Affirmative action necessary to even the playing field

On Oct. 9, Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed California Senate Bill 185, a bill which would have allowed the University of California and California State University systems to consider race, gender, ethnicity and national origin in the admissions process. The process of considering such factors in admissions is referred to as affirmative action; California Proposition 209 currently forbids such preferential treatment. So, is affirmative action justified? Gary Djajapranata says no, while Daniel Tutt argues yes.

Of the black students who apply to the UC system, 29 percent are not accepted. Of the Latino students who apply to the UC system, 18 percent are not accepted. Of the white or Asian students who apply, just 10 percent are not accepted. These are according to a 2007 report by a University of California study group on diversity.
Notice anything a little off?
Since the 1996 passage of Proposition 209 the UCs have made a conscious effort to avoid consideration of differences in race.
Senate Bill 185 gives underrepresented minority students— in this case black, Latino
and Native American students— a fair chance against competitors who have likely had better teachers and access to more advancedclasses.
The fact is, racism still exists, although it has changed. Open racism among the general population is no longer common, but racism has been institutionalized. This means minorities are underrepresented because their families historically are poorer and their parents are less likely to have gone to college. Poorer families generally live in districts with worse schools and are less able to afford college education. Therefore, if minorities are worse off, this trend will continue unless combated. That is where affirmative
action comes in.
Right now underrepresented minorities make up 46.2 percent of California high school graduates, but only 20.1 percent of UC freshmen, according to the same UC report.
Also, underrepresented minorities are likely to be enrolled in high schools that have a low number of “a-g” UC-required classes, Advanced Placement classes and honors classes. This makes it hard for these students to be eligible for the UC system or to  keep high GPAs.
In the end, the system is broken, and underrepresented minorities get the short end of the stick. Affirmative action will not solve the whole problem, but it is a step in the right direction, toward the ideals of equality and equal opportunity which will make the United States great. It is true that the UCs, under affirmative action, might admit an underrepresented student over a white or Asian student with just slightly higher test scores, but is this a flaw? Do you really think that white or Asian students, who are more likely to have better teachers and have more access to UC-approved and advanced courses, should be evaluated on the same level with underrepresented minority students who have overcome so many more difficulties?
Some might say that Proposition 209 was passed by voters, and therefore is unalterable. But Senate Bill 185 does not alter Proposition
209; all it does is clarify the proposition, allowing UCs to consider race in admissions.
Considering race is not preferential treatment, but an acknowledgement of the struggles which many underrepresented minority
students face.
We tried Proposition 209, we realized it was and continues to be a problem, and now we’re trying to undo just some of the damage.
And we were succeeding too, until Jerry Brown vetoed Senate Bill 185.

Hear what the opposition has to say here.