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

Page 23 text:

si bH LA. J R A Glossary of Undergraduate Admission Terms Admission by exception: UC policy that allows up to 6% of frestimen and 6% of transfers to be admitted without test and GPA scores that met the Minimum Eligibility Require- ments. Up to 4% may be disadvantaged and up to 2% may be athletes or those who demonstrate special talents. Master Plan; Adopted by the State Legislature in 1960 and recommends that UC choose from among the top 1 2.5% of the state ' s high school graduates. Minimum Eligibility: Standard used to determine the lowest possible balance of test scores and GPA required for high school students to apply to the UC system. Ranges fall between 2.82 GPA, 36 ACT, 1 590 SAT and 3.29 GPA, 1 2 ACT, 490 SAT. Quota: An allocation or proportional share of spaces allotted to a group or members of a group. Racial and gender quotas are illegal and are not practiced in UC admission policies. SP-1: Code for Regents ' policy eliminating race, ethnicity, and gender from consideration in the admission process. Supplementary criteria: Non-academic factors that are accounted for in admission cases where minimum eligibility is met, including special talents, evidence of leadership qualities, commitment to community service, disability, special circumstances, re-entry status, rural high school background, athletic ability, low-income, gender, and ethnic identity. Underrepresented minority: Students from ethnic background that are underrepresented within the student body of UC because of lower eligibility rates. They include African-American, Chicano (Mexican-Amencan) Latino (Other Hispanic), and American Indian students. Terms taken from the Glossary of Undergraduate Admission Terms published in May 1995 n a t I t- m p t to s h o Student monitors link .1 r ni n solidarity and maintain a nonviolent atmosphere [above left]. Students hold a s i n to express their i c w s [above)- People from all races and backgrounds were actively participating at the rally. One student holds up a s i 2 n r e a tl I n t; Queers lor ' X I f 1 r m a t i e .Action [ I e r t ] . AFFIRM.ATIVt; .ACTION 21

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. ?•

Page 24 text:

Who Belones Where? BY TRAGI BROWN AND VINCE MA The issue of political correctness merged with the debate on affirmative action and students formed unvoiced stereotypes that affected the way they viewed their classmates. arni-s obscrvinsJ the crowd. The intensity of the day is seen ni their tares. In the fall of 1990, the Vlmi York Tiwl-s published an article cxaniinina a rising campus phenomenon called political correctness. American society adopted the term as their phrase for the 90s, and the media, who utilized the PC explosion to its maximum capacity, began to manipulate the public into silencing their own free speech. The new McCarthyism, as the phenomenon was named by NfHSH-eek, described a disseminating tendency within collegiate institutions to quel! free speech through their feverish attempts to fioht sexism, racism, homophobia, and ethnocentrism. A controversy soon detonated in a countrv now in fear of its own words. Opinions that were once accepted were now offensive, and stereotypes that had been upheld for so long became politically incorrect. The debate, in hich the politically correct determined the right of others to voice or make certain judgements, took center stage. The university setting, a former convergence of intellectual and philosophical freedom, would emerge as a political correctness catalyst for the nation. The manner in which opinions were expressed and the way that fellow students were iewcd was changed forever, as unexpressed beliefs were hidden away behind a wall of PC caution. In the midst of the political correctness debate advanced the controversy over affirmative action. Issues of race, ethnicity, privilege, and morality enveloped the University setting and students were forced to face subjects once silenced by the PC explosion. Off limits arguements were opened for discussion and students began to dispute over the notion that, by ardently pursuing a diverse student body, the University would lower its standards and sacrifice its academic excellence. Matters of equality, reverse discrimination, and a right to the best possible education placed students, feeling victimized and cheated, onto the offensive. The heated debate over affirmative action became a battle for justice and justification. Students, now jaded with feelings of aggression and bitterness, began to view their peers with closed minds. The following characterizations are a compila- tion of admission situations and do not reflect any particular students at this or any other university. Athletes ' Advantage He had a high school GPA of 2.3 and a score of 950 on the SAT. Atter leading his high school football team to the state championships, this highly recruited senior chose to attend Berkeley over Arizona State, Cal State Long Beach, and Georgia Tech. Once at Cal, he led the team to a Pac-10 Conference championship. His talents wooed many alumni and football fans who would ultimately donate millions of dollars to the school. While at Cal he maintained a 2.0 GPA, and, with extra help from the personal tutoring services and counselors offered by the athletic program, graduated in six years with a degree in history. Should he have been admitted to Cal? Deferred to Spring Semester She was president of her student body, editor of the 2 2 I UK.