University Attempts to Circumvent State Ban on Affirmative Action

Students walk near Royce Hall on the campus of UCLA in Los Angeles on April 23, 2012. Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images

Commentary

California is a one-party state wherein Democrats implement their dream progressive policies virtually unchecked. But the people of California are not on board with many such policies. When they are asked to vote directly on issues in ballot initiatives, they often vote more conservatively. They have done so in recent years on issues such as gay marriage, rent control, cash bail, taxes, independent contractors, and English only in schools. They also have twice voted to ban the use of affirmative action in state hiring or school admissions.

The first ban, Proposition 209, was enacted in 1996 and made part of California’s constitution. In 2020, the state’s progressives attempted to overturn the result through a new initiative, Proposition 16. It failed by more than 14 points, an even larger margin than the first proposition originally passed by.

In defeating affirmative action twice, Californians have been clear: They oppose race or ethnicity playing a role in the admission of students to college or in the hiring of faculty, staff, or any government employee. But the California left does not let the will of the people, or the state Constitution, get in the way of implementing their agenda. They simply change the name from affirmative action to equity and keep right on going.

Equity, as we now know, is not about treating people equally, but rather treating them unequally in order to achieve an equal outcome based on race or ethnicity or whatever other category the left decides needs its help. Far from accepting and implementing the will of the people, the University of California (UC) has embarked on a plan to implement equity despite the ban.

In fact, there is a 26-page document describing exactly how they plan to do it. It is entitled, “Guidelines for Addressing Race and Gender Equity in Academic Programs in Compliance with Proposition 209.”

Equity and Proposition 209

The guide, issued by UC’s legal department, states, “While Proposition 209 eliminated some of the tools that the University had previously employed to achieve diversity in its student body and its workforce, there are many steps that the University can take to maintain and enhance diversity and equal opportunity.”

The guidelines provide all the ways they can get around the ban. One trick is to assert that equity must be used in order to ensure “equal employment opportunity.” This allows them to focus on giving special opportunities to underrepresented groups, also known as affirmative action.

This clearly violates the spirit of the ban, if not the ban itself. Even before Proposition 209, courts had consistently held that affirmative action is illegal discrimination unless it is narrowly tailored to address specific and actual discrimination against the same group by the hiring entity. There is no evidence of such discrimination by the University of California. Nonetheless, UC appears to operate under the assumption that any discrepancy in hiring compared to the ethnic makeup of the state must be the result of discrimination.

The guidelines are just one of dozens of pronouncements, statements, and policies on diversity and equity which can be found on their websites. There are also lots of superlatives, such as equity and diversity are part of the “university’s fundamental mission.” There are also various forms of doublethink.

For instance, in its 2010 “Diversity Statement” it provides, “the University of California renews its commitment to the full realization of its historic promise to recognize and nurture merit, talent, and achievement by supporting diversity and equal opportunity in its education.” Recognize merit by supporting diversity? Huh?

The university also relies heavily on a 1960s federal regulation that requires contractors to have an “affirmative action plan” to ensure compliance with non-discrimination laws. They use this to justify a myriad of practices implementing equity. Yet, in its own guidelines it acknowledges, “Federal funding programs that require preferences based on race or gender are rare.”

‘Level the Playing Field’

More recently, universities in California have become even more creative in implementing backdoor affirmative action. In admissions, the biggest impediment to implementing equity is the standardized test requirement. So, both the UC and California State University (CSU) system got rid of it, and did not try to hide the purpose. The CSU Chancellor said the school made its decision to support “continued efforts to level the playing field and provide greater access to a high-quality college degree for students from all backgrounds.”

Without test scores, all that is left is grades, personal statements, and race, ethnicity, and gender. If you accept the top ten percent from all high schools, regardless of whether it is an exceptional private school or a low-performing public school, voila, affirmative action implemented.

Another new trick is requiring all faculty and staff applicants to present a diversity statement “about their past, present, and future contributions to promoting equity, inclusion, and diversity in their professional careers.” While affirmative action itself is illegal, nothing in the law prohibits a university from requiring that an applicant take a loyalty oath to affirmative action, and to demonstrate that he or she has practiced affirmative action in the past.

By requiring such a statement, UC ensures there are no whistleblowers about its practices. The only oversight is that of the University Regents, appointed by Governor Gavin Newsom, who backed the illegal practice of mandating that corporate boards consist of a specific number of females, minorities, and LGBT members.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.