“If they pass Prop 16, there will be far fewer Asians getting into UCs. They may not even accept you.”
My mother has reiterated this sentiment countless times, and it’s likely that many other Asian students have heard the same. It’s easy to quickly form a negative opinion about affirmative action with thousands of posts online against it, but the issue is too nuanced to just gloss over.
Proposition 16 will appear on ballots this November. If it passes, it will repeal Proposition 209, which banned preferential race or sex-based treatment in public employment and public education in 1996. A common misconception is that it will mandate affirmative action, but this is not true; Proposition 16 only lifts the ban and legalizes affirmative action, allowing public entities to opt in. Many fear that reinstating affirmative action will create racial quotas, but it is important to remember that racial quotas will still be illegal as the Supreme Court ruled in Regents of University of California v. Bakke.
Those in favor of affirmative action argue that it benefits minorities that have been historically given fewer opportunities. A large portion of lower income families are minorities and often don’t have access to the same education that wealthier families do, due to underfunded schools. The Atlantic reports that in about 50 out of the 100 largest cities in the country, most Latino and African American students go to schools where 75% or more students are classified as low-income. This is no accident; it’s the result of systemic racism, and it is a prime example of redlining.
In the 1930s, appraisers from the government-sponsored Home Owners’ Loan Corporation rated the quality of neighborhoods based on the number of white versus non-white people. Communities with more people of color received lower ratings and some neighborhoods were deemed “hazardous” and “declining” because of the people living there, according to the New York Times.
As a result, these neighborhoods received less government aid and deteriorated the way the original ratings suggested. D-rated neighborhoods consisted of nearly 45% Black residents at its highest in 1980 and only around 11% in A-rated neighborhoods, directly impacting the educational opportunities provided. Thus, from a young age, minorities face adversities that others do not, putting them at a disadvantage in college admissions and even job opportunities. Ideally, these issues would be addressed before college as affirmative action may just be a bandaid on a bullet hole, failing to address fundamental inequities.
The root of the issue should be addressed through increasing funding for underfunded schools at the primary and secondary levels to promote education equity for students from a young age. This could help combat the negative effects of redlining and, over time, reduce the need for affirmative action.
Proposition 16 could also help increase diversity on college campuses. Authors of “Campus Diversity: The Hidden Consensus” conducted a survey through various colleges, such as Dartmouth and UC San Diego, where over 8,000 students and faculty members acted as admissions officers. Respondents consistently favored underrepresented groups and economically disadvantaged applicants. Students seemed to believe that school should be a place where one can be exposed to different cultures and viewpoints. That’s not to suggest that schools in California intentionally accept people of the same background, but there is certainly room for improvement.
“[A]ffirmative action may just be a bandaid on a bullet hole, failing to address fundamental inequities”
Minority groups are underrepresented in UC schools – Hispanics make up 36.6% of California’s population, according to the 2018 U.S. Census Bureau, but only 22% of the UC population. Even with its benefits, affirmative action is nowhere near perfect. It may still harm the people it is designed to help, as it’s possible that the opportunities will only be given to the most economically privileged. After all, students who attend better-funded schools have more resources, making it impossible to truly level the playing field.
Discontinuing the use of the SAT in UC admissions was a step in the right direction. Many who supported removing it argued that the SAT only tested students’ ability to master the test, giving families who could afford tutors an unfair advantage. Thus, economic background should also be considered in college admissions as a whole. Considering only race is detrimental for those who are considered privileged based on their race but who cannot afford tutoring or homes in wealthier districts. Still, it’s undeniable that poverty and race are strongly correlated; it would be unreasonable to solely take into account economic background. In California, the poverty rate of black citizens is 20% compared to white citizens with 9%, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Poverty rates of Hispanics and Native Americans are similarly high at 17% and 16%, respectively. I would be in full support of affirmative action if it took into account economic background, a crucial factor in education. Affirmative action based solely on household income has been considered in the past, but just like affirmative action based solely on race, it is incomplete. This more than a socioeconomic issue, not just social and not just economic. To implement a more comprehensive solution, we need to address both aspects.
very nice