Court ruling stirs Prop. 209 debate

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of affirmative action last
Monday, citing a compelling need for racial diversity in American
education.

The Court, which had been looking at two separate cases dealing
with the University of Michigan, handed down a split decision. The
justices ruled 5-4 in favor of Michigan’s law school
admission process, which considered race to a limited degree, but
ruled 6-3 against Michigan’s undergraduate admissions policy
which, according to the Court, unconstitutionally favored
minorities.

The rulings implied that race can be a factor in the admission
process, but cannot be the overriding factor, such as it was at
Michigan’s undergraduate school. The university based
admissions on a 150-point scale, giving a 20-point advantage to
underrepresented minorities.

But in California, the Court’s decision has no immediate
or direct effect because of Proposition 209 ““ an amendment to
California’s constitution banning state agencies’ use
of affirmative action.

Yet despite the effects of Proposition 209, the Court’s
statement resounds throughout California, as pro- and
anti-affirmative action groups prepare to attack or protect the
amendment to California’s constitution.

Though the Supreme Court’s ruling permits the use of
affirmative action, it does not mandate that public or private
schools consider race when evaluating an applicant.

“The question is whether, down the road, it may alter the
terms of the debate as to whether Prop. 209 should be
repealed,” said UCLA Law Professor Clyde Spillenger.

If Prop. 209 is going to be stricken from the California
constitution, it has to leave the same way it came ““ by voter
approval.

According to numerous affirmative action groups ““ such as
the Americans for Democratic Action and By Any Means Necessary
““ the Supreme Court’s decision was a major victory
serving as a catalyst for bringing affirmative action back to the
UC.

“We are officially against 209. A coalition aimed at
taking that off the books is something the ADA will be involved
in,” said Susan Shannon, executive director of the Southern
California ADA chapter.

The ADA is not alone in its fight against Prop. 209. The day the
Court ruled on Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger ““
the individual cases in last week’s affirmative action ruling
““ BAMN released a statement praising the Court’s
decision as a start in the battle to implement affirmative action
in public universities around the country.

“Today’s decision opens the way to bring down
Proposition 209 in California,” the press release said.

But many conservative groups think that repealing Prop. 209 is a
liberals’ pipe dream.

“The majority of people still feel that people should be
judged according to merit and accomplishments,” said Justin
Jones, director of policy and planning for the American Civil
Rights Institute, a conservative group that has vehemently opposed
using race in college admissions.

He said if affirmative action supporters intend to use the
Supreme Court’s ruling as a catalyst to remove Prop. 209,
“they are in for a rude awakening.”

“They can try, but it’s not going to succeed, and we
will make damn sure of that,” he added.

The UC has been acting in accordance with Proposition 209, which
has applied to all state institutions since 1998.

When Proposition 209 took effect, the UC Regents had already
implemented a ban on affirmative action ““ Standing Policies 1
and 2. In a move that was little more than symbolic, SP-1 and -2
were repealed in 2001.

The day the Supreme Court recently ruled on affirmative action,
UC President Richard Atkinson applauded the decision, but nodded to
its limited affect on the UC.

“The University of California will continue to comply with
Proposition 209, and we will continue to work through other, legal
means to achieve excellence and diversity on our campuses,”
he said in a statement.

Catherine Lhamon, attorney for the American Civil Liberties
Union, said the legislation of Proposition 209 has not crippled the
UC in its goal to admit a representative student body.

“There are things the university can do to encourage
students of color and low-income students to come to the school
““ without engaging in affirmative action,” Lhamon
said.

One tool the university has used since 2002 is comprehensive
review ““ allowing the UC to evaluate a student with more
weight added to non-academic criteria. In addition to GPA and SAT
scores, comprehensive review considers academic accomplishments in
light of an applicant’s experiences and circumstances ““
including disabilities, disadvantaged social or educational
environment, and low family income.

But some have felt “experiences and circumstances”
is code for “underrepresented and minority,” wondering
if the university is lowering its admissions standards in
preference of minority applicants.

“”˜Comprehensive review’ de-emphasizes academic
qualifications … and favors more subjective criteria …
it’s clear in this case they are meant to serve largely as
proxies for race,” a Dec. 31, 2001 Wall Street Journal column
said.

In addition to the criticisms, Hanan Eisenman, the UC admissions
spokesman, said comprehensive review’s results “have
been mixed.”

At the macro-level, the university has succeeded in admitting
more underrepresented students systemwide. But at the micro-level,
admissions officers are telling a different story.

The same day the Supreme Court ruled on the University of
Michigan case, the UC reported a UC Berkeley and Princeton
University study investigating the correlation between affirmative
action and the number of qualified minority students who applied to
UC Berkeley, UC San Diego and UCLA.

Though the study found that the number of top minorities
applying to the UC’s most selective campuses has not declined
since affirmative action was banned in 1998, the number of black,
American Indian, and Latina/o students who have been admitted has
““ at UCLA, from 906 students in 1997 to 691 in 2002.

“(Proposition 209) puts us at a competitive
disadvantage,” said UC Regent Tom Sayles.

Sayles said the UC is losing top-minority students, not just to
prestigious out-of-state schools that by law can actively recruit
exceptional minority students, but also to private California
schools, such as Stanford and Pomona College, that use race-based
scholarships to lure students.

But for now, Sayles said, “(The regents) are committed to
increasing diversity at the University, while within the bounds of
209.”