affirmative action

The University of California Los Angeles has had its cover blown wide open.

According to UCLA Professor Tim Groseclose in his new book, “Cheating: An Insider’s Report on the Use of Race in Admissions at UCLA,” the public university has conducted under the table affirmative action programs – despite the practice being illegal in California.

The public university did so in an effort to admit black students at a much higher rate than they would have been if the school had followed the letter of the law, his research found. Campus officials’ decisions had a detrimental effect on the acceptance rates of white and Asian students, according to the data he unearthed.

“I happened to be on the faculty oversight committee at UCLA and it was clear there was cheating going on,” Groseclose said in an interview with The College Fix. “I never would have written anything at all about admissions in college if I hadn’t been on this committee.”

The book details how UCLA admissions personnel used a “holistic” approach to their decisions. Groseclose said he believes that the holistic approach facilitated the ability of the admissions staff to grant under-the-table racial preferences.

UCLA spokesman Ricardo Vazquez told Fox News that the school “will not address specific assertions made by Prof. Groseclose,” but said “UCLA believes its admissions process to be fair, transparent and consistent with state law.”

When the state’s voters in 1996 passed Proposition 209, the California Civil Rights Initiative, it was the first successful ballot initiative to forbid the use of race, sex, and ethnicity in public employment decisions, including admission to state universities.

Several states have followed California’s lead, most notably Michigan, which banned the practice by a ballot initiative in 2006.

Groseclose said he believes that the affirmative action activity continued illegally at the urging and coercion of the state legislature and alumni groups.

“When UCLA had a drop in African-American admissions, there was a crisis on campus – there were protests at the chancellor’s office,” Groseclose said. “And the chancellor showed up at my committee – and this was remarkable, I never heard of this before – and he lobbied us to change the admissions system.”

“He said there were several constituencies of UCLA distressed at the low number of African-Americans,” Groseclose added. “He said at least two of those constituencies were black alumni groups and the other was the legislature in Sacramento. He certainly implied that our funding was going to be cut if we didn’t increase diversity.”

The legislature was urging and even strongarming the university into breaking the law.

Despite these obvious signs of illegal activity, Groseclose claimed he could never access admissions data for himself, even after requesting it.

“When I asked for a thousand random admissions files, which I thought was a legitimate duty and undertaking of my committee, UCLA refused,” he said.

The reluctance to release the files sounded alarms, Groseclose said, and it raised his suspicions that the university was engaging in clearly illegal activity. He received the data only after filing a Public Records Act in California.

Groseclose published these findings and more in April. He is also the author of “Left Turn: How Liberal Bias Distorts The American Mind.”

An amendment to the California constitution was proposed in 2012 which would have allowed for the consideration of race, color, ethnicity, and national origin in admissions decisions for public universities. It passed the state Senate but was ultimately withdrawn from consideration after public opposition to the bill made its future politically unviable.

As The College Fix reported last winter, at UCLA “white students are actually severely ‘underrepresented’ compared to black students: the white percentage at UCLA is only 37.7 percent of the total percentage of white residents in the state, whereas the black percentage at UCLA is 57.6 percent of the total statewide percentage of black residents – a 20 point difference.”

College Fix contributor Dominic Lynch is a student at Loyola University Chicago.

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter


Racial preferences are increasingly unpopular among American Youth:

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter


OPINION: How can we truly move toward racial equality if we are treated as less than capable?

The Supreme Court recently ruled affirmative action is unconstitutional. Right on cue, the decision was lamented as a blow to racial equality. Some even accused the Supreme Court of racism.

After the decision, a peer wrote an op-ed in my school newspaper – Indiana University’s Daily Student– in support of affirmative action, paraphrasing President Lyndon Johnson who once said:

“You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say you are free to compete with all the others, and still just believe that you have been completely fair.”

Perhaps that sentiment was once relevant. It’s not anymore.

As much as I appreciate liberals’ concern for the welfare and success of black Americans, we are not hobbling around with crippled feet. We’re smart, capable, and successful. Yes, we need opportunities, just like every American! But opportunity and racial preferences are not the same thing.

Opportunity gives a chance to a qualified, capable individual. Preference grants someone favor. I am grateful for every opportunity I have been afforded in my life, but I don’t need to be coddled as if I am unable to succeed without special attention. Just look at Kwasi Enin, an African American high school student with a whopping 5.0 GPA who got accepted into every Ivy League college – a feat only achieved by few.CrystalHill

As black students, being treated as a special class of citizens is the worse thing that could happen, because we will not be held to the same standards as our white peers. The most relevant example is the ‘I,Too’ movement happening at different universities, in which minority students write down racial experiences they have had, whether negative or positive, as a response to the lack of diversity at their school. Many of their experiences had to do with, unsurprisingly, other students thinking that they were affirmative action placements. They felt demeaned and underestimated, two of the worst feelings in the world, yet they would just as readily fight for the very thing that undermines them.

How can we truly move toward racial equality if we are treated as less than capable? People like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas are castigated because they dare to believe that affirmative action policies do not achieve what they promise.

Affirmative action might give us the opportunity to get through the door, but once we’re there we lose the opportunity to be seen as equals. That is the only thing that is truly backward.

As for my university, the number of black students enrolled at my Big Ten school amounts to 4 percent of the student population. Many people say that the university is not trying hard enough. I am starting to think that diversity can only be fostered, not legislated.

If anything, a lack of opportunities and hindered progression has more to do with socio-economic status than race.

I come from a middle-class background, and have had chances and opportunities that many of my white peers from lower socio-economic backgrounds haven’t had. I would be dishonest to pretend that I was somehow less privileged than them, when I have been able to advance because of the opportunities given to me, some deserved and undeserved.

More often than not, it’s not intellectual and academic ability that is lacking, it’s the means to attend certain schools. There are only but so many scholarships and grants to go around.

When America was still a deeply prejudiced nation, African Americans needed affirmative action to ensure they wouldn’t be passed over for positions or rejected from schools simply because of their race. However, today we live in a society where political correctness doesn’t let us acknowledge the progress that has been made since then, lest we think we live in a “post-racial” society.

While I’ve never thought that, I do think we have reached the point where we can scale back laws demanding racial quotas. I have a hard time understanding why working to get rid of racial quotas is a step backward. If anything – it’s a step forward – because it acknowledges that, in a country where there are black professionals in every arena, as well as a black president in his second term, America is moving leaps and bounds ahead of its deeply racist past.

College Fix contributor Crystal Hill is a student at Indiana University.

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

IMAGE: Crystal Hill


ANN ARBOR – In the wake of a Supreme Court decision this week that effectively bans affirmative action in Michigan, a small but vocal group of student radicals converged in the center of the University of Michigan campus on Thursday to protest, saying the ruling is akin to former Jim Crow racial segregation laws and the high court’s infamous separate but equal ruling.

“This decision is the Plessy vs. Ferguson of our lifetime, a decision that says ‘a white majority state has the right to vote on the political and educational future and rights of minority communities,’” the student protestors’ spokesman, Jose Alvarenga, declared to the crowd during the demonstration.

“And those decisions that cemented the Jim Crow in the Old South were not ended by legal means,” he continued, adding they “were ended by a civil rights movement, and today we see this as building a new civil rights movement in our lifetime to defeat the new Jim Crow and these legal policies that discriminate against minority communities.”

At the rally, the students demanded free tuition and race-based enrollment quotas to be installed at the University of Michigan, ground zero for the ongoing battle between affirmative action proponents and foes.protestUM2

The 30 or so protestors – all members of three extremist campus student groups whose official spokesman, Alvarenga, is a student in the country illegally – chanted phrases such as “double minority enrollment now, open it up or we’ll shut it down” and “they say ‘Jim Crow’ we say ‘hell no’” during the two-hour rally.

The members of the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration & Immigrant Rights, and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary also alleged University of Michigan’s admissions administrators are racist.

“With this campaign, we want to expose the racism in the admissions policies and present a real clear picture of who the actual people who are applying are, and to make it clear that the students are qualified, in fact, and should have the right to come to university as well,” said Alvarenga in an interview with The College Fix.

“If you’re not getting financial aid…that’s the same as getting a rejection letter from the University of Michigan, and so we are also fighting for an increase in financial aid for students to come,” Alvarenga said.

He also said the Supreme Court is racist.

“I think with this decision by the Supreme Court…it’s clear that, that um, like the re-segregation of higher education…is not just, um, like at the university, but also it is like, on the legal level, both at the state level and also at the national level that are discriminating against minority communities,” Alvarenga said in an interview with The College Fix.

“Not just the university,” he added. “We have seen just this past year the Supreme Court make, um, very conservative, um, very racist decisions, like one after another, um that are like, you know, direct attacks on the political and equality of minority communities in this country.”

Thursday’s rally was preceeded by another, similar one on April 16, held by By Any Means Necessary – this time to demand the admittance of high school seniors Brooke Kimbrough and Daisha Martin following both students’ rejection.

Kimbrough, an African American senior at University Prep in Detroit, had an ACT score of 23 and a GPA of 3.6, according to FOX 2 News. At Michigan, about 76 percent of students have a GPA of 3.75 or higher, while the mid-range ACT scores for accepted students are between 28 and 32.

But Alvarenga called Michigan’s admissions policies racist, inferring Kimbrough’s rejection was because she was black, not because she was unqualified.

“Some of the students who are here are students who are appealing their rejection letters…the university keeps saying that, ‘there’s not enough qualified students’ or that they’re letting students in but they don’t want to come here,” he said.

On Tuesday, the Detroit News reported that a BAMN attorney called for the university to drop ACT and SAT scores in admissions considerations, deeming them discriminatory.

And in response to Thursday’s protest, a campus official answered some of their questions after the group descended on an administration building. The official agreed to arrange a public meeting to listen to the groups’ concerns, according to the Michigan Daily campus newspaper.

However other students seemed less impressed by the display. There were only about a dozen or so onlookers.

At one point a black student walked by and asked what was going on. He was told it was a rally for affirmative action.

He responded he’s already at the University of Michigan, “so I don’t care what happens with this.”

College Fix contributor Derek Draplin is a student at the University of Michigan.

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

IMAGES: Fox 2 News screenshots


The Supreme Court has issued its ruling today in the case of Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. The ruling could signal that the days of race-based affirmative action preferences in college admissions are numbered.

It was a 6-2 ruling, with the majority upholding a state-wide ban on racial preferences passed by Michigan voters in 2006. That ban was narrowly overturned by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2012. The ruling today represents yet another reversal.

USA TODAY reports on the limited scope of the ruling:

The decision came in a case brought by Michigan, where a voter-approved initiative banning affirmative action had been tied up in court for a decade.

Seven other states — California, Florida, Washington, Arizona, Nebraska, Oklahoma and New Hampshire – have similar bans. Now, others may follow suit.

But the ruling, which was expected after the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the Michigan law, did not jeopardize the wide use of racial preferences in many of the 42 states without bans. Such affirmative action programs were upheld, though subjected to increased scrutiny, in the high court’s June ruling involving the University of Texas.

Civil rights activist Jennifer Gratz of the XIV Foundation, whose Supreme Court case Gratz v. Bollinger started the fight to end racial preferences in Michigan more than 10 years ago, had this to say about the Schuette decision: “Much progress has been made over the past 15 years in challenging discriminatory policies based on race preferences and moving toward colorblind government. Today’s ruling preserves this foundation and is a clear signal that states are moving in the right direction when they do away with policies that treat people differently based on race, gender, ethnicity or skin color.” reports that “National Education Association, the American Council on Education and the National School Boards Association — as well as chancellors of the University of California system — have publicly opposed the affirmative action ban. The Obama administration also urged that the ban be overturned.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. Justice Elana Kagan recused herself from the case for unknown reasons.


Fox News reports:

The fight over affirmative action in California’s higher education system is coming back.

Under a proposed constitutional amendment that passed the Senate on Thursday, voters would reconsider affirmative action programs at the University of California and California State University systems on the November ballot. SCA5 would remove certain prohibitions in place since 1996, when voters approved Proposition 209.

That initiative made California the first state to ban the use of race and ethnicity in public university admissions, as well as state hiring and contracting.

Read more.