Commentary: How Prop. 209 helped under-represented minority students succeed at California universities

The easy way is seldom best. Nowhere is that more true than in education.

For half a century, elite universities have papered over problems that start at the K-12 level with “race-conscious” admissions policies. Under these policies, African American and other under-represented minority students are often admitted over Asian Americans and whites despite much lower high school GPAs and standardized test scores. The son or daughter of an upper-middle class African American family can be admitted ahead of an impoverished Asian American with better grades.

This approach may be well meaning, but it tends to hurt its intended beneficiaries.

By adopting Proposition 209 in 1996, California voters took a different and ultimately more successful approach. It amended the California Constitution to prohibit the state from considering race, sex or ethnicity in deciding who gets into the most selective state universities — as well as who gets a state job or public contract.

Now, however, legislators want to repeal it. Before they fast-track that effort, however, they might want to consider this:

When Proposition 209 went into effect, the number of under-represented minority students decreased on some UC campuses (especially UC Berkeley), while increasing on others. Proposition 209 opponents called this a disaster. The truth was the opposite; it increased student success.

Read other perspectives on Proposition 209:

Opinion

Shirley Weber: Why California should repeal Prop. 209 and allow state institutions to consider race

The coronavirus pandemic has made it clear that now is the time to overturn California’s affirmative action ban.

June 9, 2020

The reason is clear: Despite what affirmative action zealots would have us believe, entering academic credentials matter. Although some students outperform their entering credentials just as some underperform theirs, most perform in the range that their entering credentials suggest.

Consider, for example, UC San Diego. According to an internal academic performance report, in the year before 209’s implementation, only one black student had a freshman-year GPA of 3.5 or better — a single black honor student in a class of 3,268. By contrast, 20% of the white students had such a GPA.

Was this because there were no black students capable of doing honors work at UC San Diego? Of course not. The problem was that they were at Berkeley — or Harvard — where often they were not receiving honors. Race-conscious admissions policies were creating the illusion that few black students could excel.

Proposition 209 changed that at UC San Diego, where the performance of black students improved dramatically. No longer were black honor students rare. Instead, in 1998, a full 20% of the black freshmen could boast a GPA of 3.5 or better at year’s end. That was slightly higher than the rate for Asians and extremely close to the rate for whites that year.

UCSD reported that “underrepresented students admitted … in 1998 substantially outperformed their 1997 counterparts” and “the majority/ minority performance gap observed in past studies was narrowed considerably.”

“Narrowed” was understatement. The report found for the first time “no substantial GPA differences based on race/ethnicity.” A discreet footnote showed the report’s author knew exactly how this happened: 1998 was the first year of colorblind admissions.

The bottom of the class also changed. Prior to Proposition 209, 15% of black students and 17% of American Indian students were in academic jeopardy (defined as a GPA of less than 2.0), while only 4% of white students were. Many more hovered close to the line. There is no way of knowing exactly how high the academic jeopardy rate was for preference beneficiaries in particular, but it was surely high.

The proof was in the collapse in the minority academic jeopardy rate when racial preferences were eliminated. The difference between racial groups all but evaporated, with the black and American Indian rate falling to 6%.

It is true that UC San Diego had 12 fewer black freshmen in 1998, forced as it was to reject applicants who did not meet the school’s regular academic standards. But it also had seven fewer black students with an unacceptable GPA at year’s end. Meanwhile, those 12 students could attend a school where their chances of success were greater. It is hard not to call that a success.

More recent research into the UC system as a whole shows that Proposition 209 had three overall effects: It increased under-represented minority students’ GPAs, graduation rates and rates of majoring in science or engineering. Accomplishing all three goals simultaneously is difficult, but Proposition 209 did it. Faithful enforcement, not repeal, would seem the better course.

The Legislature can’t repeal Proposition 209 without a voter referendum in November. But legislators should avoid throwing the voters into a divisive campaign that ultimately will only make things worse for under-represented minorities.

Now is not the time for taking the easy way out. Especially now.

Heriot is a law professor at the University of San Diego and a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. She co-chaired the Yes on Proposition 209 campaign in 1996. She is a member of The San Diego Union-Tribune’s Community Voices Project.