Not in the numbers

Enrollment "increase" no sign of success

Since the passage of Proposition 209, the nation has looked to California as the proving grounds for anti-affirmative action initiatives. That measure effectively ended affirmative action in the state by eliminating programs that involve "preferential treatment" based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. If, in the wake of Proposition 209, minority enrollment in California universities were to slide significantly, affirmative action advocates would have a great case for its reinstatement. On the other hand, if the opposite occurred, they might be in serious trouble.

Some preliminary results are in. According to UC officials Monday, the number of black, Hispanic and Native American first-year students admitted to the University of California system has rebounded to pre-209 levels. But the increase in admissions from last year in no way signals the end of racial disparity.

In fact these statistics illustrate what proponents of affirmative action have said from the start: without programs to encourage diversity, underrepresented minorities aren't given equal access to quality education. While minority enrollment has increased at the less competitive UC schools (such as Irvine, Riverside and Santa Cruz), blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans are still massively underrepresented at the highly respected campuses of Berkeley and UCLA. As long as these groups are deprived of proportionate admission to the best schools, they are in no way receiving equal opportunity.

Suppose, for example, that Michigan enacted similar legislation effectively ending affirmative action programs. Our state certainly couldn't claim to have equality in higher-education if enrollment at Michigan and MSU plummeted while Western, Central and Eastern University's populations rose to offset the decline. Similarly, don't expect minority-advocates in California to jump for joy over Monday's press release.

These statistics merely show that instead of leveling the playing field, California has simply stratified it. Ironically, Ward Connerly, a UC regent staunchly opposed to racial preferences, said it best: "the numbers ... (do) not mean that minority kids will not be educated at one of the best educational facilities in the country ... They'll just be redistributed to less competitive campuses." The state probably hasn't seen such segregation since ... well, segregation.

Additionally, the UC figures misconstrue actual minority representation on California campuses to make a decline in representation seem like an increase. Even though the raw number of students admitted to the UC system have rebounded to 1997 levels, proportional representation of these minorities still remains well below that year. According to the New York Times, black, Hispanic and Native American students accounted for 18.8 percent of new first-year student admissions in '97, but only 17.6 percent of admissions this year. Because underrepresented minority enrollment is still relatively lower than it was when such programs were in place, these numbers indicate that affirmative action is still desperately needed in California.

While it's encouraging that minority admissions have somewhat recovered from the massive blow Prop. 209 inflicted two years ago, current levels are by no means optimal. Minorities don't just need access to higher education, they need equitable access to quality education as well. In short, they need affirmative action.