前天“美国华人”微信公众号转载了洛杉矶时报的一篇文章，并称这给我们华人反SCA-5敲响了警钟。今天另一家主流媒体：华尔街日报网络版登出另一篇文章讨论同一话题，但其用心险恶、推理偏颇。亚裔硬是被从diversity和minority中忽视了。
我们在此大声呼吁：美国华人在这个时候应该团结起来，一场在主流社会的辩论已经开始了，如果我们输掉这场辩论，即使现在法案暂时通不过，过几年新的SCA-5会卷土重来，1995年的时候，我短期来美国湾区访问，当时我遇到的每一个华人都在讨论209法案，当时华人以及主流社会经历了一场关于AA的大讨论，后来的结果是通过公投结束了AA。没想到近20年后历史重演，这次我们还是要利用美国的规则、强调美国的基本价值观、强调真实的数据依据，打一场高水平的舆论战。
华尔街日报原文地址：http://on.wsj.com/1lgIQHJ
By ERICA E. PHILLIPS CONNECT
March 6, 2014 11:50 p.m. ET
With the U.S. Supreme Court poised to rule on race-conscious college-admissions policies, University of California officials say they still struggle to meet diversity goals for their university system 18 years after state voters banned affirmative action.
For that reason, UC officials filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Supreme Court’s review of a nearly identical ban at Michigan’s public universities.
“The UC experience is highly relevant,” their brief said. Nearly two decades after the ban passed, “the University of California still struggles to enroll a student body that encompasses the broad racial diversity of the state.”
The takeaway from UC’s experience isn’t clear-cut. The percentage of admitted Latino and African-American resident applicants at the UC system’s most competitive campuses in Berkeley and Los Angeles dropped to 12% in 2013 from about 46% before Proposition 209′s affirmative-action ban was approved by voters in 1996.
Since California banned the use of affirmative action in admissions 18 years ago, officials at the statewide university system say minority enrollment at the most competitive campuses, in Berkeley and Los Angeles, has slid. Here, the UCLA campus on a recent day Emily Berl for The Wall Street Journal
But several scholars—at UC and elsewhere—say the university has overstated the negative impact of Prop. 209, pointing to research that shows the number of minority students at UC overall has grown and these students’ graduation rates have improved.
While the numbers of incoming African-American students is down at the two most elite campuses, and Latino enrollment at both hasn’t kept pace with California’s fast-rising Latino population, the percentage of incoming freshmen Latino and African-American resident students roughly doubled during the same period across UC’s undergraduate campuses.
Now nearly two decades after Prop. 209 was passed, affirmative action in college admissions is at a crossroads.
In November 2012, Michigan’s higher-education affirmative-action ban was overturned by the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A decision in the case, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, is expected soon.
If the Supreme Court affirms the lower court’s ruling, California and a handful of other states could use the precedent to challenge their own bans. Washington, Nebraska, Arizona, Oklahoma, Florida and New Hampshire also have banned public institutions from employing race-based affirmative action.
California’s law, which eliminated racial preferences in public education, public employment and government contracts, has withstood multiple legal challenges and Govs. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown have both vetoed repeal attempts.
UC has spent more than a half-billion dollars since 1998—when the ban took effect—on outreach programs and has tailored eligibility requirements and application reviews to attract and admit more low-income and first-generation students, many of whom are minorities. System leaders say they are still unable to meet diversity goals systemwide—particularly at UCLA and Berkeley.
UC Associate President and Chief Policy Advisor Nina Robinson says the ban “completely changed the character” of the university.
When the state’s most elite universities are less diverse, she said, “It doesn’t provide our students with a level of diversity they need in order to learn about other cultures and other communities,” which she says is important for the state’s future leaders.
The UC system “trains judges, doctors and politicians for California,” Ms. Robinson said. When those students leave the state, “that’s not necessarily good for us.”
According to university research, she said, “students of color who are at the very top of their class and have everything it takes to get into a great private or public institution—many of those students will be admitted to private colleges and universities and…often get very positive scholarship packages.”
Researchers say minority students have benefited in some ways from changes to affirmative action. In a 2013 paper, a group of economists at Duke University and the London School of Economics found that “underrepresented minorities were 4.4 percentage points more likely to graduate” systemwide after Prop. 209 went into effect, which they attribute in part to the schools “focusing more resources on the retention of their enrolled students.”
Peter Arcidiacono, a Duke professor and one of that study’s authors, says affirmative-action bans have had “very little effect on whether [minority] students enroll in college or graduate from college, but it does affect where they graduate from.” That was evident, he said, in those students’ “big shift away from graduating from UCLA and Berkeley.”
Richard Kahlenberg, an education researcher at the liberal think-tank the Century Foundation, says it is wrong to view the experience of prestigious schools like Berkeley, UCLA and the University of Michigan as emblematic of the impact of race-neutral admissions policies.
In a 2012 study of 10 public universities that employed “race-neutral alternatives to affirmative action”—such as California’s outreach and changes to eligibility criteria—Mr. Kahlenberg’s organization found that at seven, “the representation of African-Americans and Latinos met or exceeded the levels achieved when the universities had used racial preferences.”
Berkeley, UCLA and the University of Michigan were the exceptions, he said, because they are recruiting the same group of students as many elite private colleges that can consider race in admission and offer more scholarships. Competitive public universities face “a tilted playing field.”
Should opponents reverse the ban, the UC system could again consider race in admissions, but schools would face new federal guidelines.
Following a Supreme Court ruling last year on how to consider race-conscious admissions in pursuit of diversity, the Justice Department and Department of Education provided guidance. A school “should consider whether it can meet its compelling interest in diversity by using race-neutral approaches,” the guidance states.
In cases where race is taken into account, it “cannot be given so much weight that applicants are defined primarily by their race and are largely accepted or rejected on that basis.”
Bill Jacobs, chairman of the systemwide Academic Senate and former head of UC’s Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools, said that “by and large, we’ve been putting all those practices in place.”
According to the university, the percentage of first-generation undergraduate students rose to 42% in 2013 from 34% 10 years earlier. And more than 40% of the system’s undergraduates are from low-income families.
Write to Erica E. Phillips at [email protected]
谢谢关注“美国华人”。
“美国华人”微信公众号是一个立场中立的、传播美国华人正能量的微信自媒体。我们的宗旨是美国华人团结一心、关心政治、共同进步。近期会每天推送华人反对SCA5活动的最新消息和精选文章。点击查阅“美国华人”精选文章。
关注方法：在微信地址簿点添加，选“订阅号”，查“美国华人”，第一个就是，也可以查询微信号：ChineseAmericans，点关注就可。也可以打开你的微信扫上边的二维码。
