Racial Privacy Initiative may further limit UC outreach

By Robert Salonga
Daily Bruin Staff

The University of California’s outreach effort prepares a
significant number of underrepresented students for college, but it
has raised questions about whether it is illegally favoring
minority populations in the state.

Existing state policy already forbids the UC from using racial
preferences, and a looming ballot initiative looks to make sure it
does not consider race in any other way, shape or form.

The issue came up at a meeting of the UC Outreach Advisory Board
““ consisting of various regents, university officials and
K-12 educators ““ on Tuesday in Kerckhoff Hall.

One of the main legal limitations on outreach to minority
communities is the 1996 ballot initiative Proposition 209, which
banned the use of affirmative action by state agencies.

Outreach could be further limited if the American Civil Rights
Coalition, headed by Regent Ward Connerly, successfully passes its
Racial Privacy Initiative, board members said. The RPI would
prevent many state-funded agencies ““ including UC admissions
offices and outreach ““ from collecting race-based data.

“We wouldn’t be able to track the students we are
working with, or identify if certain groups of students are doing
better than others,” said Student Regent Tracy Davis.

The initiative needs 670,816 signatures by April 19 in order to
appear on the November ballot. ACRC spokesman, Kevin Nguyen, would
not reveal the current tally, but said they are making decent
progress.

“We hope to have a million signatures to have a voting
cushion,” Nguyen said.

Regent Velma Montoya said no one can accurately predict the
effects of the RPI on outreach and the UC, or if it would even
pass.

“It’s too premature to say,” Montoya said.

As it stands, outreach is not in violation of Proposition 209 as
long as it does not specifically consider race in its outreach,
said UC attorney Christopher Patti.

“Right now, outreach is not based on race. It’s
correlated to race through other factors such as low income,”
Patti said.

The U.S. Supreme Court uses a test of “strict
scrutiny” whenever a government entity decides to use race in
hiring. Patti said race can be used to “advance a compelling
government interest” and must be “narrowly
tailored” to its purpose, but the court has not defined
“compelling.”

Arguments over the “compelling” provision surfaced
at the University of Michigan when plaintiffs accused its law
school and undergraduate admissions office of unfairly using race
in accepting applicants.

Michigan asserted that its interest was to improve diversity in
the classroom, but the district court ruled that this was not
“compelling” enough. The Sixth Circuit court of appeal
is reviewing the case.

The RPI clarifies the concept, banning racial classification
unless the state legislature “specifically determines that
said classification serves a compelling state interest.”

Existing compelling interests include medical research,
treatment, law enforcement and prison management, Nguyen said. He
added that racial data can be misused, such as the internment of
Japanese Americans during World War II, based on census
information.

But without this data, Davis said, the UC would be hard-pressed
to show outreach progress to the state, which funds about 30
percent of the UC budget.

“Legislators want to see that we provide outreach to all
groups,” she said. “Without asking these questions and
collecting data, we won’t know if we’re having success
in certain groups.”

The UC defended its affirmative action policies in a 1978
landmark Supreme court case. Allan Bakke sued the Regents after his
rejection from UC Davis medical school, claiming he was the victim
of a racial quota. Justice Lewis Powell broke a 4-4 tie,
reaffirming Bakke’s claim. Bakke went on to graduate from the
school.

Powell added, however, if a state benefit “hinges on
ancestry or the color of a person’s skin, that individual is
entitled to a demonstration that the challenged classification is
necessary to promote a substantial state interest.”

Patti said this means race can be used, but only “if used
in the right way.”

“The question is whether Powell’s decision is
binding precedent or the opinion of one justice,” Patti
said.

With reports from Sabrina Singhapattanapong, Daily Bruin
Contributor.