Pages

Wednesday, November 4, 2020

Did the Regents Undermine Prop 16? - Part 2

We will reproduce the official UC reaction to the defeat of Proposition 16 which would have overridden Prop 209 and allowed affirmative action in admissions. However, we noted in an earlier post when Prop 16 didn't poll well that the Regents may have inadvertently contributed to its failure.* It can be argued that it was regental action back in the mid-1990s that led to the enactment by voters of Prop 209. Before Prop 209, the Regents enacted a UC policy banning affirmative action. That action was linked to then-Governor Pete Wilson and Regent Ward Connerly.** With that political success completed, Wilson and Connerly supported the subsequent Prop 209.

The Regents more recently both dropped use of the SAT/ACT for admissions (contrary to a faculty recommendation) and endorsed Prop 16. In doing so, they emphasized the fact that although Prop 16 also involved such things as public contract awards, it was primarily about admissions, especially to UC. It's admissions that make folks nervous since it's hard to argue that absent unlimited enrollment, more of someone is less of somebody else.

What this sequence of events suggests is that the Regents aren't all that good at politics. When they endorse propositions and positions that directly affect UC funding, that is understandable. They endorsed Prop 14 (stem cell research) which appears to have passed and would likely benefit some UC researchers. They endorsed Prop 15 (commercial property tax) which - had it passed - might have led to some additional revenue. So maybe the Regents should stay in their lane and worry about the budget and their supposed role in shielding UC from political pressures. When they get out of their lane - history has not treated their action in the loyalty oath controversy kindly- they can end up doing more harm than good.

The Regents seem to have strayed of late under the chairmanship of Regent Pérez, whose background is in the state legislature. So maybe he needs to rethink the difference between a legislature and university board of trustees.

Below is the official UC response to the failure of Prop 16:

UC to continue to champion diverse student body despite rejection of Proposition 16

UC Office of the President, Wednesday, November 4, 2020

The University of California is disappointed that Proposition 16, the state ballot measure and constitutional amendment that would have repealed Proposition 209, did not pass in this election.  Proposition 16 would have helped reverse the detrimental and far-reaching initiative that banned the consideration of race, ethnicity and gender in admissions across public higher education, and other arenas, almost a quarter-century ago.

“UC remains steadfast in its commitment to attract and support a student body that reflects California’s dynamism and diversity, despite this setback,” said UC President Michael V. Drake, M.D. “We will continue our unwavering efforts to expand underrepresented groups’ access to a UC education.”

The UC Board of Regents supported the passage of ACA 5, which became Proposition 16, a move that acknowledged the serious need to address systemic inequities in public higher education. By repealing Proposition 209, Proposition 16 would have ended the prohibition on granting preferential treatment to (or discriminating against) any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting. The rejection of this ballot measure is an unfortunate continuation of the status quo.

“The University of California’s efforts to address racial inequities were greatly hindered by Proposition 209,” said UC Regents Chair John A. Pérez. “The failure of Proposition 16 means barriers will remain in place to the detriment of many students, families and California at large. We will not accept inequality on our campuses and will continue addressing the inescapable effects of racial and gender inequity.” 

UC has a longstanding commitment to enrolling a diverse student body, one that reflects California’s flourishing cultural, racial, geographic and socioeconomic heterogeneity. After the implementation of Proposition 209, the University saw a sharp decline in the admission and enrollment of students from historically underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. On every UC campus, the percentage of new California-resident, underrepresented freshmen decreased. While racial and ethnic diversity have improved in the past two decades, much of that growth is attributable to systemwide enrollment growth. UC still does not reflect the diversity of California’s population. Another negative impact: The percentage of students from underrepresented groups enrolled in UC’s outreach programs dropped from 90 percent before Proposition 209 to 75 percent thereafter.  

Despite the failure of Proposition 16, the University will continue to look for innovative and creative approaches to further improve the diversity of its student body through outreach to underserved groups, schools and communities; support for college preparation; and efforts to close equity gaps among students attaining a UC education.

To uphold its commitment to diversity, UC will continue comprehensive review in admissions. The holistic method is used by most campuses and seeks to fully understand and evaluate each applicant through multiple dimensions. However, excluding race and gender from that consideration continues to be a tall barrier to women and students from underrepresented groups. UC will also explore opportunities to further encourage underrepresented groups to apply for and join UC’s outstanding student body. It will utilize and refine the many race-neutral alternatives developed following Proposition 209 for both outreach and admissions.

Source: https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-continue-champion-diverse-student-body-despite-rejection-proposition-16

=====

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2020/09/did-regents-undermine-prop-16.html 

**https://ballotpedia.org/Ward_Connerly. See also the video below:

Or direct to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBB1vM6RNZA

No comments: