Public Education Myths Fuel the Push for Prop. 209 : It addresses phantom ‘problems’ at UC and elsewhere

Proposition 209 would codify, through state constitutional amendment, the University of California Board of Regents’ controversial decision to eliminate gender and race as factors to be considered in admitting students to the state’s prestigious public university system. The justification for this ballot initiative to end racial and gender “preferences” is undergirded by many myths about affirmative action and education. Three of the most important follow.

Myth: Proposition 209 would eliminate a system that promotes the admission of unqualified minorities.

Reality: Ninety-six percent of the students admitted into the UC system are among the top 12.5% of the state’s graduating high school seniors. About 4% of students accepted by UC normally would not be eligible but are admitted by special exception; many are athletes, of all races and ethnicities. Most high school graduates, regardless of gender, race or ethnicity, don’t make the 12.5% cut. Those who do are high achievers.

Another part of the myth: By taking up UC spots, African American and Latino students are squeezing out whites and Asian Americans. Wrong again. Blacks made up only 4.3%, or 5,016, of all fall 1995 undergraduate students in the statewide UC system. Latinos made up 14.6%, or 17,024. (The systemwide undergraduate student body numbered 121,738.) Further, all UC-eligible California students are offered spots within the nine-campus system. Most cannot be given spots at Berkeley or UCLA but are accommodated at other UC campuses. As UCLA Chancellor Charles Young said, “ . . . UCLA enrolls the highest-qualified students from all ethnic groups, all income levels, all family backgrounds, all life experiences--broadly representative of the state. And, all of them are qualified to be here.”

Myth: Unfair “preferences” would be eliminated under Proposition 209.

Reality: The regents, by way of their decision last year, already have eliminated race and gender “preferences” from admission consideration, effective in the spring of 1998. But preferences remain for special talents, musical or artistic ability, low socioeconomic status, rural location, leadership, community service and physical disability--these all are factors that can be considered in admissions decisions. And then there have been some unofficial preferences for the children of influential Californians, major donors and friends of UC regents, disclosed by The Times earlier this year.

Proposition 209 would not touch most preferences regularly used in state education, hiring and contracts--it targets only women and minorities.

Myth: Poverty, not race, is the key factor for determining disadvantage; thus if Proposition 209 eliminated gender and race considerations but didn’t prohibit socioeconomic considerations, it wouldn’t hurt disadvantaged minorities.

Reality: There is broad agreement that all poor students have tremendous disadvantages to overcome and that therefore economic factors should be taken into account. Proposition 209 would not prohibit economic considerations in college admissions, and the measure’s supporters say they believe socioeconomic preferences are justified. But when it comes to race and gender, 209 makes the false assumption that these two factors are no longer relevant in public schools, state contracts, state hiring or in life.

If only it were so. African American, Latino and Asian American college graduates still face employment discrimination. Just five years ago, Urban Institute researchers sent white and black college students posing as job applicants, identical in almost all characteristics except race, to answer classified job ads in Chicago and Washington. The whites received favorable treatment three times more often than their identically qualified black counterparts. Similarly, a 1989 Urban Institute audit in Chicago and San Diego that compared Latino and white job seekers found an even higher rate of job discrimination against Latinos. And in a great irony, considering the high achievement of so many Asian American students in higher education, Asian Americans with college degrees earn almost 11% less than whites with college degrees, according to U.S. census data. Minorities in each case received unequal treatment not because they were poor but because they were African American, Latino or Asian American. Unfortunately, race still matters.

Gender still matters too. A landmark 1992 report by the American Assn. of University Women Educational Foundation documented that most standardized tests are biased against girls and that public schools often discourage girls from careers in science, mathematics and engineering. Proposition 209 could outlaw special programs that encourage girls to pursue math and science in high school and college.

Affirmative action provides a necessary tool to broaden access to public education in California, which by the year 2000 will be almost evenly populated by whites and minorities. That the most diverse state in the nation is actually engaging in an argument over whether 259 African Americans and 790 Latinos are too many in UCLA’s 1995 freshman class of 3,523 is astoundingly self-defeating. Proposition 209 is contrary to the mission of public education, and contrary to the best interests of California. Vote no on 209.