Losing Diversity: California and Michigan

By Becca Rueble, February 5, 2007

• Comment Now
• Email
• Print
• Reprints
• Share

As the University of Michigan begins its first semester without affirmative action, one student looks at the University of California system's recent history and fears for the worst.

---

Richard Atkinson served as the University of California president from 1995 until 2003, crucial years that witnessed the passage of Proposition 209 and its immediate effects. Voters passed Prop 209 -- also called the California Civil Rights Initiative -- in 1996, effectively outlawing the use of affirmative action in UC's admissions policies. Looking back in 2005, Atkinson provided both important insight and salient advice. "Despite enormous efforts, we have failed badly to achieve the goal of a student body that encompasses California's diverse population," the former president wrote in 2005. "Any state tempted to emulate the example of California should think long and hard about the consequences."

Unfortunately, Michigan voters did not take Atkinson's advice to heart. On Nov. 7, 2006, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative -- a referendum banning affirmative action in state education and government -- passed with 58 percent of the vote, amending the state constitution to ban public institutions from discriminating against or giving preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin.

The MCRI was almost identical to California's Prop 209, and there is a reason for this striking similarity: Ward Connerly, a former UC Regent, backed the bill in both states. The Michigan amendment went into effect on Dec. 22, 2006, and now that it has become law, it is necessary to look past similar ballot language and to consider the possibility of similar effects, especially for higher education.

While the UC system and the University of Michigan 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 Michigan's immediate future. Both UCLA and UC Berkeley are academically aligned with U-M. In 2006, US News & World Report ranked UC Berkeley as the No. 1 public university in the country, with U-M at No. 2 and UCLA at No. 4. 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 now that the MCRI has been implemented.

Numbers don't lie, at least not in this case. No post-209 data collected at UC Berkeley or UCLA gives the impression that the universities have been able to maintain their diverse campus populations. 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, even with 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 described 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 systemwide 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 ï¿1⁄2 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 whom 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 identified as Asian exceeded the number of white/Caucasian students on both UCLA and UC Berkeley's campuses. However, certain groups of Asian students were 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.

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. This feeling of exclusion has become a central concern at U-M, and the university has pledged to do everything within its power (and within the law) to prevent the stark enrollment declines plaguing UC. Following its belief that diversity benefits everyone at U-M, the university has called on its community members to help continue its commitment to building a diverse educational environment. Maintaining a diverse applicant pool has been highly prioritized, and programs are being developed that emphasize alumni, faculty and current students' roles in encouraging potential applicants to apply and to attend U-M if they are accepted.

The university's 2007 fall admissions cycle is an apt parallel for its overall situation. Decisions made before Dec. 29, 2006 used U-M's old review policy whereas any decisions made after Jan. 10, 2007, will comply with the MCRI. With half of the cycle completed under pre-MCRI guidelines and the second half under post-MCRI guidelines, the university is truly straddling a potentially great divide with one foot on each side. The next year will prove crucial in determining how U-M navigates the terrain it currently faces, but there is hope that the enrollment declines in the University of California system will serve as an example of what could happen at Michigan, not as a roadmap for what does.

Becca Rueble is the editor in chief of the Michigan Independent, the student paper where this editorial was originally printed.

Photo by Daniella Zalcman