racism.

Lastly, the dire conditions in the Los Angeles community require
that we emphasize outcomes in those discussions. Symbolic policies
and legislation are of little comfort to the communities most
impacted by the injustices of the educational system. The struggle
for admission reform is far from complete, but we must remain
resilient in our efforts in order to ensure the self-determination
of all communities.