How do UC's get away with practicing affirmative action when its prohibited by law?

[Long_John]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I've been wondering this for awhile. After California voters passed that proposition a few years ago banning the use of racial preferences in public institutions, affirmative action was supposed to be dead. UC's stopped practicing it in their undergrad admissions, but for some reason UC med schools continue to be practicing it in their admissions. How have they been able to get away with it when it is specifically prohibited by state law?

 

[pseudoknot]

What evidence supports your claim that they do?

 

[DoctorMalki]

i think a big thing most UCs go for is diversity. They really want to have a diverse student population because california is so diverse. I am not sure if I would call that affirmative action

 

[jeffsleepy]

Yeah, I've been wondering about this for a long time too. I think trying for a diverse population group in terms of race does constitute affirmative action, though. I know that for their undergrad admissions, the admissions people don't even know the race of the applicants. I've just been assuming that the UCs distingish between URM and nonURM since pretty much all of the other med schools do.

Please let the question be answered before the inevitable debate starts.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

If someone really wanted to go after UC's balls and sue em based on that Cali law prohibiting AA, they might have a case.

 

[uclabruin2003]

the truth is that they do not have affirmative action...if you think they do....you are wrong. they do look at a person based upon their background as well as scores. whether people construe this as affirmative action...it is up to them. the schools have said that they wish to promote diversity and so look at the applicant as a whole and not in terms of numbers....so it makes sense because not all applicants who have 40s and 3.9s get into all their schools......schools look at everything not just your scores.

 

[Long_John]

the truth is that they do not have affirmative action...if you think they do....you are wrong. they do look at a person based upon their background as well as scores. whether people construe this as affirmative action...it is up to them. the schools have said that they wish to promote diversity and so look at the applicant as a whole and not in terms of numbers....so it makes sense because not all applicants who have 40s and 3.9s get into all their schools......schools look at everything not just your scores.

but race plays a role in their admissions. Why else would URM's with significantly lower numbers be accepted? If race isn't in consideration then the schools shouldn't even ask for it. There already is the option of declaring disadvantaged or explaining your hardships in secondaries. Race would not need to be considered if it wasn't part of the admissions process

 

[bugger]

but race plays a role in their admissions. Why else would URM's with significantly lower numbers be accepted? If race isn't in consideration then the schools shouldn't even ask for it. There already is the option of declaring disadvantaged or explaining your hardships in secondaries. Race would not need to be considered if it wasn't part of the admissions process

URM's tend to get excepted with lower numbers becauses they are going to contribute to the needs of our society. I don't know many white people who are going to work in communities of color. Furthermore, there has been a lot of research done stating that 50% of URM said that they want to work with the underserved, as compared to 20% of non-URM.

 

[pseudoknot]

but race plays a role in their admissions. Why else would URM's with significantly lower numbers be accepted?

There already is the option of declaring disadvantaged or explaining your hardships in secondaries.

You may have answered your own question, assuming that minorities with lower numbers really are getting into UC med schools since the implementation of prop 209, and you haven't shown any evidence that's true either.

If race isn't in consideration then the schools shouldn't even ask for it.

Unless, of course, they wanted to make sure affirmative action wasn't being carried out, in which case they would have to record that information for statistical analysis.

Race would not need to be considered if it wasn't part of the admissions process

That's a tautology. Something being "considered [in the admissions process]" is by definition part of the admissions process.

 

[jlee9531]

doesnt the AAMC support the promotion of URM in medicine?
that combined with the supreme court ruling last year on favoring the increase of diversity in higher education admissions would prolly give the UC med schools a good reason to promote this.

plus i dont think the UCs really practice strict AA but take a more wholistic approach...which is why they take into consideration life experience, socio-economic disadvantages, along with grades and such...

 

[pseudoknot]

doesnt the AAMC support the promotion of URM in medicine?
that combined with the supreme court ruling last year on favoring the increase of diversity in higher education admissions would prolly give the UC med schools a good reason to promote this.

The ruling only allowed affirmative action. Unless the supreme court ruled that race-based preferences were actually required, California law would still apply, and no UC campus may use AA in admissions.

plus i dont think the UCs really practice strict AA but take a more wholistic approach...which is why they take into consideration life experience, socio-economic disadvantages, along with grades and such...

That appears to be the case. Also, the numbers of minorities at UCs have gone down since 209, for example see:
http://archive.dailycal.org/archive/1999/3/30/minorities.html

 

[japhy]

apparantly nobody bothered to read the two supreme court opinions that came out last summer. the michigan law school case upheld aa in certain limited circumstances, with narrowly defined conditions. so no, aa is not dead despite the cali law.

 

[Long_John]

apparantly nobody bothered to read the two supreme court opinions that came out last summer. the michigan law school case upheld aa in certain limited circumstances, with narrowly defined conditions. so no, aa is not dead despite the cali law.

you're probably not a cali resident so you dont know about the state politics involved in this.
state proposition 209 which passed in the late 90's prohibited aa in public institutions.
the supreme court ruling just ruled that practicing aa if its legal in a specific state is not against the constitution

 

[constructor]

the fact is that underqualified minorities will get in over better qualified whites/asians, but they are needed for medicine because the added dimensions they bring are really important and necessary for patient care if you think about it... here's evidence that they do have it easier:
http://home.sandiego.edu/~e_cook/vault/medical/davis/ucd-med-97.html

 

[meister]

It's funny because if AA were actually practiced more whites would get in, due to Asians being disproportionately represented in the medical school student body.

 

[pseudoknot]

the fact is that underqualified minorities will get in over better qualified whites/asians

Have you read any posts in this thread? We're talking about the UC med schools only, in a state where affirmative action by state schools is illegal. I don't see what this comment has to do with it.

http://home.sandiego.edu/~e_cook/vault/medical/davis/ucd-med-97.html

That data predates the implementation of Proposition 209.

 

[constructor]

It's funny because if AA were actually practiced more whites would get in, due to Asians being disproportionately represented in the medical school student body.

that's very doubtful...

 

[constructor]

Have you read any posts in this thread? We're talking about the UC med schools only, in a state where affirmative action by state schools is illegal. I don't see what this comment has to do with it.

That data predates the implementation of Proposition 209.

wasn't prop 209 instituted in 1996? the data is for medical school admissions for uc davis in the year 1997.

 

[pseudoknot]

wasn't prop 209 instituted in 1996? the data is for medical school admissions for uc davis in the year 1997.

It was passed in November 1996, and tied up in court for nearly a year (I believe the injunction against it was lifted in 9/97 by the US Supreme Court, and they found it constitutional in 11/97, but I could be off on the first date). There was a resolution of the UC Regents (SP1) that had the same effect on UC campuses, and that went into effect around 6/96, but I think it was not long before an injunction was issued against that as well, and I'm not sure if that was lifted before 209 was passed.

What does that mean, admissions in 1997? It's a two-year process. Are these people who applied in 1997, meaning the decisions were made on them in '98, or did they matriculate in 1997, or...?

 

[constructor]

i think they matriculated in 1997, or at least that's the impression i got from the information.

i just believe the stats in that study are pretty similar to the stats for the uc's today. there's nothing about it that's clearly in violation of anything although one can debate about whether it is or is not... and that's just then nature of AA.

 

[All-Star14]

the fact is that underqualified minorities will get in over better qualified whites/asians, but they are needed for medicine because the added dimensions they bring are really important and necessary for patient care if you think about it... here's evidence that they do have it easier:
http://home.sandiego.edu/~e_cook/vault/medical/davis/ucd-med-97.html

When you assess an applicant's qualification on numbers alone, then yes...underrepresented minorities are on the low end of the spectrum. However, assessing the entire application shows that URMs are just as qualified as whites/asians. Look at the ECs and life experiences of most URMs. The very patients you as a white/asian health care provider wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole would most likely be seen by URM physicians. So don't ASSume that just because the numbers aren't stellar that URMs are "underqualified" in terms of becoming physicians. Medicine is as much an art as it is a science. A poor URM with less-than-stellar stats is, in my mind, just as qualified as a rich white kid with great stats.

Sorry to disrupt the Cali AA discussion...carry on. 😉

 

[bugger]

i think they matriculated in 1997, or at least that's the impression i got from the information.

i just believe the stats in that study are pretty similar to the stats for the uc's today. there's nothing about it that's clearly in violation of anything although one can debate about whether it is or is not... and that's just then nature of AA.

Actually they are not the same. If you pick up any of the recent versions of the AAMC-Opportunites for Minorities in Medicine, you will see that there is a significant decrease in the amount of URM's being accepted to Davis.

 

[pseudoknot]

Yes, there we go. The answer to the OP's question is, they don't get away with it because they don't do it. Now, since the thread is degenerating into yet another AA "debate," please excuse me while I run screaming in the opposite direction.

 

[constructor]

maybe you're right... but in the study they specifically mention that in order for this many blacks/hispanics to get accepted given the number that applied even prior to looking at their mcat and gpa is statistically significant (.002). when you go on to include their lower numbers, the disparities become even greater. like i said, minorities are important to medicine but i don't think it's just about EC's and special life circumstances. i don't think these things by themselves are different enough among minorities to warrant admission if we don't give them to whites and asians. and to call most whites and asians rich and spoiled is just not reality. our society has come a long way in providing equal opportunities for everyone, and i can see how AA can be used as an excuse by some minorities to get in. to summarize, i think it's necessary but i also think it is abused. it's also not fair to only include blacks, hispanics, and native americans when other important underrepresented ethnicities do exist as well.

 

[jeffsleepy]

Yes, there we go. The answer to the OP's question is, they don't get away with it because they don't do it. Now, since the thread is degenerating into yet another AA "debate," please excuse me while I run screaming in the opposite direction.

Wow... that was quick. Well that's what I wanted to know, anyways, so thanks.

 

[uclabruin2003]

When you assess an applicant's qualification on numbers alone, then yes...underrepresented minorities are on the low end of the spectrum. However, assessing the entire application shows that URMs are just as qualified as whites/asians. Look at the ECs and life experiences of most URMs. The very patients you as a white/asian health care provider wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole would most likely be seen by URM physicians. So don't ASSume that just because the numbers aren't stellar that URMs are "underqualified" in terms of becoming physicians. Medicine is as much an art as it is a science. A poor URM with less-than-stellar stats is, in my mind, just as qualified as a rich white kid with great stats.

Sorry to disrupt the Cali AA discussion...carry on. 😉

thanks for the broad generalization that white/asian doctors wouldnt as likely see patients that URM physicians see. even though i am asian i would love to work in a medically underserved area (MUA) and/or with URM. fact is i already work in a MUA with URM and i enjoy it......so again like you said....dont ASSume

 

[bigbassinbob]

When you assess an applicant's qualification on numbers alone, then yes...underrepresented minorities are on the low end of the spectrum. However, assessing the entire application shows that URMs are just as qualified as whites/asians. Look at the ECs and life experiences of most URMs. The very patients you as a white/asian health care provider wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole would most likely be seen by URM physicians. So don't ASSume that just because the numbers aren't stellar that URMs are "underqualified" in terms of becoming physicians. Medicine is as much an art as it is a science. A poor URM with less-than-stellar stats is, in my mind, just as qualified as a rich white kid with great stats.

Sorry to disrupt the Cali AA discussion...carry on. 😉

Just curious... So all white kids are rich, and they all have less medical experience than URM's, and they wouldn't touch and URM with a ten-foot pole?? That's news to me. I'm also glad you make the point that medicine is an art just as much as it is a science, so we don't have to debate the fact that a poor white kid with less-than-stellar stats is, in both of our minds, just as qualified as a rich black kid with great stats.

 

[jlee9531]

thanks for the broad generalization that white/asian doctors wouldnt as likely see patients that URM physicians see. even though i am asian i would love to work in a medically underserved area (MUA) and/or with URM. fact is i already work in a MUA with URM and i enjoy it......so again like you said....dont ASSume

you have to admit tho, there are a large number of people that would not work in MUAs.

 

[delchrys]

california's proposition 209 became article 1 section 31 of the california constitution when it passed. the text of this article is reproduced below...

"Sec. 31. (a) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
(b) This section shall apply only to action taken after the section's effective date.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the effective date of this section.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the state."

so, what i see, on brief glance, is the following: 1) california, if indeed they are letting minority applicants into the med school who are less qualified than other applicants, could argue that they are not showing preferential treatment for minority students BASED on their minority status, but that the student when 'taken as a whole' represents the kind of student the school deems most appropriate for their medical education program. it would clearly be up to the calif courts to make a decision about whether the school is full of **** or not, but it would first take a plaintiff who could allege discrimination and who could provide at least some evidence of this alleged discrimination before a court would even hear it.
2) the state could attack the language of the constitution, for example "what does it mean "discriminate"? or "what's the definition of 'preferential treatment'?".

the world of academia nowadays seems dead set on the presumption that 'diversity is good', and that by that statement one means 'minority students make a school better'. and they pat themselves on the back (the schools' administrators) about how they are helping to make society a better place. yeah, because you crank out 10 extra black doctors and 20 extra black lawyers, and suddenly the situation facing the average black american gets so much better? no. those graduates become the elites, and leave the rest behind, just like so many whites do.

how many black kids from the ghettos of detroit, harlem, or LA are applying to harvard this year? the med students at harvard who are black come from backgrounds more privileged than any white people i've ever met (i'm talking out of my ass right now, but please disprove what i'm saying). it's an academic's masturbationfest--a feel-good pseudosolution to a structural problem in our society that has no quick fix available from a 120k/year white old guy with a bow tie. i wouldn't be shocked if any public school in cali simply restructured their admissions process to barely conform with the language of the constitutional change, and continued seeking out minority applicants.

here's the real freaking question: why don't school simply base any admissions "preferences" they make on one factor alone, beyond achievements--INCOME OF THE FAMILY/SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS? why is race relevant? poor people are inherently worse off when it comes to the things one needs to excel. black people generally are in this situation more often as a percentage of their population because there are more poor black people. giving a black applicant "points" for being black, and then "points" for being poor double-bonuses those applicants for the same underlying issue--economic status. lame.

(and yes, i read both of the Bollinger cases (aka "U of Mich"), and i understand that point systems, per se, are no longer permissible.)

(and for once, scalia and thomas are on my side, and o'connor is a full of crap rationalizer who i'd love to kick in the foot.)

 

[bewitched1081]

I've been wondering this for awhile. After California voters passed that proposition a few years ago banning the use of racial preferences in public institutions, affirmative action was supposed to be dead. UC's stopped practicing it in their undergrad admissions, but for some reason UC med schools continue to be practicing it in their admissions. How have they been able to get away with it when it is specifically prohibited by state law?

haha. there are many powerful institutions that are getting away with much more.

 

[Long_John]

What evidence supports your claim that they do?

I've been looking for hard evidence for awhile on this. here it is from UCSF's own website
"Commitment to Diversity
The Committee on Admissions is composed of medical school faculty and students and is responsible for recommending candidates to the dean for acceptance. The School of Medicine welcomes applicants from all ethnic, economic, and cultural backgrounds without discrimination. The School of Medicine has a long-standing commitment to increasing the number of physicians who are members of minority groups which are underrepresented in the medical profession. As a result, over the last 30 years UCSF has had one of the highest minority enrollment and graduation rates of continental U.S. medical schools. In addition, the medical school welcomes applications from socioeconomically disadvantaged persons."
If what's in bold isn't affirmative action, then I dont know what is. The dean of admissions and all of his croonies should be jailed for breaking california law.
😀

 

[pseudoknot]

The School of Medicine welcomes applicants from all ethnic, economic, and cultural backgrounds without discrimination. The School of Medicine has a long-standing commitment to increasing the number of physicians who are members of minority groups which are underrepresented in the medical profession. As a result, over the last 30 years UCSF has had one of the highest minority enrollment and graduation rates of continental U.S. medical schools. In addition, the medical school welcomes applications from socioeconomically disadvantaged persons."
If what's in bold isn't affirmative action, then I dont know what is.

Yes, you've found the smoking gun. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. Did you happen to read the sentence right before your bold section? What's in bold says they want to increase minority enrollment, not how they are doing so. It's entirely consistent with this for them to have outreach programs but no admission preferences.

The dean of admissions and all of his croonies should be jailed for breaking california law.

Uh...sure. You realize prop 209 was not a criminal law, right? I'm frankly not the biggest fan of racial preferences, but I think you're looking for trouble here where there is none.