Once In, It’s Easy to Forget Who Opened the Door
My son’s high school essay made me steam.
Even the title smacked of mockery: “Affirmative Action: What Is It Good For?” It seemed to echo the 1960s song that asked the same question about war. But it turned the era’s rhetoric against itself.
When I read the first paragraph, I was ready to give that little whippersnapper a history lesson.
“As an above-average Latino student in a predominantly Caucasian school, affirmative action is a program that would benefit me greatly,” wrote Miguel, 17. “As a human being, though, I feel it should be abolished.”
That’s galling. My own flesh and blood calling for an end to a program I advocated when I was about his age. When I enrolled at UC Berkeley, there were only a handful of minorities at the prestigious campus. As human beings, we felt justified in trying to shatter the ivory tower of privilege supported at public expense.
Now, where have all the fighters gone?
A quarter century later, Miguel was ready to trash a hard-won solution that had clearly worked. He called it unfair. Outdated. Reverse racism.
I felt the urge to confront him, but I didn’t. I paused, and reconsidered my knee-jerk defense of the program voters had already eliminated. I realized Miguel was right on one score: It would be unfair for him to get a break for his race.
Miguel had the background and benefits he needed to succeed on his own. Both his parents are UC graduates and bilingual. His public school ranked in the nation’s top 100 academically. And he wanted for nothing at home. He had his own room with his own computer and even a loft with a spiral staircase.
Hardly a hard-luck case. Clearly, if he didn’t make the grade, he’d have only himself to blame. Still, I couldn’t agree with his conclusion.
Why kill a program designed to compensate for social disadvantages just because you don’t suffer any?
What about his less-privileged peers? The students from poor areas who have to work to survive. Who sleep on couches and study in closets because their homes are so crowded. Whose parents don’t speak English and don’t have even high school diplomas. Whose schools are short on textbooks and good teachers.
Affirmative action once pried open opportunities in an era when politicians stood in schoolhouse doors to keep minorities out. The goal was to integrate institutions that helped perpetuate racial disparities outside their ivy-covered walls.
Today, disparities are still stark, but we can be more selective. We can target students who really need help. Just consider the list of high schools that send the most and the fewest students to UC.
Not surprisingly, admission and affluence are correlated. Just as race and affluence are. Communities at the top of the admissions list: Palos Verdes, Irvine, Palo Alto. Those near the bottom: Santa Ana, Compton and East San Jose, where I grew up.
These underrepresented areas will be the ones to benefit most under the new plan that broadens UC eligibility to all students who rank in the top 4% of their high schools. The modest plan doesn’t guarantee they’ll be admitted. It simply helps identify rural and inner-city junior-year students who should be aspiring to UC, says Manuel Gomez, a UC Irvine vice chancellor and my old college friend.
The university already knows an extra push can make the difference in a district like Santa Ana, which is only 3% white. A UCI outreach program this year helped 23 Valley High School students boost their SAT scores by an average of almost 100 points, including one kid who soared 270 points.
The students paid $35 for the Kaplan Review, a $700 prep course. And even that nominal fee was refunded for those with perfect attendance on weekends and after school.
All the kids got their money back.
I’m told the university already considers social factors in accepting students. Success in the face of adversity counts extra. That’s not a race-based policy. It’s just that some races see more adversity than others. That’s reality-based.
“Students who achieve highly within their own set of circumstances ought to be acknowledged and rewarded for it,” said Bob Laird, director of undergraduate admissions at my alma mater.
Even my son saw the light after we had a talk. In his final draft, Miguel reconsidered his affirmative action stance in light of “the quietly segregated ways of the United States.”
His final recommendation: “Give equal opportunity to everybody who tries hard and a chance for success to all who pursue it.”
That’s my boy.
Agustin Gurza’s column appears Tuesday and Saturday. Readers can reach Gurza at (714) 966-7712 or agustin.gurza@latimes.com
