By Becca Rueble, Editor-in-Chief
Richard Atkinson served as the University of California president from 1995 until 2003, crucial years that witnessed the passage of Proposition 209 in 1996 and its immediate effects. In 2005, looking back, Atkinson provided both important insight and important advice. “Despite enormous efforts, we have failed badly to achieve the goal off a student body that encompasses California’s diverse population,” the former president wrote. “Any state tempted to emulate the example of California should think long and hard about the consequences.”
He may as well be speaking directly to Michigan. Voters here will decide the fate of affirmative action when they vote on the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, appearing on this year’s ballot. The MCRI is almost identical to California’s Proposition 209, and there’s a reason for this striking similarity: Ward Connerly, a former UC Regent, has backed the bill in both states. With such similar ballot language, the MCRI and Prop 209 might not be the only similarities. If passed, the University of Michigan could easily undergo the same changes the UC system has witnessed since 1996.
While the UC system and U-M certainly have their differences, they are also very comparable – making the passage of Prop 209 and its effects on the UC system a suitable case study of what could be in Michigan’s immediate future. Both UCLA and UC Berkeley are academically aligned with U-M. This year, US News & World Report ranked UC Berkeley as the number one public university in the country, one spot away from U-M and three spots away from UCLA. The student bodies reflect similar academic standings, with 2006’s freshmen classes showing almost identical mean and median standardized test scores and high school GPAs. Such academic alignment allows U-M students and faculty who wonder about the possible impact of the MCRI to look toward UC Berkeley and UCLA for answers. However, these answers aren’t optimistic. A look at the two UC campuses yields a depressing picture of dwindling student of color enrollment, and presages what could happen at U-M if the MCRI is passed next week.
Numbers don’t lie, at least not in this case. No post-209 data collected within the UC system gives the impression that the university has been able to maintain its diverse campus population. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. Plummeting enrollment rates of black and Native American students characterize the past decade. Latino and Chicano enrollment struggle to maintain their pre-209 levels, despite a giant surge in the state’s populations. And despite high enrollment rates of Asian Americans, certain groups are still underrepresented on UC campuses.
In a 2005 editorial that appeared in the Los Angeles Times, UC Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau describes an atmosphere of “alienation, mistrust, and division” that permeates UC campuses as a result of dwindling numbers of underrepresented minority students. “The situation for African American students [at UC] is truly at a crisis point,” he wrote. It’s easy to see why. In 2004, the combined freshman class at UC Berkeley and UCLA totaled 7,350 students. Of those 7,350, 218 were black. Even more appalling, only 83 were black men, and close to half of those students were on athletic scholarship. “That’s too small a number to form a supportive student community, and many of Berkeley’s black freshmen view themselves as struggling against a hostile environment,” wrote Birgeneau. “They tell me how difficult it is to be the only African American in a class when an issue involving multiculturalism comes up and all eyes turn to you.”
Berkeley’s numbers reflect a more than 50 percent decrease in black enrollment since 1995, the year before Prop 209 was passed. Consider U-M’s 2006 freshman class. Out of 5,399 freshmen, 330 are black. If U-M witnessed a 50 percent decrease in black enrollment, that 330 would drop to 165.
A similar comparison can be made with Native American enrollment rates. UC reports that Native American enrollment has decreased by almost two-thirds system-wide since Prop 209’s passage. In U-M’s 2006 freshmen class, there are only 52 Native American students. A 67 percent drop in enrollment would mean only 17 Native American students in an entering class. At UC Berkeley, that’s not too far from reality. Sixty-three Native American students were admitted in 1995’s freshman class; in 2005, only 14.
Despite significant increases in California’s Latino and Chicano populations since 1995, some UC campuses – especially Berkeley and UCLA - have struggled to maintain pre-209 levels of Latino and Chicano applicants. While Berkeley had 412 Chicano freshmen in 1995, by 1998 that number had fallen to 191. It has slowly risen, and 2005 saw 308 entering Chicano freshman – yet that is still more than 100 students short of its pre-209 level.
A glance at Berkeley’s full student body shows a similar picture for Latino students. In 1995, Berkeley was home to 21,189 undergraduates – 957 of who were Latino. Ten years later, the campus’s undergraduate student body had grown by almost 1,000 students but the number of Latino students had dropped to 694. UCLA reports a similar problem, though its decline in enrollment has not been as sharp.
In 2005, the number of enrolled students who identify as Asian exceeded the number of white/Caucasian students on both UCLA and UC Berkeley’s campuses. However, certain groups of Asian students are significantly underrepresented. At UCLA, there were 183 Filipino students in 2005’s freshmen class, compared with 262 in 1995’s. The number of Korean students in both Berkeley and UCLA’s student bodies is still less than both campus’s pre-209 levels, and the same holds true for Japanese students at UCLA as well.
But the numbers of entering and current students aren’t the only ones that matter; the number of students who don’t choose to enroll in the UC system are equally significant. These statistics give credence to Birgeneau’s claim that “Proposition 209 has created an environment that many students of color view as discriminatory.” Since 1995, many black, Latino and Native American students who have been accepted into the UC system have chosen to enroll elsewhere, and the majority head to elite private institutions, many of which still practice affirmative action in admissions, financial aid and recruitment. The number of students who choose these other alternatives has spiked; according to UC’s Comprehensive Review of Freshman Admissions, “14.1 percent of underrepresented minority students denied admission to UC Berkeley and UCLA but accepted to another UC campus chose a private college or university. By 2002, 59 percent of such students opted for colleges outside the UC system.”
This decision isn’t surprising. In his editorial, Birgeneau wrote that underrepresented minority students feel isolated and as though they don’t belong within the UC system, a serious consequence Michigan voters should consider when they head to the polls November 7. With such a clear example of what could happen if the MCRI passes, Michigan should take special care to heed Atkinson’s advice and not repeat California’s mistakes.