o**********e
发帖数: 18403 | 1 【 以下文字转载自 SanFrancisco 讨论区 】
发信人: czjd (辽宁面团 - 第四十八浪人), 信区: SanFrancisco
标 题: 南加的资深智囊对于SCA5的评论
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Tue Feb 25 23:04:44 2014, 美东)
Viewpoints: A step backward on higher education enrollment
By David A. Lehrer, Richard J. Riordan and Joe R. Hicks
Special to The Bee
Published: Saturday, Feb. 8, 2014 - 12:00 am
Last week, a proposed constitutional amendment, SCA 5, passed the state
Senate with a two-thirds vote. If the Assembly takes similar action, the
people of California will soon be voting on whether to reimpose racial and
ethnic preferences on the University of California and the California State
University systems. This is an astounding step backward.
And yet, to read the press release of the measure’s main sponsor, Sen. Ed
Hernandez of Los Angeles, one would think the Legislature has taken a bold
step against bigotry and discrimination by proposing to nullify key
provisions of Proposition 209, enacted by the voters in 1996. Prop. 209, in
the clearest and most unambiguous language possible, simply banned
discrimination: “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant
preferential treatment … on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or
national origin.”
Prop. 209 is neither difficult to understand nor to implement – it simply
means that, at least in terms of public education, the state’s universities
, colleges and community colleges have to be colorblind.
Hernandez made up what he boldly asserts, that “there has been a
precipitous drop in the percentage of Latino, African American and Native
American students at California public universities ... campuses becoming
less diverse and qualified high school graduates being overlooked and
ignored under Prop. 209.”
There is practically nothing in Hernandez’s statement that is accurate, and
yet two-thirds of the state Senate bought his line.
It is indisputable that both in absolute numbers and percentages, minorities
that attend the University of California have increased and exceed the
levels of minority admissions from the pre-Prop. 209 days. At the University
of California in 1996 – the last year prior to Prop. 209’s adoption –
blacks accounted for 4 percent of overall admissions (1,628); in 2013 they
accounted for 4.3 percent of admissions (2,705); they are approximately 6.6
percent of the California population. Chicanos and Latinos comprised 14.3
percent of admissions (5,744) in 1996 and are 27.8 percent (17,450) of
admissions in 2013; they make up about 38.2 percent of the population.
Asians made up 32 percent (12,995) of admissions in 1996 and are 35.9
percent (22,536) in 2013; they make up about 13.9 percent of California’s
population. Whites have plummeted percentage-wise from being 41 percent (16,
465) of admissions in 1996 to 27.9 percent (17,516) in 2013; whites make up
about 39.4 percent of the population.
In the California State University system, the increase in minority
enrollment and decline in the white ratio generally parallels UC’s –
Latinos up from 21.4 percent to 33.9 percent; Asians up from 17.1 percent to
18 percent; whites decline from 47.6 percent to 30.4 percent. The
enrollment percentage of African Americans has declined from 7.6 percent to
5 percent, although the actual numbers increased from 17,539 in 1995 to 18,
175 in 2012, unlike the UC system.
Extrapolated from the most recent numbers available, approximately 72
percent of the Latino high school graduates in California who are UC- and
CSU-eligible are admitted to either the UC or CSU system schools. So much
for Hernandez’s assertion that “qualified high school graduates (are)
being overlooked and ignored under Prop. 209.” Parenthetically,
approximately 52 percent of the state’s eligible white students are
admitted to UC or CSU schools.
Despite Hernandez’s hyperbolic rhetoric, the UC system virtually leads the
country in its admission of talented, socio-economically disadvantaged
students – independent of race or ethnicity – poor kids who need a leg up.
In 2011-12, 41 percent (74,933) of the enrolled students at UC and CSU (180
,000 plus) were Pell Grant recipient students (i.e. most often
undergraduates with family incomes under $20,000).
At a time when minorities are qualifying for and being admitted on their
merits to the state’s public universities and colleges – independent of
race or ethnicity – in record numbers, and disadvantaged applicants are
being admitted in extraordinary numbers, SCA 5 will reinject divisive
considerations of race and ethnicity into the mix. There simply are no data
that substantiate “grievances” needing such an extraordinary remedy.
Does the Legislature really want to return to allocating admissions on the
basis of race and ethnicity? Whose numbers would be reduced and whose
increased, and why? Does the Legislature want to tell white families in
California that their kids’ admissions percentages will be further reduced
than they already have been post-2009? Do they plan to advise Asian families
that their children are “over-represented” – 13.9 percent of the
population of California yet 36 percent of those admitted at the UC?
The systems of holistic, colorblind admissions and accommodation for socio-
economic disadvantage employed by UC and CSU have done an impressive job of
balancing fairness, access and academic standards. They have followed the
right, and only fair, path forward. Hopefully, the Legislature will not
undermine what has been accomplished and stir up a potentially volatile pot.
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
David A. Lehrer is the president of Community Advocates Inc. (www.cai-la.org
), a human relations think tank in Los Angeles. Richard J. Riordan, former
mayor of Los Angeles and former California state secretary of education of
California, is chairman of Community Advocates. Joe R. Hicks is vice
president of Community Advocates. |
|
