PRI • Pacific Research Institute • The UC's Dilemma: Manufacturing Equal Outcomes in a World of Unequal Inputs

The University of California has a problem. Its mission, as outlined in the University of California's Master Plan, is to educate those students performing academically in the top 12.5 percent of California's graduating high school class. It is also charged with ensuring diversity by two Assembly Concurrent Resolutions (ACR 151 in 1974 and ACR 83 in 1984).*1* In 1988, the regents further adopted a policy on undergraduate admissions which stated, in part, that beyond its more narrow mission, the University "seeks to enroll, on each of its campuses, a student body that, beyond meeting the University's eligibility requirements, demonstrates high academic achievement or exceptional personal talent, and that encompasses the broad diversity of cultural, racial, geographic, and socio-economic background characteristics of California."*2* Administrators interpreted this policy to mean that entering classes should approximately reflect the ethnic proportions of the graduating high school class.*3*

All of UC's affirmative action headaches stem from the same source: high school graduates from various ethnic groups do not qualify for the UC in equal proportions. The University's primary mandate is to provide an education for the top 12.5 percent, or roughly one in eight, of California's graduating high-school seniors. This means that any ethnic group whose members qualify for UC at a rate of less than 12.5 percent will be under-represented in the system as a whole if standards are not lowered for that group. Likewise, any ethnic group whose members qualify for UC at a rate exceeding 12.5 percent will be over-represented -- unless members of that group are discriminated against in the admission process or choose, for some reason, not to attend the University of California at disproportionate rates.

Figure I shows the UC eligibility rates for 1990, ethnic breakdown of 1990, the last year for which published data are available. There are huge disparities in eligibility rates across ethnic groups. While four in ten Asian graduates from California's high schools were UC eligible, this proportion was one in five for whites, and less than one in ten for both African Americans and Hispanics (Chicano/Latino).
As illustrated in Figures II through IV, these varying rates produce a qualified applicant pool with an ethnic composition that differs radically from that of the graduating highschool seniors.

In 1993, the year the United States Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) investigated the University of California at Berkeley's (UCB) undergraduate admissions, there were great disparities between the composition of high school graduates, the composition of the UC eligibility pool and the students actual admitted to UCB. As illustrated in Figures II and III Asians constituted just 15 percent of California's high school graduates but accounted for 32 percent of the UC eligibility pool. Whites were 48 percent of high school graduates and 54 percent of the UC eligibility pool. Hispanics (Chicano/Latino), while 29 percent of high school graduates, were only 11 percent of the UC eligibility pool. The respective percentages for African Americans were 7 percent and 3 percent. It must be noted that these figures only provide an approximation because the eligibility rates are based on 1990 data, the last year for which they are available. As well, the pool doesn't include American Indians due to its small sample size.

As illustrated in Figures III and IV, the only group significantly under-represented in UCB 1993 admissions in comparison to the fully eligible applicant pool is white. White students accounted for roughly 54 percent of the eligibility pool but only 32 percent of those students offered admission. Similarly, the only two groups under-represented in UCB's 1993 acceptance pool in comparison to the California graduating high school seniors (Figures II & IV) are white and Hispanic (Chicano/Latino). While Hispanic under-representation is due to this group's low eligibility rate, this explanation is not available for whites.

Thus we get to UCB's best kept secret. The only ethnic group which is still under-represented is white. Perhaps this is why administrators use the term "historically under-represented" in place of the term "under-represented." Using the UC eligibility pool as a benchmark, whites were under-represented by 40 percent. Asians were roughly proportional at 32 percent of the applicant pool and 33 percent of those offered acceptances. Hispanics (Chicano/Latino), however, were over-represented by more than 50 percent. African Americans were over-represented by 133 percent.

If UCB was genuinely interested in racial proportionality, it would have to institute an affirmative action program for whites. In fact, if its admissions process treated whites equally, the problem would probably take care of itself.

*1.* United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Letter of Finding (LOF) Docket Number 09-89-2099), March 1, 1996, to Dr. Chang-Lin Tien, Chancellor, University of California at Berkeley, from John E. Palomino, Regional Civil Rights Director, page 3 (This document will henceforth be cited as LOF)
*2.* As qtd. in LOF, pp. 3-4.
*3.* See: Arthur Hu, "Civil Rights: I See Nothing," Asian Week, April 5, 1996.

This Ideas In Action fact sheet is a digest of a longer study entitled: Ethnicity as Destiny: An Examination of Race-Based Admissions at University of California at Berkeley. The study is available through the Pacific Research Institute's Publications Department.

PACIFIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE
755 Sansome Street, Suite 450 San Francisco, California 94111 415-989-0833
Fax: 415-989-2411 E-mail: PRIPP@aol.com http://www.ideas.org

The Pacific Research Institute is supported entirely by the private sector through voluntary contributions from foundations, corporations and individuals, and from the sale of its books. The Institute is a tax-exempt, 501(c)(3) organization; all contributions are tax deductible. The Institute neither solicits nor accepts government