Equality, not Preference

This blog has taught, and continues to teach, me so much. I was simply a girl with a passion to bring equality to the college admissions process after being impacted personally by the "reverse discrimination" that plagues the system. After the countless hours of research I have invested, I am now an educated member of the cause for equality. I have found invaluable political and local contacts (thank you Buck McKeon, Ward Connerly, and Jennifer Bollenbach at ACRI especially) and an even stronger passion to help create the change I seek. 


I hope you readers now feel informed on this topic and that you are each able to make an educated decision about your stand on the issue. Here's to the true equality called for by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 actually becoming reality. As ACRI so eloquently states it: 

"Race has no place in American life or law"

Thanks for reading!

Current Public Opinion

On June 3, 2009, Quinnipiac University released a national survey which asked Americans how they felt about affirmative action now. The survey specifically referenced the New Have firefighter case (video below). Here are the results: 

U.S. VOTERS DISAGREE 3-1 WITH SOTOMAYOR ON KEY CASE,

QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY NATIONAL POLL FINDS;

MOST SAY ABOLISH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

 American voters say 55 – 36 percent that affirmative action should be abolished, and disagree  71 – 19 percent with Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayer’s ruling in the New Haven firefighters’ case, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

More than 70 percent of voters say diversity is not a good enough reason to give minorities preferential treatment in competition for government or private sector jobs, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University survey of more than 3,000 voters finds. 

Looking at specifics of affirmative action, American voters:

·      Oppose 70 – 25 percent giving some racial groups preference for government jobs to increase diversity.  Black voters support it 49 – 45 percent while Hispanic voters are

opposed 58 – 38 percent;

·      Oppose 74 – 21 percent giving some racial groups preference for private sector jobs to

increase diversity.  Voters in every racial and religious group oppose this;

·      Oppose 64 – 29 percent affirmative action for Hispanics in hiring, promotion and college

entry.  Black voters support it 59 – 30 percent while Hispanics split 47 – 48 percent;

·      Oppose 61 – 33 percent affirmative action for blacks in hiring, promotion and college

entry.  Black voters support this 69 – 26 percent, as do Hispanics 51 – 46 percent;

·      Oppose 62 – 32 percent affirmative action for white women in hiring, promotion and

college entry.  Women oppose this 58 – 35 percent but blacks support it 55 – 37 percent.

“Whether it’s a belief that the statute of limitations on past wrongs has run out or economic pressures on workers, programs that supporters call affirmative action and opponents label racial preferences are unpopular with most American voters,” said Peter Brown, assistant director of the  Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

 “African-Americans are the only group that favors such programs, while Hispanics are mixed.  Women are more supportive than men.  Younger voters and those lower on the income scale are more supportive than older and more affluent voters,” Brown added.

“Proponents have long argued that such programs seek out qualified minorities but don’t disadvantage anyone.  But by a narrow margin, voters see a zero-sum game in which someone – generally white males – loses when someone else gains.  

“What is significant is that the public clearly opposes the idea that such programs are justified as a way of increasing diversity, which has become the rationale in recent years as opposed to compensating for past discrimination which was the reason when they first began."

From May 26 – June 1, Quinnipiac University surveyed 3,097 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of +/- 1.8 percentage points. 

The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts public opinion surveys in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Ohio and the nation as a public service and for research.  

55% of registered voters already support the mission of this blog. 


Now is the perfect time for change. 

Case Study: The University of California

The UC system in California pioneered the anti-affirmative action movement in 1995, actually abolishing affirmative action use in its admissions two years before Proposition 209 was instated. Watch the following video for a taste of the public sentiment towards this decision at the time: 

In case you noticed him in the video, Ward Connerly was indeed present for this landmark decision in 1995.

As a public university, the legislation instated by Proposition 209 still applies to the UC system, so they required by law to conduct admissions without the use of affirmative action. If California's largest and most esteemed post-secondary education system can thrive and maintain diversity on its campuses without affirmative action, I believe every other private university should be able to do the same.

An Example of College Admissions Done Right

In order to become a more credible writer on this topic, I asked the Chief Admissions Officer at my school (a small, private university) if I could interview him on the topic of affirmative action in the admission process. He not only responded right away, but also agreed to answer all my questions. He then sent me his detailed, thoughtful responses the same day I sent the questions! And, I am happy to report that I attend a private university (not subject to the laws created by Proposition 209) which does not employ any form of affirmative action in the admission process, yet still maintains a percentage of minority students that is much higher that the average private college nation-wide.

Here's how my school handles affirmative action, a method I encourage all other private institutions to adopt in order to stop reverse discrimination once and for all:

"Rather than “lower the bar” regarding standards and criteria for admission that might be applied differently to minority applicants than to non-minority applicants, we’d rather work hard to recruit minority applicants who meet admissibility expectations of the Admission Committee.  And, we routinely deny admission to both minority and non-minority applicants who we feel are simply not prepared for the rigor of this school's curriculum. Ethnicity is considered in the recruitment and outreach process well before the admission process.  We recruit aggressively at targeted high schools and community colleges in an effort to attract as many minority applicants as we can. Frankly, we think we are doing a better than average job here of shaping a class each year that is both diverse and also prepared to be here without having to employ any type of affirmative action strategy. This school has a legacy of being one of the first private colleges in the nation to enroll students of color in the early part of the 20^th century.  We are trying to maintain that legacy, but not at the expense of the overall academic standards it took us so long to achieve. I bet that any minority students you have in any of your classes are just as prepared to be here as any non-minority student." 

I completely agree that minority students in my classes here are just as eligible as non-minority students. As this example demonstrates, diversity on a college campus is attainable without the use of affirmative action or a loss of academic rigor.

Joining the Cause

After researching the recent progress made towards eliminating reverse discrimination in college admissions, I discovered the name Ward Connerly in countless articles on the topic. This man co-founded the American Civil Rights Institute along with Dusty Rhodes. The organization's goal (like this blog's) is to "educate the public on the harms of racial and gender preferences." Connerly is also a member of the University of California Board of Regents, and he led the board to a vote that ended the University's use of race as a means for admission on June 20, 1995. In addition, Connerly was the chairman for the California Civil Rights Initiative (Proposition 209), which appeared on the November 1996 ballot and passed by a 55 percent to 45 percent margin. He continues to work to bring initiatives like Proposition 209 to other states (Arizona being his current focus). Here is a college newscast from TSU where Connerly visited in April 2008 for an open forum discussion with students to give you an example of his mission and his methods.

I am also thrilled to share with you readers that I recently contacted the American Civil Rights Institute and told the organization's contact about my blog. I also shared my support of everything the organization is doing and told her that I would like to become involved through this blog and requested the organization's support and a contact for research purposes. The ACRI response was very enthusiastic and helpful (even indicating that Connerly himself may be able to speak with me) so some information in this blog will be straight from the political front of this issue.

Thank you ACRI!

Reverse Discrimination in the News

A landmark reverse discrimination case was recently decided by the Supreme Court on June 29, 2009 which, according to President Obama "moved the ball" towards eliminating affirmative action.

Watch the following overview of the case:

(Sorry readers, CBS disabled the embed function on this video, but just click the link)

Now take a look at President Obama's response to the decision:

Although Obama plays the role of a true politician and does not take

any firm stances on the matter, his final statement of wanting a

society where "everybody is treated fairly in an environment in

which race is rarely taken into account" embodies the goal of this

blog.

Personal Experience

Here are two of the reasons I believe the political cartoon below is, unfortunately, quite true:

I applied to ten colleges total (UCLA, UC Berkeley, UCI, UCSB, UCSD, Loyola Marymount University, Pepperdine, USC, Yale, and Chapman). I was accepted to every school except USC and Yale. Only two people from my high school were accepted to USC, each with almost identical SAT scores and extracurricular involvement as me but with lower class rankings by 20 and 35 places respectively. They were not only accepted, but also awarded scholarships (one is African American and the other is Asian).

Scholarships and financial aid were a huge concern for me being that my family is not able to contribute financially to my education at all. After receiving acceptance to LMU but insufficient scholarship awards, I was actually told by LMU that although I was equally qualified for their full-tuition scholarship as one of my classmates, she received the scholarship for “diversity purposes” (she is Hispanic). A day after speaking with LMU on the phone I received an e-mail awarding me an additional $1,500 a year...coincidence? I think not.

For the writers of the political cartoon thread and me, the cartoon represents more accuracy than hyperbole. What do you think?

Serious Satire

This political cartoon was posted in 2003. It blatantly states that affirmative action is, indeed, still used in college admissions to benefit minorities. The question...just how accurate is the cartoon?

The forum discussion on the website for this cartoon had the following thread:

Forum Discussion

Cartoon on Affirmative Action college admissions (July 5, 2005 1:50 PM)

Posted by: Chris Delorey

I am a minority and I still think this policy is outrageous. It is actually an insult because it implies that minorities need the help to get into college.

Re: Cartoon on Affirmative Action college admissions (July 9, 2005 12:09 PM)

Posted by: Good Will

What minority are you?

Re: Cartoon on Affirmative Action college admissions (July 13, 2005 7:41 PM)

Posted by: Chris Delorey

>What minority are you?

other than ethnicity, I am hard working which seems to be a minority these days. (by the way I'm in High School so the college struggle is very pertinent to me)

Re: Cartoon on Affirmative Action college admissions (July 14, 2005 3:21 PM)

Posted by: Good Will

Join the club. :-)

(goes back to one of his two jobs)

Hm, it seems even representatives of minorities see the accuracy of this cartoon. I like the eloquent point Chris makes that the term "minority" no longer needs to only refer to ethnicity, but to things like working hard. Obviously this problem has become so widely understood that it can now be a topic for satire. 

So is reverse discrimination a serious issue or one that can now be laughed about when it appears in political cartoons like these? 

Get Schooled: An Affirmative Action Timeline

September 24, 1965- Issued by President Johnson, Executive Order 11266 requires government contractors to "take affirmative action" toward prospective minority employees in all aspects of hiring and employment. Contractors must take specific measures to ensure equality in hiring and must document these efforts. On Oct. 13, 1967, the order was amended to cover discrimination on the basis of gender.

June 28, 1978- The landmark case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke in 1978 was the first to address the issue of “reverse discrimination” and question where the line should be drawn between lawful and unlawful practices of affirmative action. Allan Bakke, a white applicant to the University of California, Davis, Medical School, was denied acceptance twice despite the fact that minority applicants with significantly lower scores than his were admitted. Bakke sued the Regents of the University of California for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court maintained that race was a legitimate factor in school admissions. However, the court decided that using inflexible quotas to ensure a certain level of diversity was unconstitutional. Thus Bakke was granted admission to the school, and affirmative action was deemed unfair if it resulted in reverse discrimination, or providing greater opportunity for minorities at the expense of the majority.

Nov. 3, 1997- In 1997, California passed Proposition 209, effectively banning all forms of affirmative action in the state by asserting that “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, 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."

June 23, 2003- Grutter v. Bollinger, the most important affirmative action decision since the 1978 Bakke case, the Supreme Court (5–4) upholds the University of Michigan Law School's policy, ruling that race can be one of many factors considered by colleges when selecting their students because it furthers "a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body." 

Redress of Grievances

Attn: Howard P. “Buck” Mckeon

House Representative for the 25^th District in California

(Santa Clarita)

Member of the Committee on Education and Labor

Since 1961, when President John F. Kennedy coined the term in Executive Order 10925, affirmative action has been used in the college admission process to “eliminate racial bias.” In my opinion, however, affirmative action has now gone so far as to actually create a new racial bias in favor of minorities, a phenomenon that has been named reverse discrimination.


Despite past court rulings and legislation against the unfair use of affirmative action, I believe that “reverse discrimination” is still widely practiced today, particularly in the college admission process. This belief stems from my own personal experience of applying to college in 2006 along with my ethnically diverse senior class of almost 700, when I witnessed the impact of “reverse discrimination” first-hand. As my friends and I began to receive our acceptance letters and scholarship awards, I realized that when minority students were considered, the discrepancies between academic strength of a student and his or her acceptances and scholarship awards were blatant.

Ethnicity should not be a consideration in the college admission process. I believe it is time that all educational institutions, public and private alike, enforce the mandates outlined in Proposition 209 in order to make admission decisions solely based upon how qualified each applicant is. It is my hope that with the support of House Representative Buck McKeon from my hometown of Santa Clarita, admissions officers from local colleges, and you readers, discrimination in all its forms can finally be eliminated where college admissions are concerned.

Sincerely,


FilleBlanche