Tuesday, May 31st 2005
War on 209: Stating the Obvious
Another Prop. 209 article in the UC Davis newspaper, the California Aggie:
College is often touted as a place full of potential for personal growth and educational immersion, however, a recent study shows universities across the nation might not be as accessible to racial minorities as they once were.
UC Davis sociology professor Eric Grodsky and graduate student Demetra Kalogrides found the acknowledgment of race-based admittance practices in both public and private universities decreased from the mid-’90s to 2003.
Using data from the responses of over 1,300 institutions to an annual survey conducted by the College Board from 1986 to 2003, Grodsky and Kalogrides contrast the recent decline in race-based affirmative action policies with the increase that occurred from 1986 to the early-’90s.
First of all, let’s let out a collective groan in response to that wonderfully biased introduction. *groan* Now, here’s what the study told us about affirmative action: there used to be a lot, and now there’s not. Any BAMN member could convey that fact by yelling at your face. Tell us something we didn’t already know.
Rahim Reed, associate executive vice chancellor for campus community relations, said various state legislation has made it more difficult to enable postsecondary institutions in California to target racial minorities.
Reed cited Proposition 209, passed by California voters in 1996, as having an adverse impact on UCD’s ability to enroll underrepresented minority students.
—
“It is difficult with Proposition 209 [to enroll minorities], but it is not impossible,” Reed said.
—
“I would say that the numbers speak for themselves,” Reed said. “We could do a much better job at enrolling minorities.”
—
[H]e would like to see the racial composition of college students in the state mirror that of high school students.
Say ‘minority’ one more time… I wonder what Reed’s original quote was. Maybe it was this: “It is difficult with Proposition 209 [to enroll anyone who does not meet the minimal requirements to be a student at an institution of this caliber. I mean seriously, should we be expected to enroll someone with a subpar GPA and SAT score just because there aren’t that many people who share his skin color here? Because if we did, someone with higher scores, and most likely also a minority, would have to find somewhere else to go. And how fair is that? So really, this whole thing isn’t about minorities at all. It’s about acknowledging that colleges have certain standards, and if you can’t meet those standards don’t point at your skin as an excuse. Maybe you should’ve studied more? Seriously.]” No, that would have been too honest.
This is ridiculous. Perhaps California needs another law regarding racial discrimination and Prop 209. I propose that every, single employee of the UC and CSU system be required to sign a form stating that they have had Prop 209 explained to them. The form would say that “I understand that discrimination or preference based on skin color is illegal.” Make them sign it in public and videotape it. Then every time one of them pulls this crap we can show them the tape. Jesus.
Comment by Scott — 6/1/2005 @ 8:16 am
wow
how disrespectful!
Comment by HB — 6/1/2005 @ 7:07 pm
Yeah, wow. How naive you are. You think race has nothing to do with anything, don’t you. I agree with you, in part, that there generally shouldn’t be race based discrimination. However, anti-discrimation is NOT the same thing. And, you are blissful to think that minority students don’t encounter more barriers that come between their life and academia thus making it just as challenging for you to get into Berkeley. While many students of all ethnicities encounter these barriers, the majority of them are minorities. This IS a result of previous racial injustice. Previous racial discrimination. Thus, anti-discrimination is an attempt to work against the social stratification that resulted from that previous injustice and bring us to an equal medium. It is NOT there to make white people (or people of another race) slaves, or, in your words, to reverse discriminate.
Comment by Conservative 771 — 6/6/2005 @ 2:30 pm
Conservative 771: I’m a “minority” and I believe what I do. Shocking huh?
And I never used the term “reverse discrimination” mostly because I think discrimination is discrimination, no matter what parties are involved.
Comment by patr — 6/6/2005 @ 3:45 pm
Shocking? Hardly. Like before, it sounds more naive. And why do you put quotes around minority?
Anyway, you can think what you want, but discrimination is NOT always the same discrimination when different parties are involved. Simply put, the white supremacists of the 60’s were far more fearsome in their ability to cause harm than the Black supremacists of the time. That very principle, that one group had more power over the other, suggests that they needed to be viewed differently. A cannon is, in principle, more powerful than a shotgun.
Comment by Conservative 771 — 6/6/2005 @ 6:17 pm
Well I agree with you on this point. There are obviously different levels of discrimination, from subtle racial stereotyping to fullblown ethnic cleansing. My point is that, all things being equal, discrimination is discrimination no matter which group practices it. As in, if whites or blacks practice genocide, they are equally reprehensive in my eyes. There is no need to categorize something as “reverse discrimination” because both cases are equally wrong and equally discriminatory.
I’m glad you caught my use of quotes around the word “minority.” I happen to be of Asian descent (Filipino to be exact). Somehow, Asians are no longer a “politically correct” minority. Especially here at Berkeley; whenever you hear about the lack of minorities here, the only possible way to come to that conclusion is if you discount Asians. Not that there’s anything special about being part of a minority group. It’s just interesting to see how the media can spin the meaning a certain way.
Comment by patr — 6/6/2005 @ 6:48 pm
If you’re in a minority, then you’re part of a minority. No quotes about it. And for reasons that I understand to have originated in the free speech of the 60’s, the University of California Berkeley is revered by many Asian parents (many of them originally chinese) because of China’s own reaction towards free speech (crush it)–At least that’s my guess. As for you being a “minority” or a minority, it makes little difference. What is different is that other minorities have been less fortunate than the Asian minority. Keep in mind the Asian minority is also often referred to as the “model minority.” I won’t qualify those quotes because it’s a whole new debate that I’d rather not go into.
Also, I’m not talking about political correctness.
Now, coming back to your point of equally reprehensive wrongdoings, I agree that genocide is equally reprehensible no matter who does it. However, this doesn’t rule out the need that some people have to categorize something as reverse discrimination. Changing this slightly, because you’re not arguing “reverse discrimination” but that all things that discriminate are equally reprehensible, I’ll still disagree on a fundamental level. What if a scholarship service provides money for high achieving kids in wheel chairs? That is discriminating against those that can walk on their own two feet, but it is reasoned that these kids deserve some extra money because of the trouble they have gone through. Now, think again, of a scholarship service that provides money for high achieving Latino students because, not only did they overcome the same barriers as the rest of america’s students, they overcame a whole different set of barriers that specifically arise in Latino families. Consider another example, the idea of a scholarship service that gives only white kids money. Are all these examples of discrimination the same? You’re probably contesting the inclusion of the first one. In that case, are the last two equally reprehensible? How can it be so morally evil in your eyes to help out a group of people that struggled a great deal more than most others do to just send their kids to college, let alone get them to graduate? Or, how a scholarship aimed squarely at white kids is on the same footing as a latino scholarship when it does not level the “playing field,” but continues to make it more unfair.
See, this playing field is rarely fair, built on capitalism and past racism it’s understandable that history came about in this way. However, what’s wrong with trying to level the educational playing field with private scholarships or government action? This is where anti-discriminatinatory law gets its bearing.
Comment by Conservative 771 — 6/6/2005 @ 9:01 pm