For the past thirty years, affirmative action has been an integral part of the admissions policy at the University of California. However, successful challenges in the U. S. Court system have recently scrutinized the morality and legality of affirmative action practices. As a result, many institutions of higher learning are revising their present policies. One such change was recently initiated at the University of California when the Board of Regents voted to abolish the use of affirmative action in their admissions policy.

Burdman (1997) presented a historical overview of Ward Connerly’s position on affirmative action and his campaign to have the University of California admissions be based on a color-blind application. Also reviewed were the results of the decision to abolish affirmative action. “The Long GoodBye” covered five main points: SP-1 and Connerly’s accompanying ideas; maintaining diversity; administration’s new ideas; SP-1 guidelines; and the resulting consquences.

Burdman defined SP-1 and presented an outline of Connerly’s idea to treat UC’s admission policy in the same manner as real estate licenses and the state bar exam -identified solely by social security numbers (1,2). Burdman discussed the challenges that would make color-blind admissions a seemingly insurmountable task, i.e. changing application forms and eliminating personal essays so hints to a persons’ background would not be revealed (2). UC wants to have their campuses reflect the state’s diversity and with the abolishment of affirmative action the balance would shift due to academically unqualified minorities. This diversity is necessary for UC to receive federal money (6).

Burdman outlined the alternate ideas proposed by the administration that would act somewhat the same as affirmative action. These would give minorities and social/economically disadvantaged students an edge towards admittance through assignment of special points (6). Details of the new guidelines established by SP-1, including the non-academic criteria such as special talents, disabilities, or overcoming extreme hardships, under which 25 to 50% of freshman could be admitted were revealed ( 4). Burdman also presented the consequences of the abolishment of affirmative action by noting that medical schools in California are not receiving their usual number of applications from minority whiz kids. California’s schools are becoming known as “inhospitable” and the number of non-Asian minority applications dropped 22% (7). In conclusion, she described the turmoil and strife that engulfed the campus and how UC is relying on a new administration to mend this rift. (6). After all, strong academic performances by all ethnic groups is the shared wish of every educator. Affirmative action will not be necessary if this goal is accomplished and there will be no need to argue (14).

A related article “Still Choosing by Color” by Michael Lynch (1996) covers many of the same details as Burdman, presented from a different perspective. Lynch also covered five main points in his article: the color-blind admissions policy ; the conflicting court decisions; the University’s dilemma; the complaint that started it all; and the findings and conclusions of the investigation by Office of Civil Rights.

Lynch presented a clear picture of the fact the Board of Regents wanted the resolution to take effect immediately but administration kept delaying implementing it (1). The Regents asserted their authority, finally designating Fall of 1998 as the first class admitted under the non-affirmative action policy. In spite of this, Lynch still feels that he considers race as a primary consideration in the selection policy at UC (10). According to Lynch, Hopwood v. University of Texas will be a definite factor in establishing new rules for admission policies. Two of the three judges ruled that race should never be used as a factor in admissions because intellectual or ideological diversity does not parallel racial lines. (2) This decision by the courts definitely conflicts with the use of affirmative action policies.

Lynch clarifies UC’s dilemma - their master plan is that every student in the top 12.5% of their graduating class deserves a UC education while at the same time maintaining diversity according to the mandates that state the University should reflect the ethnic proportions of the high school classes (4). Enforcing the policy of educating the top 12.5% of graduating seniors, however, means that UC cannot comply with the state’s diversity policy. Lynch used graphs and statistics to show that, at this point in time, if UC complied with the mandate of providing an education for the top 12.5% (roughly one in eight graduates) any group that qualified for UC at a rate of less than 12.5% would be underrepresented as a whole. On the other hand, any group whose members qualified at a rate exceeding 12.5% would be over-represented unless the selection policy discriminated against some members of that group (4).

Lynch explained that this upheaval started in 1989 with a complaint filed by Arthur Hu. Hu stated that Harvard, UC Berkley, and UCLA maintained different admission standards for different racial groups. He proposed that Asians and whites were discriminated against at UC, especially at the above three campuses. He supported his complaint with evidence of ACR No. 83 from 1984 stating the UC must strive for racial proportion- in striving for this UC discriminated against Asians and whites by meeting numerical goals not by qualifications (7). Lynch also explained that the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights investigated UC. In describing the investigation, Lynch revealed that the findings were based solely on documents supplied by the university. Lynch suggests that data complied by other sources should be studied to reach a fair decision. At the conclusion of the study UC was found not to discriminate based on race (11). What was not stated however, was the all applicants were not judged by the same standards. Lynch’s opinion is evident in his statement that “race based admission are alive and well at UCB” (12).

Both Burdman and Lynch discussed the various conflicts and issues that surrounded the abolishment of affirmative action at the University of California. Burdman presented her article in a factual method, listing the facts and expounding on them. She offered no opinions and was careful to remain unbiased. Both the pros and cons of affirmative action, such as equality for all groups versus a lack of qualified minorities, were presented in a logical fashion. . Connerly’s proposal for a colorblind admission policy was summarized. She reviewed SP-1 and the resulting lack of diversity at UC. She also presented both sides of the arguments and internal conflicts occurring among the professors and the administrators.

Lynch, however, presented a more focused viewpoint of the important elements that set UC into an uproar. Lynch still believes that race is a prime consideration for admission. Lynch also goes on to explain that Hopwood v. Texas will prove to be a turning point as more of these reverse discrimination suits are being filed and won. Lynch explores the additional problems occurring at UC, trying to comply with their master plan of education for the top 12.5% of graduating students while ensuring diversity required by California law. Hu’s complaint, filed against several UC campuses, was explained fully by Lynch with statistics and graphs supplying visual evidence.

Personally, I am not in favor of affirmative action. I believe UC took the right step and the abolishment of affirmative action will prove beneficial. In reading these articles I understand the theories behind affirmative action, but I don’t agree with the actions occurring in its name. The definition of affirmative action has changed - originally affirmative action was not intended to choose between black or white - it was intended to encourage people who did not feel they had a chance to compete with a university setting. (Burdman, 12) This is not true today. As pointed out by Hernandez (1995) there have been good things that happened as a result of affirmative action and these should not be destroyed. It heightened awareness of diversity - people realized that there were benefits to be gained from the knowledge and experiences of people from various ethnic backgrounds (1).

In today’s society, affirmative action has secured student's college spots that many are not equipped to handle. Connerly, in 1995 received a report on average scores of SAT tests, showing that blacks whose parents earned more than $60,000 per year were outscored by whites and Asian Americans whose families earned $20,000 a year or less. However, if this group applied for admittance to UC, the less qualified minorities have a greater chance of being accepted. Connerly feels that affirmative action is sending these kids a message that they are not as proficient as others. To sum it up, he feels they have lost their self-confidence (Bearak, 20). It is important that people earn what they receive. People do not value that which is handed to them half as much as what they have had to work for.

Another negative impact of affirmative action is the stigma that is attached to minority college students. Affirmative action is assumed to have earned minorities a spot on campus, the fact they may have earned it and deserve to be there is not considered. As stated by Connerly , every black doctor and lawyer lives under a cloud because of “Preference” People tend to distrust the black professional not knowing if favoritism or knowledge earned their degree (Bearak 20). Without affirmative action, every person at UC will deserve to be there and can take pride in their accomplishment.

WORKS CITED

Bearak, Barry. ((1997, July 27). “Between Black and White: Questions of Race Run Deep for Foe of Preference.” New York Times NATIONAL, pp. 1,20.

Burdman, Pamela. “The Long Goodbye.” LINGUA FRANCE (June/July 1997): 15pp. Online. Internet. <http://www.linguafranca.com/9706/burdman.htm 11 July, 1997.>

Hernandez, Roger. “The End of The End of Affirmative Action” (1995): 2pp. Online. Internet. <http://www.latinolink.com/opinion/rog1126.html 11 July 1997.>

Lynch, Michael. “Still Choosing by Color” (6 May, 1996): 15 pp. Online. Internet. <http://www.empower.org/claremont/gsp/gsp51.htm 11 July 1997.>