"We Should Not Be The Only Ones"

anyway...i'm not as up on the issues as many are, but i thought ucla and all the california public schools were hog-tied due to the demise of affirmative action and using race as a deciding factir to balance the student body.

The goal of affirmative action (IMO) was to provide opportunities so as to break the cycle of poverty.  In it's implementation, the policy looked only at the race of the applicant and not at the economic background of the family of the applicant.

Now, California is a massive state.  In percentage terms, African-Americans are a minority amongst all residents in California.  On relative terms, the African-American population looked on as a group is far less affluent (per capita) than the population of Caucasian residents.

However, in absolute terms, even though the group as a whole doesn't look anywhere near as well off as the Caucasian group, there are still a large number of affluent African-American families.  The children of these families already have a leg up.  They may live in more affluent neighborhoods, their parents have college educations and professional careers, and they have economic access to private educations.

Now I'm getting to my question:
Under affirmative action, was care taken to ensure that the African-Americans admitted under the program were substantially comprised of the lower-economic portion of the African-American population in California, or did the advantages of the more affluent African-Americans tend to "crowd out" the ability of the less affluent African-Americans to stand much of a chance?

There must be statistics on this somewhere in the University as to whether or not the program did a good job of ensuring they weren't simply admitting the relatively more affluent portion of the African-American community in California (these kids already have a leg up, it's the poor kids who need the most help).

I mentioned elsewhere that the admissions standards at UCLA are so high now that I am totally confident that I not only would not have been admitted, I wouldn't even have been allowed to drive past the campus.  

I am sure that one problem is that there is at least a popular notion that black families do not appear to place as much emphasis placed on education, preparation, grades, etc (the "etc" being whatever else goes into the selection process, such as number of Nobel Prizes won, number of diseases eradicated before the tenth grade, and so on) as the families of other kids competing for slots in the incoming class.

I don't see this as a problem created by the demise of affirmative action, but rather by an apparent willingness of many minority parents to accept mediocrity from their children.  I cannot say that I would be any different if my skin hue were not quite so lily white.  

Bottom line is that I have no answers (and not too many questions, either.)  Maybe our two former standouts will lead us to some enlightment.  Frankly, I hold out little hope, because the issue is so politically charged.  It will be hard to get a dialogue going that is not directed at least in part by preconceived notions of the participants.  

(Separate note:  Preconceived notions aren't easy to break, but sometimes a little enlightenment can be found.  Before moving to Florida, my wife and I changed from a safe, conservative all-white church to a very racially diverse church that was much more liberal than we were used to.  It was the best experience of our lives.  It's hard to hate, fear, (fill in the word) someone when you're together to worship, pray, commune, fellowship, hang out, laugh, cry, etc.  I highly commend this to fellow Bruins.)

For me it all begs an answer to an even larger question: is there any inherent value in "diversity"? When it comes to food, sure. But when it comes to things like business or sports the answer is obviously no. There's no one in their right mind that was thinking we needed another asian or white or american indian on the team last year in the NCAA Basketball championship game to win it. What we were missing was an additional skill or ability, not a race or ethnic group.

Likewise, when I look to hire someone in my line of work I don't find myself thinking "we need another -fill in the blank-". Instead, I think, "I need to find the best person possible for this job". I have always done just that, regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference or shoe size. Turns out that approach works great and what's more, it's fair.

In school admissions I'd say the answer to whether diversity is in and of itself of value depends on the goals of the school. If the goal of the school is to have a student body which is representative of the local population make-up, then by all means use that as an admissions criteria. At virtually every university I've ever heard of though, that is not the goal. Like UCLA, generally the admissions goal seems to be to bring in the best possible candidates as students irrespective of race, creed, color, etc. That seems a laudable goal to me, and quite sane. The goal of the university is to educate and graduate competent students. The current admissions process is geared to achieve that.

Unfortunately, blacks are struggling to get in given the current process. Is it worth scrutinizing the system further to assure no pernicious forces are at work here? Absolutely. However, the Bunche Report itself accidentally points out the best possible driver for blacks being acepted into UCLA: affluent parents.

Having affluent parents means that their children will have a real leg up in terms of educational environment and advanced preparatory services. Conversely, children with poor parents will be exposed to less conducive educational environments and almost no advanced preparatory services. I have some ideas on how to correct that to a certain extent, but nothing can replace individual responsibility, parental responsibility and communal responsibility all of which seem in less supply in non-affluent areas.

My bottom line is this: When I see a bumper sticker that says, "Celebrate diversity", I always think the same thing: how about celebrating competence or excellence? It seems to me UCLA is rightfully celebrating excellence in it's admissions process in as fair a manner as it can for all groups, and is getting unfairly assailed for it.

It's not the lone variable, but it's the most important.  It's more important for people to get into college than which college they go to.  If you're a first generation college kid, your children have a far better chance of going to a great school than you do.  And their children after them.  And so on and so on.

It takes generations.  Forcing the issue does little.

But even if you have the qualifications, you probably have a low percentage chance of getting in today. So, again, try the junior college route.

There is no need to give up on attending UCLA if that is what you really want to do.

Followup questions:
Do Baron and Brandon recognize this important difference in their "100" number? Or are there actually fewer than 100 African-Americans in that class (Did they count dark-skinned foreigners from African nations in their number?).

I used to have this talk with my mom. Went something like this:

"Sure, asians and jews are minorities in America. The reason asians and jews are so (relatively) successful today is because when they came to America, they were welcomed with open arms. They were accepted as equals, and were hardly the victims of racism. They were given fair, honest, even preferential treatment in the business world as well as academia. These ethnic groups received all the breaks when they came to America. That's why they are where they are today, because of all the advantages they had. . ."

umm. . .yea

Anyway, props to anyone who puts their money where their mouth is and stands up for what they believe in.

the 100 would represent about 2 percent of the freshman class.

Case in point: My wife is currently at a school where she is part of a new reading intervention program. While she was doing assessments of the 2nd grade students, there was one child (have no idea of race)that could read 4 words only. What chance does that child have of moving forward without special help. Hopefully the reading program she is in can address these needs before the child is lost in the system and just socially pushed ahead to the next grade level, to struggle further.

I applaud their aims, but they might lead by example just a little by returning to school and picking up a degree.  Or at least trying.