Affirmative action aims to fight disadvantage

The affirmative action debate is a very complex issue that
requires careful analysis of concepts like privilege (i.e. white
privilege), educational inequity, meritocracy and access to higher
education. A thorough understanding of these concepts, and of the
current conditions of our society, is a critical part of the debate
which everyone should seek to understand.

In addition, an acknowledgement that our perspectives on
sensitive issues like affirmative action are shaped by our own
unique experiences is also a crucial aspect. In other words, those
who have experienced oppression (i.e. sexism, racism, homophobia,
etc.) are likely to have different opinions on affirmative action
than those who have grown up with privilege (i.e. white privilege,
male privilege, class privilege, etc.).

When seeking out a position on affirmative action, you should
ask yourself if you are a beneficiary of any of these privileges.
If you conclude that you are, and have previously taken a stance
against affirmative action, then maybe it’s time for you to
reconsider your position. Isn’t it hypocritical to oppose
affirmative action if you have recognized you are at an advantage
simply because you happen to be white, socioeconomically advantaged
and/or a male ““ especially if you claim affirmative action
grants privileges to non-whites and females?

When affirmative action programs ended in California with
Proposition 209, the state decided to throw underrepresented
students a bone: Race could no longer be a factor in admissions,
but funding for outreach would be increased. Projects such as
UCLA’s Student Initiated Outreach Center were born out of
this newly “opened door.”

The state acknowledged that the inherent inequities present in
our public school system put students of color at a disadvantage,
and outreach, instead of affirmative action, would be the means for
remedying that inequality. While outreach is vital to diversity,
there lies an inherent hypocrisy in this “bone:” not
only have the numbers remained disproportionately low for students
of color, but now funding for outreach has been cut by 50 percent.
After taking away affirmative action, the state has now essentially
taken away one of our greatest tools to aid disadvantaged students
post-affirmative action.

Another “bone” thrown out to appease affirmative
action proponents was the Comprehensive Review admissions policy.
Under this policy, each applicant is evaluated holistically ““
life experiences and hardships are given weight. Not only does the
Comprehensive Review implemented by the University of California
look nothing like the one proposed by students, it comes up short
because, in essence, it ignores an undeniable truth ““ race
continues to be a factor in access to education.

The irony of Comprehensive Review is that it recognizes the
disadvantage of some students while failing to do the same for the
privilege of other students. In the meantime, access continues to
be denied to many underrepresented students of color.

For example, while the number of Latina/os admitted to the UCs
as a whole has increased, their representation at the flagship
schools of Berkeley and Los Angeles remain below pre-209 levels.
Furthermore, the number of black and American Indian students both
UC-wide and at the flagship campuses also continue to remain
substantially lower than pre-209 days, even though the number of
students from these respective communities have increased
throughout California’s public K-12 school system. In
essence, our public system of higher education is
resegregating.

Women and people of color from Latina/o, African American,
Southeast Asian and Asian Pacific Islander backgrounds are examples
of communities that have been historically disadvantaged members of
our society. Oppression is a reality we all must accept and
struggle against. But this acknowledgement alone is a difficult
task and requires people to be open-minded and willing to shape and
reshape their perspectives.

Let’s wake up and realize affirmative action does not
grant any preferential treatment to women and people of color
““ it merely recognizes the disadvantage at which they are
placed.

Salazar and Lopez are fourth-year political science
students.