Thoughts from
San Diego on Law, Politics, and Culture

 
L.A. Times Misleads Public in Defending Diversity
By Gail Heriot

On Monday, the L.A. Times ran a story with the headline, "Overall, Race No Factor for Low-Scoring UC Applicants." Only in paragraph eleven does the reader realize that the story is an effort to mislead and that the Times' own findings suggest that race is very much a factor in UC admissions decisions. According the the Times' investigation, UC-Berkeley admits low-scoring Blacks and Latinos at a race TWICE that of Whites and Asians. UCLA is only somewhat better. It is about 25% more likely to admit low-scoring Blacks and Latinos than low-scoring Whites or Asians. The Times attempts to cover over this by arguing some of the other campuses do not appear to be discriminating by race. But the fact that UC campuses like Santa Cruz and Riverside do not appear to be motivated by race in choosing among applicants proves nothing. It is simply the result of the fact that those schools do not pick and choose from UC-eligible students; they admit them all. If Santa Cruz or Riverside wanted to discriminate in favor of one racial group or another, they would have to do it by influencing the UC eligibility index (which, sadly, they appear to have done--a bit on that below). They cannot do it by admitting more Black or Latino applicants from the UC eligible pool.

Yes, yes, I know, the fact that Berkeley admits low-scoring Blacks and Latinos at a rate twice that of low-scoring Whites and Asians does not in itself prove race discrimination. It simply shows that Berkeley's admissions criteria (whatever they are) have a disparate impact based on race. But that observation cuts both ways for the L.A.Times story. The Times' assertion that "overall, race is not a factor" cannot be proven just by the numbers either. And either way, the story is misleading. It suggests that the evidence they have uncovered exonerates the UC system when in fact it does the opposite. What the L.A. Times has uncovered is enough to warrant a serious inquiry into UC admissions practices.

Let me give a little background on the issue: A few weeks ago, the Chairman of the UC Board of Regents, John Moores, released a preliminary report on freshman admissions at UC-Berkeley showing that nearly 400 students had been admitted to the freshman class of 2002 with SAT scores of 600 to 1000 and GPAs that were unimpressive by Berkeley standards. At the same time, students scoring hundreds of points higher on the SAT and higher average GPAs were rejected. Moores expressed concern that something was amiss; he was met with jeers by UC insiders who essentially said that Moores didn't know what he was talking about and should not meddle in admissions matters.

(For those of you who are unfamiliar with the University of California system, its eight undergraduate campuses are charged witht the task of educating the top 12 1/2 % of California's high school graduates (as defined by a somewhat complex formula that weighs both high school GPA and standardized test scores). The more prestigious campuses--most notably Berkeley and UCLA--are much more selective, usually admitting only those students in the top 1% to 3% of the pool. Campuses that are lower in the pecking order--like Santa Cruz or Riverside--accept all "UC eligible" students. Students who receive 1000 or less on the combined SAT (i.e. the 50th percentile or lower) would traditionally be regarded substantially below the cut for UC eligibility and are far, far below the typical Berkeley or UCLA student. Moores was right to suspect that something was amiss.

Here's what appears to be happening: Since the passage in 1996 of Proposition 209, which banned racial preferences in (among other things) UC admissions, modifications to UC's admissions policy have been directed almost exclusively to methods of getting around the initiative's requirements. Two post-Proposition 209 innovations combine to make the effect Moores is concerned about happen.

1. Shortly after Proposition 209's passage, the Board of Regents adopted a program by which the top 4% of the graduates of each California high school are UC eligible regardless of their SAT scores. Why do this? Most of the students statewide who are in the top 4% of their high school class were already UC eligible. The exceptions, however--students with high class ranks but low standardized test scores--disproportionately come from rural and inner city high schools where low standardized test scores are often the norm. The group is disproportionately, but by no means exclusively or even nearly exclusively, Black and Latino. Some UC administrators deny that their support for this plan stemmed solely from its minority impact (and some are probably telling the truth). But it is worth pointing out that the only state universities even to consider such a plan have been those at which racial preferences have been prohibited or found to be illegal (California, Florida and Texas). A large number of the politicians, college administators and political activists supporting the change have been completely candid about their reasons: It will increase the racial representation of Blacks and Latinos.

The only problem from the standpoint of those who favor racial prefernces is that the 4% solution did not reserve seats for such students at any particular campus. It simply ensured that they would be admitted to the UC, most probably Santa Cruz or Riverside. Schools like Berkeley and UCLA were supposed to admit students only from the top of the UC eligibility poos and new students admitted to the pool by the 4% solution had academic credentials that placed them at the bottom of the pool.

2. More recently, the selective campuses instituted what they call "comprehensive review" procedures under which non-academic factors like the degree to which a student has overcome barriers get greater emphasis than before (and hence academic factors get less emphasis). This innovation has made it possible for Berkeley and UCLA to reach into the new minority-rich pool of students created by the 4% solution and bring them to the more prestigious campuses. These students are thus double-promoted over where they would have been prior to the adoption 4% solution.

Are Berkeley and UCLA deliberately picking Black and Latino students over White and Asian students in their comprehensive review? I wouldn't be shocked. And if they are, they are following a grand old tradition. When the Ivy League universities of the 1920s and 1930s adopted admissions policies that were designed to find "well-rounded" students rather than mere test-taking grinds, everyone knew that their real purpose was simply to exclude Jewish students. The rhetoric used by the UC in support of comprehensive review sounds much the same. The UC Board of Regents owes it to the public to ensure that history does not repeat itself.
posted by Gail at 11/04/2003 07:57:00 PM