In 1996, Californians voted, 55 to 45 percent, to ban the use of affirmative action in admissions to state schools and in state employment. In 2020, Californians voted to maintain the ban by an even wider margin, 57 to 43 percent. Last year, the United States Supreme Court struck down college affirmative action policies on the grounds they violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
The clear message from the people and the Court is that admission should be based upon merit. But those running the University of California (UC) maintain their obsession with race and “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI). They are undeterred in their mission to enforce equity via affirmative action. Rather than complying with the law and the will of the people, they search for loopholes to achieve the racial balancing they deem ideal for the shaping of society.
Here is how it works. There is a new point system “that awards one point each for having a 3.0 GPA or higher in the major screening courses; California residency; Pell Grant eligibility [i.e. parental income]; and first-generation college status.” Thus, half of the criteria is based upon the student’s parents. And since the majority of UC students are from California, and a 3.0 GPA is pretty easy, it really means that the primary determiner will be the status of the children’s parents.
The reason for the new policy is pretty obvious: It will advantage black and Latino students, and disadvantage white and Asian. It is unique, however, in that it is using old-school class warfare to achieve it.
Many have noted that the left has typically substituted race for class as a means of implementing socialism in the United States. Due to the U.S.’s strong middle class and upward mobility, class warfare has not worked as a means of implementing socialism here. But with courts striking down admissions policies based upon race, the left is now going back to old-fashioned class conflict. Will it work, or is it also illegal to discriminate based upon parental income or education?
If a court determines that the intent of the policy is to discriminate based upon race, then it will apply a “strict scrutiny” test to the policy. This is the standard the Supreme Court used in striking down affirmative action in the Harvard case. The UCSD policy, in fact, appears to be thinly disguised discrimination.
It is well-known that the average income of black and Hispanic people is below that of white and Asian, as is the percentage with a college degree. Thus, a court should hold the policy to the same standard as the ones struck down in the Harvard case. Justice John Roberts wrote that the Equal Protection Clause applies “without regard to any difference of race, of color, or of nationality” and thus must apply to every person. As such, “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,” adding that “For ‘[t]he guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color.’”
It is interesting that the policy, for now, appears to only apply to currently enrolled students attempting to transfer into these majors, not upon admission. Perhaps recognizing that the policy will have a discriminatory effect and thus subject to challenge, UCSD limited it to leave open the argument that it is not denying anyone an education, simply the major of their choice. But this is unlikely to fly, considering that the two most important elements of a quality education is the school and the major. If you cannot get a degree in engineering, you cannot become an engineer, while a biology degree is the natural feeder to medical school.
The UC faculty, through the “Academic Senate,” oversees the admissions process. It explained getting rid of the SAT test: “This decision, which is part of the ongoing effort by the university to advance educational opportunity and equity, was based on the view that these tests are biased because they systematically and unfairly reduce the likelihood that underrepresented and low-income high school students will be accepted to the university.”
I have lots of stories from friends whose children could not get into a single one of the nine UC campuses across the state, but were accepted by the University of Michigan and University of Wisconsin, two of the best public universities in the country. That’s a nice consolation prize, except for the price, which is about five times more due to out-of-state tuition.
It is really incredible and the height of arrogance that California’s preeminent public university continues to fight against the will of its people. The Academic Senate asserts that “as a state public institution, the UC is obliged to create a student body that is representative of the demographic profile of California.” UC has even placed a Vice Chancellor of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion, overseeing an entire department, at each campus to ensure this.
That sounds nice, the only problem is Californians have twice voted against it, and the discrimination required to achieve it is unconstitutional. But when you are on a cultish mission to create your utopian vision, those are minor inconveniences.
