Affirmative action still needed to help minorities

I disagree with almost everything Garin Hovannisian said in the
column “Affirmative action hurts minorities” (Nov. 5).
It is my responsibility to point out a few of the flaws in
Hovannisian’s argument and to respond to some of his more
insulting claims.

I find it extremely ironic that he would start his column with
an anecdote about how he found equality and justice at a stop light
across the street from UCLA and not in class or simply walking
around campus.

Hovannisian starts his argument by claiming that more black
people rose out of poverty between 1940 and 1960 than during the 40
years this country has had affirmative action policies. He tries to
use this fact to condemn affirmative action.

Here is the problem with that line of reasoning: Correlation
does not equal causation. That more blacks rose out of poverty
prior to affirmative action does not mean that affirmative action
keeps blacks from climbing the economic ladder. In fact, a simple
analysis of history shows that the entire country went through an
economic boom between 1940 and 1960 and an economic slump between
1970 and 1990. These are the factors that caused the rise and fall
of black poverty ““ not affirmative action.

Furthermore, affirmative action was not designed to raise blacks
out of poverty. It sought to accomplish two goals: first, to ensure
that qualified minority applicants would not be covertly
discriminated against in hiring and admissions practices; and
second, to acknowledge that American economic and social systems
have been and are racially unequal in distributing resources
““ and to take active steps in changing this fact.

Affirmative action policies were very successful in achieving
both goals. As a result, the only way anyone can justify ending
affirmative action policies is to argue that both of these two
goals are outdated. I will concede for the purpose of goodwill that
the first goal might be a little archaic, but there is evidence to
prove that the second goal is far from being accomplished. We need
only look at the number of students attending UCLA to demonstrate
that there is an inequitable distribution of resources. There are
24,000 undergrads and only 921 black students.

One of the more insulting claims that Hovannisian made was that
“Proposition 209 has had a positive impact on minorities. By
matching their abilities with the standards of their college, it
has allowed minorities to compete and thrive.”

To prove this point, he cites that the number of black freshmen
at UC San Diego with a 3.5 GPA rose from one person to 20 percent
in the wake of Proposition 209. He inferred that the reason the
number was so low during affirmative action was that all the
students who could compete at UC San Diego were
“foolishly” admitted to UC Berkeley or UCLA.

I do not even know where to start with this flawed argument.
First of all, he is assuming that you can determine a
student’s readiness for college based on his GPA and SAT
scores. Yet, a student’s GPA is more of a reflection of the
amount of Advanced Placement and honors classes offered at school
than his actual ability. Many of the schools that do not offer a
variety of AP courses are ones which blacks and Latinos attend
““ which goes back to the inequitable distribution of
resources.

I am sure that Hovannisian does not want to commit himself to
the argument that having a 3.5 GPA as a freshman is a viable
determinant of whether you are able to compete in college.

As far as SAT scores are concerned, statistics show that
socioeconomic status is a better predictor of college success than
most standardized tests. Even the writers of the SAT admit that
using strict score scales instead of broad ranges is the wrong way
to determine qualification.

Consider this, one of the major reasons why minority admissions
has dropped at UCLA and Berkeley is not simply that qualified and
competitive applicants have dropped off; it is that they decide to
attend other schools.

Imagine if I were a black student with a GPA above 4.0 and a SAT
score above 1300 ““ which happen to be the average numbers of
a freshman at UCLA. I would be going to Stanford, Yale, Harvard or
Princeton ““ not UCLA.

There was a time during affirmative action when UCLA could
attract these students by claiming that we had a more welcoming
environment, but if I am going to be the only black person in most
of my classes, I might as well go to the Ivy League.

Turner is a Class of 2003 UCLA alumnus.