Proposition 209 in California’s Universities

            The late Dr. Chang-Lin Tien was the first Asian-American chancellor of any major US university when he took up the position at UC Berkeley in 1990. He worked through many crises at the university, and helped save the university’s funding during California’s recession in the early 1990s. His ability to run the school, raise millions of dollars, and even teach classes all at the same time gave him the reputation of a man who could do anything he set out to do. However, in 1995 the UC system passed an initiative to end affirmative action on a close regent based vote of 14-10. Tien had argued against the passing of such an initiative, saying that it would hurt African-Americans and Latin-Americans, but never mentioning Asian-Americans. His arguments for affirmative action, however, did not win over the regents who passed the initiative. Tien resigned from his position at UC Berkeley in 1996, ironically the same year that California voters passed proposition 209, repelling Affirmative Action. Tien symbolized the success of minority Americans within the UC system, but as he left so did the civil rights that generations of minorities had fought for. The affects of Proposition 209 have become evident since it passed 10 years ago, and just as Dr, Chang-Lin Tien initially predicted in 1995, the loss of affirmative action in California’s UC system would hurt the Latin-Americans more than the Asian-Americans.

Explanation of Proposition 209

            Proposition 209 was a direct ballot initiative passed by California voters in 1996. The argument behind Proposition 209 was that it would remove racial preferences from higher public education and state contracting. Proposition 209 made affirmative action illegal in California. Those who rallied for it’s passing argued that Affirmative Action held back Whites and Asians from entering the UC system, and rather gave entrance to “less qualified” minorities. They often sited Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. This case was won by Bakke, a white applicant to UC Berkeley’s medical school who was not permitted admission due to racial quotas. The court decision upheld that race was a factor in acceptance, however rigid quotas were unconstitutional. Those who argued against Proposition 209 said it deteriorated the core constitutional values of equal opportunity by stripping necessary programs for minorities and woman. Proposition 209 passed in 1996, and after going through the courts it became affective in 1998. ("Prohibition Against Discrimination or Preferential Treatment by State…”)

UC Enrollment Trends Post Prop 209

            In 1997 the California Department of Finance reported California high school graduates were 46 percent white, 31 percent Hispanic, and 11 percent Asian. These statistics give a fair idea of what to expect in UC admissions. In 1997, one year before Proposition 209 took affect, UC Berkeley admitted 11.6 percent Chicano and 2.3 percent Latino. However, in 1998 only 5.18 percent Chicano and 2.21 percent Latino students were admitted to UC Berkeley. This was a drastic drop in Latino admissions, and the Latino students became highly under represented. Meanwhile Asian admissions to UC Berkeley increased from 41.7 percent in 1997, to 42.8 percent in 1998. This trend could be seen across the UC system in schools such as UC Davis, where minority applications rose 13.2 percent from 1997 to 1999, yet minority admissions dropped 5 percent during the same period. Still, Asian admissions increased at UC Davis. As a whole, Latino enrollment in the UC system from 1997-1999 was down 6%, and Asian enrollment was up 4.6%. (RAND California, University of California Enrollment Statistics)

            From 1999 to 2005 the trend did not continue largely due to efforts by the universities to end bad press, and lowered minority applications. UC leaders soaked state and donated funds to create outreach programs for minorities that would encourage more applications in urban areas. UC Davis also instated a new model admissions process that analyzes socio-economic factors, instead of just grades and test scores. (Greenwald) However, the Latin-Americans are still under represented in the UC system. There are only slightly over 1,000 more Latino students in the UC system in 2005 than there were in 1999. The Asian student population, on the other hand, has increased by nearly 10,000 in the same six year span. (RAND California, University of California Enrollment Statistics)

The Role of Admission Policy

The passing of Proposition 209 immediately and clearly affected admissions to UC schools, but further explanation is required to understand why the Latino-Americans were hurt and the Asian-Americans benefited. On of the main reasons Affirmative Action was created was to give equal opportunity to minorities who were not provided the financial upbringing and opportunity of white males, on top of combating racism in schools and the workplace as a whole. The socioeconomic and academic success of Asian-Americans in the last forty years has been unmatched by any race in America. Affirmative Action has helped Asian-Americans, but not to the same extent that it has helped Latino-Americans. Many national scholarly and labor based affirmative action programs choose not to apply Asian-Americans as under represented, and they are no longer given the benefits of Affirmative Action. Latino-Americans have struggled to gain such economic independence due to racism, larger populations of immigration in previous generations, and lacking financial resources. (Le)

Admission Policy in the UC system is largely based upon SAT test scores, high school GPA, and honors courses. Many Asian-Americans go to high school in wealthier cities than the majority of the mostly urbanized Latin-American population in California. As a result, many honors programs and educational opportunities are not available to as many Latin-Americans as Asian-Americans. While Asian-Americans can take honors classes in high school or pay for specialized SAT training courses, Latin-Americans tend not to have the same financial and educational opportunities. The Affirmative Action that once helped represent the Latin-Americans in higher public education regardless of opportunity was erased by proposition 209.

The Struggle to Regain Representation

            As Proposition 209 was passed through appeals courts it was eventually rejected by the United States Supreme Court, and at that point it officially amended California’s constitution and eliminated Affirmative Action. From the original proposal to the passing of the law, 209 has been protested by civil rights groups. UC leaders in the past ten years saw their minority groups sharply decrease, and applications become thinner. Immediately ways around 209 were planned and developed. The socioeconomic factors in UC Davis admission requirements for example analyze what students have done with the opportunity they have been given, instead of simply analyzing test scores and grades. The UC system as a whole in 1997 gave more eligibility to students applying from high “schools that had significant educational disadvantages and schools that produced few college-bound students.” (Beyond Percentage Plans) No matter how much effort was seemingly put through by the UC system, enrollment has never been the same.

            The current chancellor of UC Berkeley, Robert Birgeneau, acknowledges the problem. He claims campus officials are working hard to change the system from within and commented in a Los Angeles Times opinion editorial that representation has fallen “appallingly, and where there should be camaraderie across cultural lines, I have seen too much alienation, mistrust and division.” (Birgeneau) Meanwhile Ward Connerly, the now retired UC regent that initially fought to eliminate Affirmative Action in the UC system privately wrote “Birgeneau would either be fired or taken behind the woodshed for revealing such disregard for the people who pay the bills.” Connerly and Birgeneau’s writings give a strange insight in to the politics of the UC admissions system, and perhaps on just how hard it will be for change to take place or for Affirmative Action to ever return to the UC system. (Locke)

Racist Fallout

            On April 25, 2006 the San Francisco Chronicle ran an article describing how the new majority in the UC system was the Asian student. “For the first time, Asian Americans are the dominant group being offered freshman admission this coming fall to the University of California's 10 undergraduate campuses, UC officials announced.” (Delvecchio) In Fall of 2005, the Asian incoming freshman percentage was 36 percent compared to 35.6 percent for whites. This is a great accomplishment by the Asians in California, and truly is a display of their dedication to education. When a group of white supremacists were asked to comment on the article there mixed uneducated reactions. “I wonder what the percentage of whites would be without the baneful affects of affirmative action,” says a white supremacist who does not even realize that affirmative action has not existed in the UC system for almost ten years. Another foolish white man commented, “If you live in California and want to attend UC or have children who do; simply checking the African American or black or whatever they are calling themselves this week boxes on all the application forms will guarantee admission.” Apparently the young man did not understand that Latin and African students are completely under represented in the UC system. It can be proven that the lowering ratio of whites in the UC system is due to the uneducated whites themselves. (American Renaissance)

Conclusion

            In Spring of 1999, York J. Chang wrote an article for the Chicano-Latino Law Review titled “True Convictions: A Post-209 Eyewitness Account of UCLA Law.” Chang was a student representative to the UC regents at the time, and had also witnessed the passing of initiatives to end Affirmative Action in the UC system just before 209. He writes of the failed student protests and walkouts, and an administration that had good intentions but felt helpless and did nothing as Affirmative Action was abolished. But perhaps the most relevant line in Chang’s entire article was “The end result can only be the mass production of black letter lawyers and insulated bureaucrats who are ill-equipped to serve or govern California's emerging cultural and ethnic majorities.” (Chang) Chang in a sense hit the nail on the head. California simply can not function efficiently with our college graduates misrepresenting our population. The diversity of our culture requires an equal opportunity is given to each ethnic background. Even if Asians have benefited from proposition 209, and Latinos have struggled; California will be the hardest hit as a whole in the future when we do not have enough college graduates representing our own population. Dr. Chang-Lin Tien made a wise prediction of the aftermath of Proposition 209 before his resignation and soon after death, but only the next generation of Californians will truly see the damage done.

Works Cited

Chang, York J. "TRUE CONVICTIONS: a POST-209 EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT OF UCLA LAW." Chicano-Latino Law Review 20 (1999):  43-45. LexisNexis. CSULB Library. 25 Apr. 2006. Keyword: proposition 209.

Delvecchio, Rick. "UC System's Admissions Milestone for Asian Americans." San Francisco Chronicle 21 Apr. 2006. 28 Apr. 2006

General, Attorney. "Prohibition Against Discrimination or Preferential Treatment by State and Other Public Entities. Initiative Constitutional Amendment." CA Secretary of State. 4 Apr. 1996. State of California. 23 Apr. 2006. 

Greenwald, Michael. "California Adjusts After Prop. 209." The Cavalier Daily 22 Mar. 2000. 28 Apr. 2006 <http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVArticle.asp?ID=3619&pid=554>. 

Locke, Michelle. "Berkeley Chancellor Works Around Prop. 209." The Sacramento Union 8 Apr. 2005. 28 Apr. 2006 <http://www.sacunion.com/pages/sacramento/articles/3857/>. 

Philip. "UC System’s Admissions Milestone for Asian Americans." American Renaissance.

            21 Apr. 2006. 25 Apr. 2006 <http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/04/uc_systems_admi.php>. 

Rand California, comp. University of California Enrollment Statistics. UC Enrollment.

            Dec. 1990. University of California Office of the President. 28 Apr. 2006

Le, C.N. 2006. "Affirmative Action and Asian Americans" Asian-Nation: The Landscape of         Asian America. May 3, 2006.

General Staff. Beyond Percentage Plans. Office for Civil Rights Evaluation. Washington: US      Commission on Civil Rights, 2002. 1-127.