The students supporting SB 185 quoted in this article give a few examples of the reasons they think “race, gender, ethnicity, and national origin” should be considered in admissions.
I will now ask how each of those given reasons depend on the above factors (race, gender, ethnicity, national origin) as opposed to the more broad, and appropriate socio-economic status.

- students coming from low performing schools: Are students of certain race, gender, ethnicity or national origin automatically placed in lower performing schools? No. These tend to be based on geography. Is there overlap between low income, mostly minority neighborhoods with under-performing schools? Yes. What’s the driving factor? Most likely the lower income, as schools are largely funded by property taxes. Will favoring the minority race, ethnicity or national origin offset the disadvantage from the poor quality schools? Yes. Will favoring socio-economically disadvantaged student (i.e. low income, uneducated parents, bad neighborhood, etc) achieve the same effect? Yes. Which is more fair to the non-minority living under similar conditions? The latter.

- students who have to work and support their families: John is a student who had to work throughout high school to support his family. His friend and fellow coworker MIke also has to do the same. They go to the same school, their families have similar incomes, and they have similar grades. For the purposes of UC admission, are they equal?

- students whose families lack understanding of college preparation: Amy and Susan are high school seniors in the same high school. Both their families are first generation immigrants to the US. Their parents have limited English capability and do not understand the whole college admission process or how to prepare their children for it. Their only resource is their high school college counselor.

Now I tell you that John is Italian-American. Mike is African-American. Amy’s family immigrated from Vietnam when she was 3. Susan was born in the US after her parents immigrated from Mexico. Do your answers for the 2nd and 3rd questions change? Should it? I say no.

I fully realize some students faced a tougher road to college. My argument is that these hardships are not necessarily due to race, gender, ethnicity, or national origin. Consideration of one’s socio-economic background is far more encompassing and fair. We need to move to a color-blind society. SB 185 heads in the wrong direction.

The hardships many individuals face from low socioeconomic communities are a direct reflection of race. This dates back to housing laws in place here in the United States that has created these segregated communities with low performing schools. This is exactly why now schools are trying to incorporate a busing system that works to benefit just not certain families and people of certain backgrounds.

Housing laws such as ‘Zoning” and” Restricted Covenants” on deeds by sellers and” imminent domain” Laws like these have created the situations many people of color find themselves in, So I think it is important to look at every factor if that includes race when admitting people into the UC or Cal State. This will create a sense of an even level playing field for many individuals. I believe though going off topic of this Senate Bill as a state we need to create more Universities rather than Prisons to allow more people access to higher education. It appears that we are all just scratching and fighting to get just a little piece of the cheese.

-Best of Luck to all!

If the goal of this bill is for the UC system to “diversify” their demographics and accurately reflect California’s current population as senator Ed Hernandez would have it, then the student body would be 50% hispanic. The underlying racism is assuming that without affirmative action these students would not be able to get in otherwise. It undervalues those minorities that have already been accepted through grades, hard work, and perseverance.

Bill 185 would allow UCs to “consider race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, geographic origin, and household income, along with other relevant factors, in undergraduate and graduate admissions, so long as no preference is given.”
Really? So long as no “preference” is given while race and ethnicity is “considered”..? This statement is an oxymoron.

Sorry, senator Ed Hernandez, but your bill is full of hypocrisy and pits one race against another.

There’s a reason why Prop 209 exists. It protects some of our BASIC RIGHTS. It states “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.”

If Brown signs this bill, he will be undermining the fundamental values that make this country free.