Comments on: Comments on 16326

Post number 16326

darukaru — Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:53:57 -0800

"For the first time since the University of California tossed out race-based admissions, the percentage of Latino, American Indian and black students admitted exceeds what it was during the last days of affirmative action.... 'On a personal level, I am glad to see it happen. It reinforces my view that black kids can perform as well as anyone else, and you don't need to give them any affirmative action,' [UC Regent Ward Connerly] said."

By: Settle

Settle — Sat, 13 Apr 2002 12:14:45 -0800

This is wonderful news!

By: vacapinta

vacapinta — Sat, 13 Apr 2002 12:24:01 -0800

The UC system has made it easier for students to transfer in from community colleges. It has also guaranteed that the top 4 percent of California's high school seniors will be given a spot in a UC school. And now, for the first time, UC campuses are considering additional factors, including family income, family education, school environment, community service, talents and leadership. That process is called comprehensive review. The above two paragraphs hint at the fuller story. It's possible to attract more minority students without calling it race-based admissions - attacking the problem just requires a bit more creativity. The ivy league has been doing this for years under the banner of "diversity"

By: gyc

gyc — Sat, 13 Apr 2002 12:25:34 -0800

I am a little troubled by this quote: "I think any time the number of underrepresented students increases it's a great thing," she said. "But I think we have to keep applying pressure because ideally (the percentage) should represent the state of California. When the numbers in our system represent the state, that's the day we should celebrate." but as long as Asian-Americans make up ~33% of the entering class while they only make up 10.8% of the population in California, the percentages will never represent the state of California, will it?

By: xammerboy

xammerboy — Sat, 13 Apr 2002 12:52:30 -0800

What vacapinta said. This is no triumph over race-based admissions. Quite the opposite.

By: vacapinta

vacapinta — Sat, 13 Apr 2002 12:53:29 -0800

but as long as Asian-Americans make up ~33% of the entering class while they only make up 10.8% of the population in California, the percentages will never represent the state of California, will it? Wel...yes. If you increase the number of black/latino students then the percentage of ALL other students will decline - thats the nature of percentages. You are implying that this balance can only be achieved by discrimination. Thats an ad hoc assumption of yours. Its is not implicit in the quote you cite. You've also touched upon one of the most emotionally-charged aspects of all of this - that this is a zero-sum game, that if someone wins then someone else must lose, that each new minority student will replace a white or asian student - your son or daughter perhaps. This is not the right way to look at it. It is fundamentally a selfish argument that depicts minorities as some sort of barbarians at the gate to whom we will relinquish our education and perhaps our jobs. Educational opportunities belong to entire communities and should be distributed appropriately and equitably. If asians have managed to populate one-third of the UC class, well I think that's great. It is a priviledge they have had. It is not, as you might seem to imply, a right which they must unfairly relinquish.

By: kickingtheground

kickingtheground — Sat, 13 Apr 2002 13:13:59 -0800

One of the things that article didn't mention is that minority enrollments at the top UC schools (UCLA and Berkeley) are still significantly lower than during the affirmative action days.

By: holloway

holloway — Sat, 13 Apr 2002 15:30:05 -0800

When will people realise that there's a correct racial distribution?

By: rschram

rschram — Sat, 13 Apr 2002 15:42:22 -0800

at the top UC schools (UCLA and Berkeley) Excuse me?

By: kickingtheground

kickingtheground — Sat, 13 Apr 2002 16:14:19 -0800

Despite the gains for the system as a whole, the number of minority students admitted to the university's most competitive campuses has not had the same rebound. At UCLA, for example, the new freshman class has more black and Hispanic students than last year, but its total number of minority admissions, 1,675, is still below the 2,010 the campus accepted in 1997. Berkeley and Irvine also have not returned to 1997 levels.

By: gyc

gyc — Sat, 13 Apr 2002 17:26:08 -0800

When they say "minority", do they only mean "underrepresented minority" or do they mean allminorities?

By: kickingtheground

kickingtheground — Sat, 13 Apr 2002 18:27:11 -0800

They mean only underrepresented minorities.

By: lotsofno

lotsofno — Sat, 13 Apr 2002 21:05:48 -0800

asian representin'! *ahem* ::straightens tie:: sorry about that.. but really, just because we may not be "minority" enough, is it that bad that there's more of us in college then there should be?

By: Settle

Settle — Sat, 13 Apr 2002 21:41:55 -0800

Laundrailroads. Sorry. o< I don't like CA

By: sudama

sudama — Sat, 13 Apr 2002 21:50:10 -0800

One of the things that article didn't mention is that minority enrollments at the top UC schools (UCLA and Berkeley) are still significantly lower than during the affirmative action days. Exactly -- this is bad news spun good and swallowed whole. Racism institutionalized before our very eyes and we cheer it on?

By: adamsc

adamsc — Sat, 13 Apr 2002 22:29:54 -0800

Because it's not racism. Racism would be things like claiming skin-color determines performance on an academic test. The problem has nothing to do with race and everything to do with lousy preparation. A white kid stuck at a crappy school is going to be just as bad off as the black kid in the seat next to him. Real change will require fixing the K-12 educational system and in this state won't happen without a major sea-change at the CTA. That's the real crime here - while everyone's trying to make the case that judging scholastic aptitude by skin-color isn't racist if you do it with a pure heart and good intentions, the people who have failed millions of kids are continuing to draw paychecks or get re-elected and eventually retire on comfortable pensions.

By: rschram

rschram — Sun, 14 Apr 2002 11:15:35 -0800

I think a 3% rise at UCSD is still nothing to scoff at.