A modest proposal for an immodest proposition
By Jed Levine
Oct. 9, 2006 9:00 p.m.
Over a hundred students gathered in Meyerhoff Park last week to
express discontent with the University of California admissions
policy.
Protestors chanted such slogans as, “UC Regents, I see
racists,” and criticized UCLA for not doing enough to
increase diversity.
But they missed the point entirely.
Why focus on the “racist” UC Board of Regents? Why
go after something so cliche as “The Man”?
Related Stories
If you’re going to blame anyone, I say we blame the
Asians.
I empathize with members of the Black Student Union and MEChA
who spoke at the rally. As a fellow underrepresented minority at
UCLA, I agree that it’s hard to find other white people I can
identify with on a campus that feels more like Taipei than L.A.
Yes, white people are an underrepresented minority here at UCLA;
while they make up 44 percent of the California population, white
students only constitute 34 percent of UCLA’s student
population.
Asian-Americans, on the other hand, make up only 12 percent of
the state of California and 38 percent of UCLA students.
That’s 300 percent over-representation: Welcome to
UCLAsian.
I agree with the chair of MEChA that the UC Regents are using
unfair means to admit UC students. Using grades and test scores as
a measure of academic success is clearly just a way to show
preference to Asian-American students, who are better at both, and
thus promote the status quo.
Why else would they focus on such erroneous admissions criteria
as grades and test scores?
What is this, an academic institution? I certainly hope not.
Fortunately, last week’s rally has given us a chance to
dwell on the critical topic of affirmative action ““ the
practice of using race in university admissions.
Some might point to socio-economic inequality and the poor state
of California’s inner-city schools as key parts of the larger
problem, and that low numbers of white, black and Latino students
are simply a symptom of these larger issues.
By fixing these inequalities, they say, we can change the
dynamics of our society and increase minority enrollment.
But these people are wrong. Affirmative action makes sense,
because, as any pre-med will tell you, treat the symptom, not the
disease.
How can we fix this gross inequality and make sure that UCLA
better reflects the racial makeup of California? How can we curb
the Asian invasion?
Considering that Proposition 209, passed by California voters in
1996, effectively banned any form of affirmative action at the UC,
you might think this would be a tough feat.
According to speakers at last week’s rally, the only thing
standing in our way ““ aside from Prop. 209 ““ is those
racists running this sham of a social experiment that we call the
University of California.
Still, we have an excellent opportunity to reform the admissions
process to benefit underrepresented minorities without violating
Prop. 209 and directly using race.
For example, we could easily decipher potential Asian-American
applicants by checking what student groups they are involved in,
such as Asian cultural organizations or Key Club.
I hear some liberal arts colleges accept head shots from
applicants, and I think a similar program at UCLA would be
monumentally successful at helping us weed out the young Maos and
Kim Jongs from potential Mandelas, Lincolns and Estefans.
By keeping the Asian-American student numbers under control and
more accurate to their representation in California, we can free up
26 percent of the student body for members of underrepresented
groups.
The result is a win-win situation: fewer rolling backpacks, more
diversity.
These overflow Asians could then be funneled into a new UC
campus where they can be free to explore their identities. Indeed
the UC system has a brand new campus that fits the bill
perfectly.
Say hello to the UC Merced Pandas.
Some might accuse the BSU and MEChA of wasting their time
kicking a dead horse by supporting an idea that California voters
shot down in 1996 and have no intention of voting back again.
But I think this problem is more pertinent than ever, and
it’s time to wake up and smell the bamboo.
If you understand satire or really like pandas, e-mail Jed
at [email protected].
