University of California Berkeley - Blue and Gold Yearbook (Berkeley, CA)

Page 21 text:

i BBH i 1 frm ■ o IS fiACf-P Oft M WBlW ; 1 EST Qc S - . ' K.. • ' • r. r :.Ti DflifT5 » u ir iv m .i V Where did it come from? Before the 1930s discrimination was legal. In 1933 Congress banned discrimination in the workplace with the Unemployment Relief . ' Xct and by the late forties and early fifties segregation laws were being challenged. The policies that forced blacks and whites to attend separate schools were overturned in the 1954 landmark case, Brown vs. Board of Education, making integration mandatory. In 1961 President Kennedy signed an exccutiye order and coined the phrase affirmatiye action to denote a company ' s positive steps to create a racially integrated workforce. Ten years later President Nixon wrote The Philadelphia Plan which instated timetables for integration. Soon thereafter Congress passed the Equal Righ ts .Amendment forcing equal consideration of w omen in all aspects of education and profession. The 1978 Supreme Court case, The Regents of the University of Calijornia vs. Allan Bakke, concluded that race may be one of the criteria used in the admission process so long as there arc no quotas or set-asides on the basis of race or ethnicity. Eight years ago the Regents of the University of California imple- mented a policy which mandated the enrollment of a student population that encompassed the cultural diversity of the state of California. How DOES IT AFFECT US? Since the implementation of affirmative action policies in 1988 there has been large shifts in the ethnic composition of the campus. For citizen and immigrant undergraduates, the percentage of Asians (including Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Filipino, East Indian, Pakistani, Vietnamese, Southeast . ' Ksian, and Pacific Islander) has risen from 25.5% in 1988 to 39.4 ' ' o in 1994. . frican-. ' Kmerican percentages vyhich peaked in 1989 with 7.7% haye dropped to 5.5% in the eight-year period since affirmative action began. The Chicano Latino population has risen from 1 1 .1% to 1 3.8% and Caucasian percentages ha e dropped from 48.5% to 32.4%. Berkeley ' s overall graduation rates have climbed steadily over the past 15 years. Rates for .■ frican-. American and Chicano Latino students are .AFFIRM TI ' F , CTK)N 19

Page 20 text:

E End of an Era B ' TRAGI BROWN AND VINCE MA very university discriminates in its entrance policies. No one wants to talk about it and few have an understanding of what this discrimination includes. Each year the Admissions Office determines who is invited to enroll based on complicated formulas of test scores , activities , and personal circumstances. When the Regents voted on July 20, 1995, in favor of endingthe Affirmative Action policy ofUC Admissions offices, which gave preferences to underrepresented minorities, a rancorous flash-fire spread through not just the nine UC campuses, but through the entire nation. There is a struggle for fairness from sides united bv the all cncompassins; teclings of sadness, frustration, and fear. Beneath the contention lies the universal human yearning for acceptance, for tolerance, and for power. We stand together, trying to detennine what is right and who will pay the emotional pricctag on affirmative action. And while we search for answers of who belongs where, we strain to find our own place in the heart of the matter. What is .hffirm. ' tive .action? Black ' s Law Dictionary, lifth Edition, 1979 defines affirmative action with the example designed to eliminate existing and continuing discrimination, to remedv lingering effects of past discrimination, and to create systems and procedures to prevent future discrimination; commonly based on population percentages of minority groups in a particular area. Factors considered are race, color, sex, creed, and age. .According to the UC Glos.sarv of Terms, published in Mav 1995, affirmative action is measures taken to ensure fair treatment to create opportunities for underrepresented appHcants. Affirmative action differs from passive non discriminaticjn in that efforts arc made to re ruit members of underrepresented groups. fgr Thousands of students, lacullv, and community members gather in Sproul Plaza to rally against the termination of afllrmative action. The October 12 forum 2a ' t hc crowd an opportunity to hear speeches, watch cultural performances, and voice their opinions on the issue [above]. Reverend Jesse Jackson speaks to students Irom the steps of Sproul. The keynote speaker was on campus for only a few hours before traveling to other California schools also involved in the protest [top left].

Page 22 text:

[coniinticd from pigc l ' The percentage of African-American students at Cal, which peaked at 7.7% in 1 989, has dropped to 5.5% in the eight- year period since affirmative action began. rising more rapidly than the rates for Asian and Caucasian students. The one-vear persistence rate is higher than ever as 94°o of the students who enter as freshmen return for a second year. What happened to afhrmative action? On July 20, 1995, the University of California Board of Regents accepted the following: Believing California ' s diversity to be an asset, we adopt this statement: Because indi iilual memhers of all of California ' s diverse races have the intelligence and capacitv to succeed at the University of California, this policy will achieve a UC population that reflects this state ' s diversity through the preparation and empowerment of all students in this state to succeed rather than through a system ol 15 the M n-, in protest of (loxcrnor Pete Wilson and the Kit cnts ' (licision to end Athi ni.iinc Action cre displavfd at the walk out, [Sic note on jiatre 261] artificial preferences. The resolution behind die adopted statement was presented to the Board on July 20 by Regent Ward Connerly and is sunimari ed as follows: Whereas, Governor Pete Wilson issued Executive Order W-124 95 on June 1, 1995, to End Prelerenti.il I riatiiirnt .iiid to l ' ri)iiiiit( IikIu idtial Opportunity Based on Merit ; and paragraph seven of that order rec|uesls the University of California to lake all necessary action to comply Willi lite mUiit anfl the requirements of this executive order ; and, in January 1995, the University initiated a review ol its policies and practices, the results of w hii h support many of the findings and conclusion of Governor Wilson; therefore, be it resolved as ;: ] follows: a task force shall be appointed to engage in an academic outreach to increase the eligibility rate of disadvantaged individuals; effective January 1 , 1997, the University of California shall not use race, religion, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin as criteria for admission or admission by exception to the University; supplemental criteria will be developed which shall provide consideration to disadvantaged applicants who demonstrate sufficient character and determination to succeed at the University of California; effective January i , 1997, between 50 and 75% of any entering class on any campus shall be admitted solely on the basis of academic achievement. Where are we now. ' First year UC President Richard Atkinson, who recently replaced former President Jack Peltason, has delayed the implementation of the terminated Affiramtive Action policies. Members of the state of California placed the California Civil Right Initiative on the November 1996 Ballot. The initiative states that neither the state of California nor any of its political subdivisions shall use race, sex, color ethnicity or national origin as criteria for either discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to an individual group in public employ ment, public education, or public contracting. Chronology of Events April 26, 1995, Los Angeles: All UC Campuses presented their projected racial and ethnic distribution for a fall 1994 class admitted with a non- Atfirmative Action based admission policy. June 1, 1995, California: Governor Pete Wilson issued an executive order to End Preterential Treatment and to Promote Individual Opportunity Based on Merit. July 20, 1995 UC San Francisco, Laurel Heights: Regents voted to end Affirmative Action in a 14-10 vote with one abstention. Voting Aye were Regents Burgener, Campbell, Clark, Connerly, Davies, del Junco, Johnson, Khachigian, Kolligian, Leach, Lee, Nakashima, Watkins, and Wilson. Voting No were Regents Brophy, Carmona, Davis, Eastin, Gomez, Gonzales, Levin, Montoya, Peltason, and Sayles. Abstaining was Regent Bagley. January 1997, California: Original date for inaction of policy stating that between 50 and 75% of any entering class on any campus shall be admitted soley on the basis of academic achievement. Race and ethnicity based preferences in admission policies for UC will end on this date according to the July 1995 vote terminating Affirmative Action. ?•