Iwuoma, Destiny

American Studies 191

3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.
Access Limited: The Plight of Students of Color Gaining Equitable Representation to the
University of California

Introduction:
The state of California is a unique state in the United States (US) because of its historic
diversity. The University of California (UC) claims to be a diverse campus reflecting the
diversity of the state of California. When it comes to the topic of diversity in higher education,
most of us will readily agree that the UC should represent the diversity of the state of California.
Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of race conscious admission
policy. Whereas some are convinced that the original purpose of affirmative action in the US was
to address the countrys past history of slavery, peonage, racism and legally sanctioned
segregation which barred blacks and other minorities and women of all races from full
participation in the work force and in Americas educational institutions1. (Wilson, 1996) Others
maintain that we have reburdened society with the very marriage of color and preference (in
reverse) that we set out to eradicate2 But despite decades of involvement by youth of color in
various types of college preparation programs, these students continue to be severely
underrepresented in higher education3. Californias long history affected many racial groups still

Wilson, R. 1996. Affirmative action and higher education. IN D.J. Carter and R. Wilson (Eds.),
Minorities in higher education:1995-96 fourteenth annual status report, 35-53.
2
Steele, Shelby. The content of our character. Vol. 60. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990.
3

Wilds, Deborah J. "Minorities in Higher Education, 1999-2000. Seventeenth Annual Status

Report." (2000).

Iwuoma, Destiny
American Studies 191
3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.
residing in the state, however education seems to be the arena to unite all racial groups in order
to move forward towards a more perfect union as one state of California.

Higher education should be a space where people of different backgrounds come together
and understand their different backgrounds can come together and understand their differences in
a scholarly community. Moore states, college campuses can embrace diversity by viewing
campuses as communities. The classroom should reflect the diverse communities in which
Californian students reside4. But the University of Californias student body is not reflective of
the diversity of the state of California. What are the factors that occurred in the state of
California that caused the University of California to be in violation of its commitment to a
diverse student body? How is the University of California increasing enrollment students of
color? How are college access programs and race neutral policies affecting the University of
Californias mandate to reflect the cultural, racial, geographical, economic, and social diversity
of California? Furthermore, I am studying Governor Pete Wilsons Executive Order, SP-1 and
Proposition 209 because I want to understand the impact that these three pieces of legislation
have on University of Californias failure to reflect the diversity of the state of California. In
order to help my reader understand why the University of California is in violation of its
constitutional mandate to enroll a student body that reflects the cultural, racial, geographical,
economic and social diversity of California.

Background:
4

Moore, Jamillah. Increasing Access to the University of California: A Case Study of Senate
Constitutional Amendment 7. Diss. The U of San Francisco, 1999. Ann Arbor: U Microfilms
International, 1999. Print.

Iwuoma, Destiny
American Studies 191
3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.
The University of California is in violation of Education code by having a student body
that is not proportional to the population of California. For instance, Education Code 66010.2
reads:
(a): Goals for Higher Education: Access to education, and the opportunity for educational
success, for all qualified Californians. Particular efforts should be made with regard to
those who are historically and currently underrepresented in both their graduation rates
from secondary institutions and in their attendance at California higher educational
institutions5 (pg 1258)
The education code insists the University of California should be a place where underrepresented
groups have equitable representation. In another instance, Education Code 66205 reads:
It is the intent of the Legislature that the University of California and the California State
University, pursuant to Section 66201.5, seek to enroll a student body that meets high
academic standards and reflects the cultural, racial, geographical, economic, and social
diversity of California6 (pg. 1266)
In essence these constitutional mandates placed upon the University of California have not been
carried out in an equitable fashion to all Californians. The U.S Constitution is the highest legal
authority that exists including provisions in any state constitution, considered the highest legal

CAL. EDC. CODE 66010.2 : California Code - Section 66025

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/EDC/3/d5/40/2/3/s66025#sthash.NwtxFgWv.dpuf

CAL. EDC. CODE 66025 : California Code - Section 66025 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/EDC/3/d5/40/2/3/s66025#sthash.NwtxFgWv.dpuf

Iwuoma, Destiny
American Studies 191
3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.
authority in state, or any state statute or law7. Therefore the UC should abide by the law and
create the diverse institution that reflects the diversity of the state of California as it is mandated
to do so.
The UCs race neutral practices are not in alignment with the vision of the California
Master Plan, which is inhibiting the UC from fulfilling its constitutional mandate derived from
the Education Code which states the UC should reflect the cultural, racial, geographical,
economic and social diversity of California. In 1960, the California Master Plan outlined the
ideal opportunity for Californians to engage in higher education and is referenced throughout
debates on higher education frequently. One implication of the California Master Plan can be
referenced in 1973, where the Joint Committee on the Master Plan, in the first major revision
of the 1960 Master Plan, recommended that Each segment of California public higher
education shall strive to approximate by 1980 the general ethnic, sexual and economic
composition of the recent high school graduates. 8 Essentially, the committee is saying the
University of California should be looking to reflect the diversity of the state of California in its
admission enrollment numbers. However, this is not the case at the University of California, and
my research exists to raise awareness to the low number of students of color at the University of
California.

In 1991, the state of California had the opportunity to live up to the California Master
Plan but failed when they prioritized individual merit by rejecting a proposal from Assembly
member Willie Brown. Assembly member Willie Brown introduced AB 2150 in 1991, which
7

Kaplin, William A., and Barbara A. Lee. The Law of Higher Education, 2 Volume Set. John
Wiley & Sons, 2013.
8

Ibid.

Iwuoma, Destiny
American Studies 191
3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.
stated, students and faculty at public schools and universities must reflect the diversity of the
state9. However, The California Association of Scholars (CAS) argued strongly against such
provisions stating that students seeking admission to college and faculty applying for teaching
positions should be judged on the basis of their qualifications as individuals, not by their race,
color or sex. The Brown bill was vetoed by Governor Pete Wilson10 I disagree with the CAS
opposing Assembly member Willie Browns legislation because by denying this legislation it
puts the UC in a position where they are in violation of its constitutional mandate to represent the
diversity of California.
The University of Californias current approach to making the California Master Plan
attainable is not working. Karabel provides an updated version of the committees statement,
'Each segment of California public higher education shall strive to approximate by the year 2000
the general ethnic, gender, economic, and regional composition of recent high school graduates,
both in first-year classes and subsequent college and university graduating classes'11 (Karabel
1989) In 2000, the number of Black students enrolled at UC Berkeley fell by 8%, going from
1,065 students enrolled in 1999, to 980 enrolled in 200012. Therefore the University of California
is not fulfilling the recommendations given to them by the Joint Committee on the Master Plan.
Even though these recommendations have gone unfulfilled, the UC should look to the past for
ways to redress the racial disparities that exist in their enrollment practices.

Chavez, Lydia. The color bind: California's battle to end affirmative action. Univ of California
Press, 1998.
10
Ibid.
11
Karabel, Jerome. 1989. Freshman Admissions at Berkeley: A Policy for the 1990s
and Beyond. A Report of the Committee on Admissions and Enrollment, Berkeley Division,
Academic Senate, University of California. Berkeley: University of California at
12

http://legacy-its.ucop.edu/uwnews/stat/statsum/fall2000/statsumm2000.pdf

Iwuoma, Destiny
American Studies 191
3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.
Brown v. Board (1954) served as a case that made education more equitable for students
in segregated schools. Pusser argues Brown v. Board played a role in the arguments for and
against affirmative action in the University of California. In Brown, the Court held that racial
distinctions at the core of segregationist education laws violated equal protection under the
Fourteenth Amendment. As a result of Brown, so called separate but equal educational facilities
were ruled unconstitutional13 I agree that Brown V. Board (1954) played a vital role in
addressing racial discrimination in education during the 1950s. Similarly, Proposition 209, SP-1
and Governor Wilsons Executive Order draw attention to racial disparities that exist in the UC
in 2015. Furthering my argument that the UC is in violation of its constitutional mandate to
create a population reflective of the diversity of California.

The University of California should demonstrate the model of the ideal University in
California by welcoming the diverse perspectives and experiences of students in the K-12
system. But it is evident that the aforementioned statutes (Education Code 66010.2 & Education
Code 66205) should, clearly require postsecondary education to adhere to quality, equity and
access for all students in the state of California14 Therefore, based upon California education
statutes and the constitution, it is mandatory that the University of California provide a sound
alternative to its current admission process in order to develop a student body which is reflective
of the states diverse population"15 Basically, Proposition 209, SP-1 and Governor Pete Wilsons
Executive Order should be directly addressed as the causes of the lack of diversity at the

13

Pusser, Brian. Burning down the house: Politics, governance, and affirmative action at the
University of California. SUNY Press, 2012.
14
15

Ibid.
Ibid.

Iwuoma, Destiny
American Studies 191
3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.
University of California.

In the essay that follows I analyze Governor Pete Wilsons Executive Order, SP-1, and
Proposition 209 directly contradict the University of Californias constitutional mandate to
provide an education for students of color in the state of California. In order to explore how the
University of California attempts to uphold its constitutional mandate I divide my essay into
three sections. In the first section I introduce and analyze Governor Pete Wilsons Executive
Order, SP-1, and Proposition 209, assuming these three pieces of legislation created the
environment where the UC is in violation of its constitutional mandate to reflect the diversity of
the state of California. The legislation was enacted with the thought that it would make
California admission policy fair to those who exercised individual merit in the K-12 system.
However, I argue the legislation negatively impacted students of color in California, giving way
to the over representation of Chinese and Korean students and the underrepresentation of Black
Chicana/Latino, Native American and South Asian students.

In the next section, I examine college access programs and race neutral practices in
California whose intention is to create access for students of color to enter the University of
California. I examine these programs to understand current efforts in place by the UC to increase
enrollment of students of color. Although these programs engage hundreds to thousands of
students of color, these programs do little to mitigate the affects of the aforementioned three
pieces of legislation (Governor Pete Wilsons Executive Order, SP-1, and Proposition 209).
Leadership in the University of California (Chancellor Dirks & Janet Napolitano) speak on
expanding these programs, but the root issue is the impact of Governor Pete Wilsons Executive
Order, SP-1, and Proposition 209 on the enrollment of students of color at the University of

Iwuoma, Destiny
American Studies 191
3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.
California. In my research I will demonstrate how Governor Pete Wilsons Executive Order, SP1, and Proposition 209 negatively impacted enrollment at the University of California for
students of color.
In my research I will examine University of California at Berkeleys current state of
diversity. In efforts to understand how the University of California determines eligibility into
their institution. I will be evaluating University of Californias commitment to diversity in
California by evaluating enrollment data for students of color in the University of California,
particularly Black students at University of California at Berkeley. Furthermore I will evaluate
policies and programs in place at the University of California that relate to admissions and
diversity at the University of California.
Diversity in the UC is important from the perspective of Cultural Pluralism. The UC
should be a place where all cultures in California come together in order to make California
stronger as a state. Cultural Pluralism theory points out the uniqueness of different ethnic groups,
which makes us stronger as a nation, but it also calls for the conformity of our differences to help
bring about uniformity which can assist us in communicating and interacting effectively. For this
reason cultural pluralism should begin in the classroom and on campus.16 Therefore, the UC
should consider a Culturally Pluralistic perspective in its admission policy by instituting a race
conscious admission policy. Yates argues there is more to learning than reading a book and
taking your test. Diversity in the classroom adds to the university experience17.

16

Appleton, Nicholas. Cultural Pluralism in Education. Theoretical Foundations. Longman Inc.,

1560 Broadway, New York, NY 10036, 1983.
17
Yates, A. C. (1996). Affirmative action debate should not hinder university commitment to
equal opportunity. The Journal o f College Admissions. Summer/Fall, pp. 34-44

Iwuoma, Destiny
American Studies 191
3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.
Diversity at the University of California:

Before I can evaluate the University of Californias commitment to Diversity. I must first
explain the significance of diversity in Higher Education according to Yates diversity, in its
myriad forms, is as essential to the university as books and classrooms. Without diversity of
people, ideas, perspectives, lifestyles and more, achievement of the universitys mission is
impossible. Without diversity, the university does not reflect society and thus, cannot relate to
society. Without diversity, academic efforts to criticize and judge our world have no
foundation18. Furthermore, In briefs submitted in Gratz and Grutter as well as Fisher, the social
science cited suggests that student body diversity improves classroom learning environments;
promotes thinking skills; challenges racial stereotyping; and can have positive effects on
important educational outcomes including retention, college satisfaction, self-confidence, and
leadership skills19. In other words the UC as a whole will benefit from increasing enrollment for
students of color.
Basically Yates is making an argument for the philosophy of a university to be based in
the student experience. If the student experience is a one sided view of the world, then the
university fails to create an environment where students advance knowledge beyond their
discipline of study.
Student experience should be valued enough that it influences how admission decisions
are made at the University of California. In Yates view,

18

Ibid.
Jenkins, Laura Dudley, and Michele S. Moses, eds. Affirmative Action Matters: Creating
Opportunities for Students Around the World. Routledge, 2014.
19

Iwuoma, Destiny
American Studies 191
3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.
When it is a matter of choosing among people with comparable strengths and
qualifications, many factors should be considered. If one of the qualified candidates can
lend a diverse perspective to a department or classroom that lacks such perspective, that
is an important contribution and ought to be weighed. We can consider contributions to
diversity as a secondary criterion without resorting to a numbers game, but it will require
that we restore an element of humanity and common sense to our admission and hiring
processes20
Yates is insisting current admission processes at the University of California are lacking a
humanistic approach, and I agree because the University of Californias enrollment data reflects
a population lacking diversity in relation to the population in California. The populations of
Blacks and Latinos in the UC System are not in alignment with the population of Blacks and
Latinos in California. For instance the Latin Population in California is 38.4%21 and the Latin
Population at UC Berkeley is 14%22. The Black population in California is 6.6%23 and the Black
population at UC Berkeley is 3.4%24. This data exposes the UC in violation of its constitutional
mandate to reflect the diversity of California
The University of Californias commitment to diversity should intend to make the
University reflect the cultural, racial, geographical, economic and social diversity of California.
In 1988 the University of California Regents stated its admission policy with the goal "to enroll
on each of its campuses a student body that demonstrates high academic achievement or
exceptional personal talent, and that encompasses the broad diversity of backgrounds and
characteristic of California.25 However, there must be a legitimate explanation to why the
20

Ibid.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html
22
http://opa.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/UndergraduateProfile.pdf
23
Ibid.
24
Ibid.
25
Atkinson, Richard C., and Patricia A. Pelfrey. "Rethinking admissions: us public universities
in the post-affirmative action age." Center for Studies in Higher Education (2004).
21

Iwuoma, Destiny
American Studies 191
3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.
University of California is unable to fulfill its proclaimed commitment to Diversity. In my
research I will explain how three key pieces of legislation (Governor Wilsons Executive Order
W-124-95, SP-1 and Prop 209) created the low percentage of students of color at the University
of California.
Governor Wilsons executive order W-124-95 started the downfall of the current low
number of students of color in the University of California. Wilsons Executive order represents
a savvy political move rather than Wilson truly caring about individual merit in the UC System.
Chavez brings to light the underlying goal of the battle to end Affirmative Action, which was
political for the Governor Wilson who wanted to become President of the United States. Chavez
argues that the Regents meting to end Affirmative Action was more about power and
presidential politics than affirmative action. The governor, a presidential candidate wanted to be
the man to end Affirmative Action and most of the regents were there to support him26. I agree
that Governor Wilson turned the Affirmative Action debate into a political spectacle in order to
gain attention around his candidacy for president. I say this because in the meeting to end
Affirmative Action many people spoke about the policy working to create a diverse community
reflective of the state of California. President of the Alumni Association Regent Judith Levin
stated. Im still terribly concerned about the fact that for a long time we have heard from
chancellors, the administration, the office of the president, the academic senates, and the students
that this policy is a policy that works well. I dont know why we are sitting here and saying, Its
not working. Lets change it completely. (Chavez, 2008) I agree with Regent Levin that
Affirmative Action was a policy that worked to ensure the University of California reflected the

26

Ibid.

Iwuoma, Destiny
American Studies 191
3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.
diversity of the state of California, however Governor Wilsons political motives proved to be
more important than the UC upholding its commitment to diversity.
Governor Wilson used the debate around affirmative action as a political tool to gain
popularity for his presidential campaign. The faculty who made up the UC Academic Senate
disagreed with Pete Wilsons political agenda to end affirmative action. In fact, the U.C
Academic Senate voted 124 to 2...to call on the regents to rescind their votes to abolish race and
gender preferences at U.C27. I agree with the UC Academic Senate because they recognize the
important role affirmative action played in preserving the integrity of the UC as an institution
that should represent the diversity of California. Consequently Pete Wilson and Ward Connerly
teamed up to create the California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI). The CCRI would be the entity
Ward Connerly and Pete Wilson used to ensure the ban on affirmative action would turn into a
ballot measure. Ending preferential treatment on the account of affirmative action was a plot to
make Governor Wilson popular in his run for President. The ballot measure would ensure the
people of California recognized Pete Wilson as the one who ended preferential treatment.
Therefore Pete Wilson needed anti-affirmative action to expand to beyond the UC system and to
all of California.
The University of California is responsible for the low percentages of students of color
due to the passage of Proposition 209. Brown argues "two events explicitly shaped antiaffirmative [action] policies. In 1995 the UC Berkeley Academic Senate voted to eliminate race
from the admissions guidelines. In 1996 the California electorate passed Proposition 209, a law
that eliminated race from the admissions criteria in the entire state.28 I agree that Proposition 209

27
28

Ibid.
Brown, Cecil. "Dude, Wheres My Black Studies." (2007).

Iwuoma, Destiny
American Studies 191
3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.
is considered legislation opposing affirmative action, but I insist Governor Wilsons executive
order and SP-1 play vital roles in the build up to the passage of Proposition 209. In retrospect,
Proposition 209 may be seen as the beginning and the end in the debate around Affirmative
Action in California. However, Brown mentions UC Berkeleys Academic Senate in 1995 a year
prior to Proposition 209 infringing on the rights of students of color. Brown demonstrates how
the Academic Senate considered a vote to eliminate race from the admission process. The vote
shows the University of California intentionally engaged in activity to create the atmosphere for
anti-affirmative action policies to be created. I argue these policies are the reason the UC is
currently in violation of its constitutional mandates. (Education Code 66010.2 & 66205)

Wilsons executive order influenced the passage of SP-1, which ended race conscious
admission policy in the University of California. The UC Regents followed suit with SP-1 in
order to promote individual merit in the UC Admission process. However, scholars argue
individual merit is not the best mechanism for increasing enrollment of students of color. Instead,
race conscious admission policy such as affirmative action is necessary. But others argue
affirmative action is a discriminatory practice. The idea that affirmative action is discriminatory
is a misconception that stems from the myth of meritocracy. Those who make this argument
never consider how much privilege, often afforded by skin color and the arbitrary circumstances
of birth, influences ones ability to meet traditional, quantifiable standards of merit29. Essentially
Moses is claiming the UCs argument for individual merit is flawed because it does not take into
consideration the privilege allotted to Whites in this country. Furthermore, SP-1s resolution

29

Moses, Michele S. Embracing race: Why we need race-conscious education policy. Teachers
College Press, 2002.

Iwuoma, Destiny
American Studies 191
3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.
barred the University of California from using race, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin as
criteria for admission to the university or to any program of study.30 Essentially, SP-1 and
Wilsons Executive Order set the stage for the University of Californias student body to change
dramatically, negatively impacting enrollment for students of color.
Anti-Affirmative action policies such as Wilsons Executive Order changed the
demographics at UC at a time when more and more and minority students are preparing for
college, it is disturbing that many of our most prestigious colleges and universities are turning
away from them31 I agree that Universities are turning away students but I insist the root of the
issue is based in anti-affirmative action policies such as Governor Pete Wilsons Executive
Order, SP-1 and Proposition 209. Assuming Universities are arbitrarily excluding students of
color is a misconception. I argue anti-affirmative action policies have created an admission
system that violates the UCs constitutional mandates.
Moore argues the banning of preferential treatment with Wilsons Executive order and
SP-1 caused the University of Californias ethnic make up to change drastically for the Class of
199832. For example, high profile campuses such as those of Berkeley and Los Angeles are
proven facts that the new face of the University of California is primarily European and Asian
students33. Moore is insisting that the University is no longer abiding by its mandate to create
University that reflects the population of California in its respective student body. Therefore the
University of California is in violation of its educational statutes (Education Code 66010.2 &
Education Code 66205).
30

Ibid.
Gerald, Danette, and Kati Haycock. "Engines of Inequality: Diminishing Equity in the Nation's
Premier Public Universities." Education Trust (2006).
32
Ibid.
33
Ibid.
31

Iwuoma, Destiny
American Studies 191
3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.
The University of Californias duty is to admit from the diverse populations of the state
due to its constitutional mandate. However student diversity in the entering and graduating
classes at these universities are becoming more and more disparate from the state populations
they were created to serve34 I agree that the University of California falls into the trend of its
student bodys percentage not reflecting the diversity of the state. In fact, this is the reason the
UC is in violation of its constitutional mandate because the UC does not reflect the cultural,
racial, geographical, economic, and social diversity of California.
The education code claims the University of California should make particular efforts to
make sure historically and currently underrepresented students gain admittance into the
institution. I understand this code to protect the right for Black students to attend a top tier
institution in the University of California system such as UC Berkeley. However, being that the
California population of Blacks is 6.6%35 and the current UC Berkeley population is 3.4% Black
students36. It is evident that the University of Californias admission system is flawed. Wilsons
executive order, SP-1 by the UC Regents and the ballot initiative Proposition 209 banned
affirmative action causing the University of California to violate Education Codes 66010.2 and
66205 which states It is the intent of the legislature that the University of California seek to
enroll a student body that meets high academic standards and reflects the cultural, racial,
geographical, economic and social diversity of California37.
Proposition 209 is an example of the state interfering with the goals of the University of
California. Because of the public interest in higher education, especially public higher education,

34

Ibid.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html
36
Ibid.
37
Ibid.
35

Iwuoma, Destiny
American Studies 191
3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.
however, we are witnessing increasing involvement in the matters of colleges and universities by
both the federal and state governments38. Sometimes this involvement provides added support to
an institution as it attempts to successfully reach particular goals; other times this involvement
works against an institutions interests39. I argue the UC is in violation of its constitutional
mandate to enroll a diverse student body because of Proposition 209.

Furthermore, the fourteenth Amendment states no state shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States40. With proper
understanding of the 14th amendment I argue prop 209 is currently infringing on the rights of
Black students in the state of California. I base my argument on the enrollment percentage of
Black students was at 8% immediately after the passage of prop 209 the percentage of Black
students dropped to 3% and since then the population has remained relatively unknown. Today
the percentage of Black students is at 2.9%.
With Ward Connerly coining proposition 209 as the California Civil Rights Initiative the
people of California were misguided into believing prop 209 was going to benefit students of
color. Although invoking the virtues of diversity to justify education policy is historically
complicated as well as philosophically rich, doing so can also shift the intellectual foundation for
that policy. This shift can have very serious consequences for actual program implementation

38

Berdahl, Robert O., and T. R. McConnell. "Autonomy and accountability: Some fundamental
issues." Higher education in American society (1994): 55-72.
39
40

Ibid.
CITE 14th Ammendment

Iwuoma, Destiny
American Studies 191
3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.
and for how the policy eventually plays out in advancing civil rights and social justice"41. Some
may think the legislation would benefit students of color, but it did the opposite. In fact, the
legislation is a key factor to the UCs violation of education mandates to have a diverse student
body reflective of the diversity of California. Therefore if the University of California upholds its
constitutional statutes, there should be admissions policy in place where the student population
fairly represents the states population in order to serve the state of Californias diverse
community as stated in its constitutional statute (Education Code 66010.2 & Education Code
66205).
Pete Wilson and Ward Connerly used their political agendas to utilize California Civil
Rights Initiative to push for anti-affirmative action policies. Their policies in turn created the
Moses42 argues. "Whether right or wrong, education policy decisions traditionally are made by
policymakers, public servants, administrators, educators, and even sometimes the courts.
Because of the proliferation of direct democratic ballot initiatives related to education, some
important education policy decisions including affirmative action have been hijacked by
ideologically driven interest groups that are able to place their issues on state ballots.
Unfortunately students of color suffered the most from the most from the political agenda
created by Connerly and Wilson. Next Ill be exploring the role College Access programs play in
the UCs attempt to fulfill its constitutional mandate to reflect the diversity of California.

College Access Programs:

41

Moses, Michele S., and Mitchell J. Chang. "Toward a deeper understanding of the diversity
rationale." Educational Researcher 35.1 (2006): 6-11.
42
Ibid.

Iwuoma, Destiny
American Studies 191
3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.
College access programs are working but they are not enough to undo the effects of
Governor Wilsons Executive Order, SP-1 and Proposition 209. In my research my goal is to
understand how the University of California is upholding its constitutional mandate to create a
diverse student body reflective of the California population. College Access programs such as
Upward Bound and Gear Up are methods the University of California uses to increase awareness
to students of color about higher education. For instance, the Gear Up programs purpose is to
foster increased knowledge, expectations, and preparation for postsecondary education among
students and their families.43 I agree the University is moving in the right direction to provide
services to students of color with College Access programs to create a diverse population in the
University of California. Moreover, GEAR UP projects may provide services to students,
parents and teachers at high-poverty schools with at least 50 percent of students eligible for free
or reduced price lunch. Services may include: tutoring, mentoring, college field trips, career
awareness, colleges-readiness counseling, classes, meetings, parent education about access to
higher education, curriculum reform, and teacher training. (Gear Up Final Report) At the same
time that I believe these services positively impact students of color, I also believe they are not
enough to undo the negative effects of Governor Wilsons Executive Order, SP-1 and
Proposition 209.

Even with the College Access Programs raising awareness about higher education
opportunities, the UC is still failing at fulfilling its constitutional mandate. The University of
Californias plan for getting students of color into the University of California via college
43

Standing, Kim, et al. "Early Outcomes of the GEAR UP Program. Final Report."US
Department of Education (2008).

Iwuoma, Destiny
American Studies 191
3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.
access programs is not working. Although these programs actively engage students of color
across the state, their disproportionate enrollment and success rates have led many to question
the impact that precollege programs play in the preparation of these students for college.44 These
programs do not work to increase enrollment of students of color at the University of California
due to Governor Wilsons Executive Order, SP-1 and Proposition 209. In order to increase the
enrollment pool for students of color at the University of California these three key pieces of
legislation must be addressed directly. College Access Programs effectiveness are directly
affected by the aforementioned pieces of legislation. I argue until the three pieces of legislation
are directly addressed I believe the University of California will continue to fail at fulfilling its
constitutional mandate to create a University encompassing of the diversity of the state of
California.
For instance, Gear Up is an early intervention college access program whose progress is
stunted by Governor Wilsons Executive Order, SP-1 and Proposition 209 that banned race
conscious policy in the University of California. Standing argues the Gear Up program created
an environment for parents to have higher academic expectations for their children, but did not
show evidence that attending a Gear Up school strengthened students intentions to attend
college45. Standing makes the claim for Gear Up schools but the same seems true for other
college access programs since the population of students of color in the University of California
system remains at a low percentage. For instance, the Latin population at UC Berkeley being

44

Tierney, William G., and Linda Serra Hagedorn, eds. Increasing access to college: Extending
possibilities for all students. SUNY Press, 2002.
45

Ibid.

Iwuoma, Destiny
American Studies 191
3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.
14%46 of the freshmen enrolled in 2014 juxtaposed to Latina/os making up 38.4% of the
California population47. In essence Standings argument supports the phenomena of students of
color being left out of the University of California. College Access Programs existed prior to
Prop 209, however these programs were not enough to prevent the severe drop in percentage of
students of color at top tier institutions such as University of California at Berkeley and
University of California Los Angeles.
Therefore, funding College Access Programs is not a solution to creating access to higher
education for students of color in the era of the ban on Affirmative Action. As a result, these
efforts have not proven a strong counterbalance to the state constitutional law banning raceconscious admissions48 At best, these programs serve as a band-aid to the problem. Policies
should be created with the impacts of Proposition 209 in mind. If we continue to fund these
programs without consideration to the impact of Proposition 209 on students of color, we are
complicit with a broken system, by turning a blind eye to the impacts of Proposition 209.
Chancellor Nicholas Dirks of University of California at Berkeley recognizes college
access programs as an opportunity to increase college access and success for students. Dirks
states, UC Berkeley will be committing additional resources to expand several of its programs,
including outreach and early college awareness efforts49. By focusing solely on outreach and
college awareness Chancellor Dirks overlooks the deeper problem affecting enrollment of
46

http://opa.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/UndergraduateProfile.pdf
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html
48
Marn, Patricia, and Catherine L. Horn, eds. Realizing Bakke's legacy: affirmative action,
equal opportunity, and access to higher education. Stylus Publishing, LLC., 2008.
49
Hutson, Sonja. "Chancellor Dirks Makes Commitments to Higher Education Accessibility at
White House Event | DailyCal.org." The Daily Californian. Daily Cal, 07 Dec. 2014. Web. 07
Apr. 2015.
47

Iwuoma, Destiny
American Studies 191
3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.
students of color at UC Berkeley. One would assume the Chancellor of the number one Public
University would have a nuanced understanding of legislation affecting the diversity of the
institution he leads. However, his vague statements of allocating resources to college access
programs is not enough to change the reality of a University violating its constitutional mandate
to provide a University representative of the diversity of the state of California.
Furthermore, Chancellor Dirks spoke to the public regarding advancing College Track, a
national college-access organization that partners with many campuses, including UC Berkeley,
and currently provides services to more than 2,000 users, pledged to increase this number to
3,000 by 201650. Dirks is insisting increasing the scope of this program will resolve the
drastically low numbers of Black students at UC Berkeley. However, enrollment for students of
color will remain the same at best for UC Berkeley due to Governor Wilsons Executive Order,
SP-1 and Proposition 209. The UC assumes college access programs are working to increase
enrollment of students of color, however when the regents decided in 1975 to try leveling the
playing field in two ways: through admissions and through special tutoring programs aimed at
preparing Black and Latino students better. The tutoring programs worked, but reached only 9
percent of all Black and Latino high school students51. College access programs in inner city
neighborhoods are not enough to increase enrollment for students of color in the UC system.
Some scholars believe college access programs targeting inner city youth is an adequate
replacement for affirmative action. Schuck states, In a post-affirmative-action world, institutions
might try to work more closely with inner-city school districts to improve them, as a number of

50

Ness, Carol. "Dirks Takes Berkeley Model of Improving College Access to White House
Summit." NewsCenter. UC Berkeley News Center, 16 Jan. 2014. Web. 7 Apr. 2015.
51

Ibid.

Iwuoma, Destiny
American Studies 191
3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.
colleges and universities are now doing52. There should be a focus on K-12 school partnerships,
however working closer with inner city youth has not changed the impact the 3 key pieces of
legislation have had on students of color. In the post affirmative action world several
programs have been created to outreach to inner city youth, but the numbers have not returned to
the pre affirmative action percentages. Therefore, Shucks claim is invalid because Governor
Wilsons Executive Order (#), SP-1 and Proposition 209 have a direct impact on access to the
UC for students of color who attend inner city schools. It is honorable that the UC creates
programs working with inner city school districts but it is unjust for the UC to ignore antiaffirmative action policy that creates the lack of diversity at UC today. In order for the UC to
reflect the diversity of the state of California, the UC Regents focus should address the anti
affirmative action policies (Executive Order (#), SP-1 and Proposition 209) in addition to
creating partnerships between the UC and inner city school districts.
Therefore if the Chancellor wants to increase enrollment for students of color, Dirks
must publicly advocate against the current proposition that bans the UC from looking at race in
admissions. In the meantime Dirks can advocate for Admission policy proven to increase the
applicant pool for Black students. Next, Ill be exploring policies proven to work in the era of
prop 209.

Race Neutral Policies

Race neutral policies created after the passage of Proposition 209 are not effective at
increasing enrollment for students of color. Lipson argues, "The main lesson to be learned from
52

Ibid,

Iwuoma, Destiny
American Studies 191
3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.
the university officials' response to SP-1 and Proposition 209 at UC-Berkeley... is that their
embrace of race-based diversity led them to search for alternative, race-neutral diversity tools in
order to minimize the formal bans' blow to racial diversity on campus53. After prop 209 and Sp1 went into affect the UC created alternatives to race conscious admission policies, however the
UC is not doing enough to undo the impact of Governor Wilsons Executive Order, SP-1, and
Proposition 209. Although there are alternative policies in place, the ban on Affirmative Action
created a problem that has yet to be solved by the UC. For example the Black population at UC
Berkeley is not reflective of the Black population in California which is 6.6%54 Currently the
Black population at UC Berkeley is at 3.4 percent,55 which means the race neutral policies
created after the passage of Proposition 209 and SP-1 are ineffective at increasing enrollment for
students of color. Therefore the UC should look towards polices that have proven to be effective
at increasing the application pool for students of color. The UC and the state of California can do
more than it is currently doing to increase enrollment for students of color.
The state of California funded the Dual Admissions Program with the intention of
increasing transfers, which in turn would increase the number of students of color transferring to
UC. The state should reevaluate its budget and reinstate The Dual Admissions Program (DAP)
which grants admission to students in the top four to 12.5 percent of the class in each public high
school, with the understanding that they successfully complete their first two years at a
California community college. Students are simultaneously admitted to a community college and

53

Lipson, Daniel N. "Embracing Diversity: The Institutionalization of Affirmative Action as

Diversity Management at UCBerkeley, UTAustin, and UWMadison."Law & Social
Inquiry 32.4 (2007): 985-1026.
54
55

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html
http://opa.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/UndergraduateProfile.pdf

Iwuoma, Destiny
American Studies 191
3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.
to a specific UC campus56. The DAP program was in place until 2004 and was successful in
increasing transfers into the UC the year it was implemented. DAP was approved by The
Regents in 2001 with the proviso that funds to support it must be included in the State budget.
Because of Californias fiscal difficulties, funding for the program was dropped from the 2004-5
State budget, and as a result DAP has been suspended57. The DAP program losing funding
means the UC lost a program that would assist them in fulfilling their constitutional mandate to
reflect the diversity of the state of California. Therefore, the state of California should take
responsibility for the low number of Students of Color in the UC and reevaluate its budget by
reinstating the DAP program. Reinstating this program with adequate funding can be a race
neutral policy the UC can implement which in turn would increase the applicant pool for
students of color coming to the University of California. Furthermore, more policies need to be
created to mitigate the low number of students of color at the University of California.
Partnerships between the UC and K-12 systems are vital to increasing enrollment to
students of color in terms of achieving geographic diversity. Senator Hughes created a policy in
1998 that would assist the University of California in achieving its constitutional mandate for
geographic diversity. By offering admission on a per school basis for the top 4 percent,
automatically more students would become eligible for UC from the 858 comprehensive public
high schools.58 Senator Hughes legislation creates an opportunity for more students of color to
enter the University. In addition, focusing admission on a per school basis forces the university
to select the top percentile of students from similar backgrounds, resources and socioeconomic

56

Ibid.
Ibid.
58
Ibid.
57

Iwuoma, Destiny
American Studies 191
3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.
environments in which their classmates engage.59 Focusing on admissions on a per school basis
will create equitable opportunities for students of color to pursue a UC education. Hughes
legislation Senate Constitutional Amendment 7 creates equity in the Admissions process because
students whose schools lack in educational resources are able to perform to the best of their
ability and be guaranteed a spot at the University of California.
Hughes legislation works to address education inequity in the UC system, but fails
to assist the UC in fulfilling its constitutional mandate to reflect the diversity of the state of
California. Research on percent plans demonstrates that these policies are not viable alternatives
to race conscious admission policy. In fact "studies conducted since Grutter confirm that in
undergraduate admissions percent plans alone are not effective substitutes for a holistic policy
that may consider race.60 Therefore a race conscious admission policy would be in the
best interest of the UC in order to fulfill its mission for a diverse campus reflective of the
state population.
On the other hand some scholars argue a race conscious admission policy would not
solve the issue and that the K-12 system is to blame for the lack of diversity in the UC. Students
who attend K-12 schools that lack educational resources should have the opportunity to attend
the University of California. However, some scholars claim the K-12 system is to blame for the
low number of students of color in the UC. Schuck states, no one can seriously doubt that the
root cause of the relative dearth of minority students in the most-competitive institutions is the

59

Ibid.
Brief of American social science researchers as amici curiae in support of
respondents. 2012.
https://www.utexas.edu/vp/irla/Documents/ACR%20American%20Social%20Science%2
0Researchers.pdf
60

Iwuoma, Destiny
American Studies 191
3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.
vastly inferior elementary and secondary education that minority youngsters receive in too many
communities. Affirmative action does not remedy that catastrophe61. Schuck makes a valid point,
but fails to consider that when the regents first approved affirmative action...the decision to
consider race as a factor in admissions recognized that the quality of public schools varied
dramatically. The children of wealthier parents lived in the better school districts, and, even in
1994, income disparities fell along racial lines: the mean parental income of Latino and Black
applicants in 1994 was half that of the white and Asian applicants62. So to blame the K-12
system is an excuse used to deter the citizens of California from their right to higher education
and access to the UC. However, I recognize disparities in K-12 education exist but the state has a
mandate to carry out and it should make the UC reflective of the diversity of the state of
California. Therefore, the UC should have a policy in place to ensure students of color have
equitable access to the UC.
Some scholars argue class conscious admission should replace race conscious education
policy. Linda Wightman (1997) found that using an admissions model focused on class rather
than race does not help identify a racially ethnically diverse group of applicants. In fact, Thomas
Khane (1998) found that substituting class or race as an admissions factor in California would
favor white and Asian students instead of African American and Latino students. Therefore,
solely focusing on class will not counteract the negative effects on campus diversity caused by
the ban of race conscious education policy.

61

Schuck, Peter H. "Affirmative action is poor public policy." Chronicle of Higher

Education (2003): 10.Affirmative Action Is Poor Public Policy
62

Ibid.

Iwuoma, Destiny
American Studies 191
3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.
Proposition 209, SP-1 and Governor Wilsons Executive Order have negatively impacted
the program and policies currently in place to increase enrollment for students of color at the
UC. Pusser argues the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was designed to remedy intentional acts of
racial discrimination. On the other hand, Pusser recognizes aggressive affirmative action to be
necessary to redress other forms of discrimination63 The other forms of discrimination Pusser
mentions are the institutional barriers currently in place that cause the UC to be in violation of its
constitutional mandate. Therefore, the UC should consider a policy similar to the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 that addresses the lack of diversity in the UC for students of color. Further research
should be done to figure out the proper policy to ensure the UC fulfills its constitutional mandate
to reflect the diversity of California.
Conclusion:
A University should be a place where diversity of opinion is valued. A place where
knowledge is created and crafted by the multitude of experiences an individual brings to the
classroom. The University of California represents the trophy that students receive as an award
for optimal participation in Californias K-12 system. In return the people of California should
expect a diverse body of knowledge coming from this institution.
Proposition 209, SP-1 and Wilsons executive order shows the University of California is
in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which reads:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction
therefore, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state
shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or

63

Ibid.

Iwuoma, Destiny
American Studies 191
3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection o f the laws. (pg. 57-58)64
This law should be taken into consideration while the University of California continues to
violate mandates from the government to have a diverse university. Furthermore, this means the
Fourteenth Amendment is not being upheld. Governor Wilsons Executive Order, SP-1, and
Proposition 209 are currently infringing on the right for students of color to enter the University
of California.
Administrators in the University of California system fail to recognize the impact
Governor Wilsons Executive Order, SP-1, and Proposition 209 have on enrollment of students
of color in the University of California. Administrators were hopeful that the UC would maintain
its diversity. In a Washington Post article former Chancellor Chang Lin-Tien (UC Berkeley)
states, "I've done much soul-searching on this, and if I thought that there was not any way we
could maintain the kind of diversity we want and we need here because of this new policy, I
would have resigned. But I'm not giving up. Our outreach can improve. Our admissions system
can improve. But what I'm very worried about is the perception this creates, the damage it could
do psychologically to the minority students that we very much want to come here. They may
well think now that the University of California is not welcoming to them. That is where our
biggest fight will lie"65. I agree with Chancellor Chang Lin-Tien that the UCs outreach can
improve with the ban on affirmative action in place. However, I argue the outreach efforts
executed throughout the UC system have not been able to create the diversity to reflect
Californias diverse state population. Instead we see the face of the University being majority
64
65

U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Sanchez, Renee. 1996. Struggling to Maintain Diversity. Washington Post, March 11, A01.

Iwuoma, Destiny
American Studies 191
3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.
White and Asian. For instance at UC Berkeley the largest percentage of students are Asians at 44
percent and second largest are Whites at 32 percent.66
Although there is a large Asian population at the UC there are certain Asian
communities who are over represented leaving other Asian groups underrepresented on UC
Campuses. For instance at UC Berkeley, Korean and Chinese make up the majority of the Asian
population at Cal. On the other hand South Asian students have lower percentage of the
population in comparison. In essence the issue of UC increasing enrollment for students of color
is not a Black and White issue, it is an issue of access that affect communities across different
racial lines. If the UC persists without creating policies directly mitigating the effects of
Governor Wilsons Executive Order, SP-1, and Proposition 209 the UC will continue to neglect
the students it was created to educate. There is not one sole solution to ensuring that the UC
reflects the diversity of the state of California, but I believe the UC should consider a policy
mitigating the effects of Proposition 209 and improving college access programs would be two
great first steps.
College access programs can play a pivotal role in increasing enrollment for students
of color. College preparation programs framed by a focus on cultural wealth and academic skills
development can have a substantial impact on college enrollment rates of underrepresented
students67. Solorzano is insisting college access programs that embody essential elements of
successful outreach endeavors can in fact assist students of color on their journey into the UC
system. Early intervention programs need to be clear about the desired outcomes of student
66

http://opa.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/UndergraduateProfile.pdf
Villalpando, Octavio, and Daniel G. Solrzano. "The role of culture in college preparation
programs: A review of the research literature." Preparing for college: Nine elements of effective
outreach (2005): 13-28.
67

Iwuoma, Destiny
American Studies 191
3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.
participation, programs need to start early, well before high school if possible and be able to
motivate students because the most critical intervention a program can make is to orient youth to
long-term goals and the importance of a strong work ethic. Furthermore these programs should
involve parents and collaborate with school and district administrators and sustain funding by
building a more compatible and cooperative alliance between funders and programs. Programs
need to have effective hiring strategies to support the mission and goals of the organization68.
Furthermore, programs should not try to reinvent the wheel, but adapt proven strategies
that fit the mission and goals of their program. Rely on standardized processes and content, such
as standardized curricula. Programs need to build strategic plans for purchasing, upgrading, and
effectively utilizing technology69. I believe embodying the aforementioned elements will
increase the impact college access programs have at the UC. In turn I believe an increase in
students of color will happen at the University of California. However, I firmly believe the UC
should also create a policy directly addressing the anti-affirmative action policies that created an
environment at UC where the student body does not reflect the diversity of the state.
Moreover, the debate on race in admissions will continue to go on long past my research,
therefore I encourage further research to continue to highlight the history of California as it
relates to race. I believe the education system owes it to underrepresented minorities the
opportunity to access resources to create a positive future for their families, communities and
California as a whole. In order to remedy this situation further research should be done to craft
policies to increase the applicant pool for students of color in the UC System. By increasing the
enrollment pool there will be an opportunity for UC Berkeley to admit more students of color

68
69

Ibid.
Ibid.

Iwuoma, Destiny
American Studies 191
3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.
into UC Berkeley. Senate Constitutional Amendment 7, Eligibility in Local Context (ELC) and
Dual Admissions Program are examples of programs and policies that have successfully
increased the enrollment pool for students of color in the University. In addition the UC must
caution itself from ghettoizing its students in to lower tier UC schools, it is admirable to see UC
Riverside have such a diverse campus, but we must make sure students of color have access to
top tier institutions such as UC Berkeley and UC Los Angeles. If not we continue a self-fulfilling
prophecy that students of color are unable to succeed at top tier institutions.
In order for the University of California to fulfill its commitment to a diverse student
body a race conscious policy needs to be enacted. Moses argues, a race-conscious education
policy such as affirmative action is necessary because of its role in fostering more favorable
societal contexts of choice for students of color70. Furthermore I agree with Horn when making
the point that the UC may need to exercise its institutional autonomy to implement policies and
programs that would still allow it to achieve its goal of admitting a diverse student body71.
Governor Wilsons Executive Order, SP-1, and Proposition 209 created an environment where
the UC is not living up to its mission. Therefore the UC should remain vigilant and creative
about how to take advantage of policy windows of access for students who contribute to their
overall mission of diversity72. Nineteen years since the passage of Proposition 209 and the time
is now for the UC to redress the negative impacts of Governor Wilsons Executive Order, SP-1,
and Proposition 209. Fundamental issues of access and equity are at stake, and the higher
education community can neither rest on its laurels nor can it retreat as some institutions
70

Moses, Michele S. Embracing race: Why we need race-conscious education policy. Teachers
College Press, 2002.
71
72

Ibid.
Ibid.

Iwuoma, Destiny
American Studies 191
3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.
unfortunately have already done, from what will surely be a volatile path down which progress
may be made or lost73. The UC can use its institutional autonomy to make the UC reflect the
diversity of the state or else the UC will continue to be on the wrong side of history.
In my research, I highlighted the impact of Governor Wilsons Executive Order, SP-1,
and Proposition 209, which is causing the UC to not fulfill its constitutional mandate. Moreover,
I describe the college access programs in place and how they are inadequate in redressing the
impact of Governor Wilsons Executive Order, SP-1, and Proposition 209. In addition, race
neutral policies are inadequate in getting the UC to reflect the cultural, racial geographical,
economic and social diversity of California. Therefore, my research proves there needs to be
more than what is currently being done to increase enrollment of students of color. Let me be
clear, I recognize the sole purpose of the UC is not to reflect the diversity of the state literally.
However, reflecting the population of students of color in the state is a noble indicator to assess
if the UC truly cares to fulfill its constitutional mandate to reflect the diversity of the state, as
mentioned in the Education Code 6602.5.
In essence, the UCs current methods to fulfill its constitutional mandate with race neutral
policies and college access programs are insufficient. Therefore, further research should be done
to incorporate race conscious admission policy to counteract the negative impact of Governor
Wilsons Executive Order, SP-1, and Proposition 209. Those who claim the UC is justified in
their current admission practices assume individual merit is the only approach to evaluate a
students eligibility for the University of California. There is a need to take another approach to
admissions in order to ensure the University of California reflects the cultural, racial
geographical, economic and social diversity of California.
73

Ibid.

Iwuoma, Destiny
American Studies 191
3/31/15
Do Not Distribute without consent of Destiny Chisom Iwuoma.