According to NPR, SCA-5 is dead. According to the Assembly leadership, there aren't the votes to pass it - when you consider the fact that the Democrats hold a super majority, that means there's a break in the ranks somewhere. Senator Hernandez says he's interested in bringing it back in 2016 ... But if the Democrats lose their supermajorities in either chamber, that won't be a possibility. (NPR story)
I guess my work here is done but in the next couple of weeks, I'll put up the rest of my research in case anyone wants more info on this.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
More Number Crunching ...
I've again dived into the numbers from the UC Application, Admission & Enrollment, California Resident Freshman data. This time, I've taken a look at the Enrollment data both (1) as a percentage for each racial group for the total enrolled class and (2) as a percentage of the students for each racial group who accepted the admissions offer.
The first of these new charts shows that there is a greater percentage of Asians who Enroll than who were offered Admissions. It appears, according to the second new chart, that the reason for this is that Asians consistently accepted the offer and enrolled at a substantially greater rate than the other groups examined. I added East Indian / Pakastani, Filipino American, and Native American, to see if the other Asian groups had similarly high numbers and I wanted to see if Native Americans were having better, worse, or similar numbers to the other disadvantaged communities.
Also surprising was that starting around 2002, every group, except for the Asians, had multiple years when less than half of those who got offers actually enrolled. This represents a significant decline from the prior decade. My guess (I'm just speculating here) as to why this happened / is happening is the steady increase in tuition since 2002.
The first of these new charts shows that there is a greater percentage of Asians who Enroll than who were offered Admissions. It appears, according to the second new chart, that the reason for this is that Asians consistently accepted the offer and enrolled at a substantially greater rate than the other groups examined. I added East Indian / Pakastani, Filipino American, and Native American, to see if the other Asian groups had similarly high numbers and I wanted to see if Native Americans were having better, worse, or similar numbers to the other disadvantaged communities.
Also surprising was that starting around 2002, every group, except for the Asians, had multiple years when less than half of those who got offers actually enrolled. This represents a significant decline from the prior decade. My guess (I'm just speculating here) as to why this happened / is happening is the steady increase in tuition since 2002.
Saturday, March 1, 2014
SCA-5 Will Not Impact Asian Americans: An Analysis of UC Admissions Data From 1989 to 2013
In my "Numbers, numbers, and more numbers" post, I provided a link to the UC Admissions and Enrollment Data from 1989 to 2013. I finally had some time to take a closer look.
METHODOLOGY:
The University of California provided racial breakdowns for three areas: Applications, Admissions, and Enrollment. I decided not to look at Applications, but anybody can apply. It's just like anyone can sue, but it doesn't mean that the lawsuit has any merit. I also decided not to look at Enrollments; there are all kinds of reasons why people choose not to enroll, including financial reasons or they chose to go to a different school (yes, shockingly, a UC is not always the first choice). But if you're trying to determine if Proposition 209 affected the decision-making process of admissions officers, wouldn't you want to look at Admissions data?
Rather than look at every campus (I don't have THAT much time), I looked at the Universitywide figures. When I did, I noticed that the total Universitywide admissions number rose from 31,764 in 1989 to 62,683. So comparing the number of students in each racial group from year to year wouldn't work. Instead, I chose to look at the percentages for each racial group for each year. There were a couple of groups I didn't include at all because their numbers were on the smaller side (I'm using UC's abbreviations): Am Indian; E Ind/Pak; Filipino Am; Other. Lastly, I combined the categories of Chicano and Latino.
FINDINGS:
Here's the chart I came up with:
Although Proposition 209 passed in 1996, the law did become effective until 1998. Keeping that in mind, the two most unusual numbers from 1998 is the HUGE jump in category of "unknown" and the drop in "white." "Unknown" eventually returned to it's pre-209 levels, but it took over a decade for that to happen. As for whites, the 35.6% was an anomaly, but perhaps a sign of things to come as white admissions numbers have continued to decline year after year from 1989. The passage of Prop 209 has done nothing to stop that. African Americans have held steady. Asian Americans have had a slight uptick. But the only group that has increased year after year is Chicano/Latino, arguably at the expense of Whites.
So there's plenty of ammo that both sides can use in the Affirmative Action debate.
Bottom line: if the adoption of Proposition 209 didn't change offers of Admission to Asian Americans, it is unlikely that the repeal of Proposition of 209 via SCA-5 will have a substantial change on Admissions to Asian Americans.
And in case you want to know what the current admissions criteria are for the University of California, click here.
METHODOLOGY:
The University of California provided racial breakdowns for three areas: Applications, Admissions, and Enrollment. I decided not to look at Applications, but anybody can apply. It's just like anyone can sue, but it doesn't mean that the lawsuit has any merit. I also decided not to look at Enrollments; there are all kinds of reasons why people choose not to enroll, including financial reasons or they chose to go to a different school (yes, shockingly, a UC is not always the first choice). But if you're trying to determine if Proposition 209 affected the decision-making process of admissions officers, wouldn't you want to look at Admissions data?
Rather than look at every campus (I don't have THAT much time), I looked at the Universitywide figures. When I did, I noticed that the total Universitywide admissions number rose from 31,764 in 1989 to 62,683. So comparing the number of students in each racial group from year to year wouldn't work. Instead, I chose to look at the percentages for each racial group for each year. There were a couple of groups I didn't include at all because their numbers were on the smaller side (I'm using UC's abbreviations): Am Indian; E Ind/Pak; Filipino Am; Other. Lastly, I combined the categories of Chicano and Latino.
FINDINGS:
Here's the chart I came up with:
Although Proposition 209 passed in 1996, the law did become effective until 1998. Keeping that in mind, the two most unusual numbers from 1998 is the HUGE jump in category of "unknown" and the drop in "white." "Unknown" eventually returned to it's pre-209 levels, but it took over a decade for that to happen. As for whites, the 35.6% was an anomaly, but perhaps a sign of things to come as white admissions numbers have continued to decline year after year from 1989. The passage of Prop 209 has done nothing to stop that. African Americans have held steady. Asian Americans have had a slight uptick. But the only group that has increased year after year is Chicano/Latino, arguably at the expense of Whites.
So there's plenty of ammo that both sides can use in the Affirmative Action debate.
Bottom line: if the adoption of Proposition 209 didn't change offers of Admission to Asian Americans, it is unlikely that the repeal of Proposition of 209 via SCA-5 will have a substantial change on Admissions to Asian Americans.
And in case you want to know what the current admissions criteria are for the University of California, click here.
I've Got Beef with 80-20's "Powerful Fax"
80-20 posted a fax that was sent by Dr. Huang to members of the State Assembly. The tout it as a "Powerful Fax" when in fact, it's just a cheap shot.
Here's the text of the fax.
As I've discussed in my post spotlighting 80-20, 80-20 does have the resources to mobilize against individual Assembly members, so Dr. Haibo Huang, who serves on the Board of Directors, is not making an empty threat.
But here's why I take issue with Dr. Huang's letter and why it's anything but a "Powerful Fax" - when your organization files amicus briefs in the Supreme Court and you yourself are conducting investigations "for 80-20 regarding the impact of race-conscious college admissions on Asian American applicants" (see 80-20's bio of Dr. Huang), you don't get a pass for making misleading and inflammatory arguments.
If 80-20 claims that it stands for Asian Americans and wants to be taken seriously, then 80-20 has a responsibility to make respectable arguments.
Let's be clear: SCA-5 is a measure designed to insert affirmative action back into higher education. Dr. Huang knows exactly what that entails. But rather than even using the term "race-conscious," Dr. Huang knowingly and deliberately chooses to compare SCA-5 to the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and "quota-like ceiling." The Chinese Exclusion Act was an explicit, race-specific ban on Chinese immigrants which is clearly illegal and the United States Supreme Court has consistently held that the use of quotas in higher education are not legal. 80-20 and Dr. Huang also know that the issue is not "proportional representation" or college enrollment "reflecting the population."
Let's have a debate about whether affirmative action has a place in California's public universities without having to resort to invoking the specter of Communism. I think the Asian American community deserves that much.
Here's the text of the fax.
"Dear AsAm Legislators in the California Assembly,Please vote NO to SCA5 in the Assembly.The senate passing of SCA5 with the support of all three AsAm senators
had sent shock waves through the AsAm community across the nation,
turning ordinary citizens into an army of political activists. . . .Do NOT underestimate the resolve of ordinary people. The day of
reckoning will come this November. As a California resident, I will join in
hand with millions across the nation, and with the AsAm voters in your
districts, to make sure the AsAm politicians are accountable to their
constituents. The days, when AsAm politicians can take the money and
the votes from their community, and then do whatever that suit their
personal ambitions, are over. We will see to it that such politicians be
defeated in the next election cycle.If the Democratic Party leadership doesn't bent on pushing forward SCA5,
they will lose their Super Majority in the California legislature. The
recent mayoral election in the City of San Diego will serve as a warning: a
Republican candidate prevailed in an overwhelmingly Democrat city.SCA5 is a "Yellow Peril Act", a 21st century version of the "Chinese
Exclusion Act of 1882", aimed specifically to impose a quota-like ceiling on
the AsAm students. . . . Therefore, there can be no illusion, no matter
how SCA5 is sugar-coated, that it is a bill aimed squarely to limit the AsAm
enrollment through a reverse "racial preference" treatment, under an
argument that "the college enrollment should reflect the population".
Fortunately, such a "proportional representation" argument has been
consistently rejected by the US Supreme Court in all precedent cases to be
in violation of the "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th Amendment of the
United States Constitution. . . . .SCA5 cannot hide under the disguise of "equal opportunity". In fact it is
the antithesis of "equal opportunity" because it demands "equal outcomes"
despite of "unequal qualifications and efforts". It is Communism in
essence because all resources are to be divided equally, depriving the
citizenry of any incentive to excel, dragging down the US competitiveness
in the long run. . . . . Rewarding or penalize an individual based on
his/her skin color is morally repugnant. . . . With your help, we shall
overcome.Thank you for your attention.Dr. Haibo Huang
A deeply concerned California resident.
As I've discussed in my post spotlighting 80-20, 80-20 does have the resources to mobilize against individual Assembly members, so Dr. Haibo Huang, who serves on the Board of Directors, is not making an empty threat.
But here's why I take issue with Dr. Huang's letter and why it's anything but a "Powerful Fax" - when your organization files amicus briefs in the Supreme Court and you yourself are conducting investigations "for 80-20 regarding the impact of race-conscious college admissions on Asian American applicants" (see 80-20's bio of Dr. Huang), you don't get a pass for making misleading and inflammatory arguments.
If 80-20 claims that it stands for Asian Americans and wants to be taken seriously, then 80-20 has a responsibility to make respectable arguments.
Let's be clear: SCA-5 is a measure designed to insert affirmative action back into higher education. Dr. Huang knows exactly what that entails. But rather than even using the term "race-conscious," Dr. Huang knowingly and deliberately chooses to compare SCA-5 to the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and "quota-like ceiling." The Chinese Exclusion Act was an explicit, race-specific ban on Chinese immigrants which is clearly illegal and the United States Supreme Court has consistently held that the use of quotas in higher education are not legal. 80-20 and Dr. Huang also know that the issue is not "proportional representation" or college enrollment "reflecting the population."
Let's have a debate about whether affirmative action has a place in California's public universities without having to resort to invoking the specter of Communism. I think the Asian American community deserves that much.
80-20 PAC in the Spotlight
On Thursday, February 27th, the 80-20 National Asian American PAC posted a blog entry entitled "SCA First Victory & Empowerment." In it, 80-20 summed up the accomplishments of its grassroots lobbying effort to stop SCA-5.
I don't know if 80-20 is who the ball rolling on the No on SCA-5 campaign, but given that the emails I've seen started a day or two after 80-20 posted "Call to Action: Stop SCA 5" on February 14, 2014, it's clear they were involved early on 80-20. Also, given 80-20's self-described reach (on its "What Makes 80-20 Effective" page, 80-20 touts 700,000 supporters) and the positions it's taken against affirmative action in higher education (80-20 filed an Amicus Brief siding with Fisher in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, one of the Supreme Court cases I discussed in "Psssst, Is This Constitutional?"), they have the resources and policy motivations to mobilize such an effort.
For these reasons, I decided to take a closer look at 80-20.
Their first claim is that "Assemblyman Ed Chau announced that he will NOT vote for SCA 5, as it is currently worded. So the dam has been broken. Many more AsAm Assemblypersons are expected to follow suite and defeat SCA 5. It only takes one more such announcement to defeat SCA 5 in the CA's Assembly"
I checked out website of Assemblyman Chau. If Assemblyman Chau had taken this position, I'd expect to find some mention of this on his website. But there's no mention anywhere of SCA-5. Additionally, 80-20 writes "Assemblyman Chau was the only one of the AsAm Assembly person to return S.B. Woo's phone call on the same day." Is it possible that the "announcement" referenced was merely the conversation Assemblyman Chau had with S.B. Woo, the President of the 80-20 Educational Foundation who is from Delaware?
Had Assemblyman Chau taken this position, wouldn't there be something akin to the public statement issued by the Chinese-American State Senators who voted in favor of SCA-5? The following appears on State Senator Ted Lieu's website (Senators Lieu, Yee & Liu Ask Hernandez To Hold SCA 5"): "As lifelong advocates for the Chinese American and other API communities, we would never support a policy that we believed would negatively impact our children. Prior to this vote, we heard no opposition to this bill. However, in the past few weeks, we have heard from thousands of people throughout California concerned about SCA 5. As a result, we have asked Sen. Hernandez to hold SCA 5 until he has had an opportunity to meet with affected communities and attempt to build consensus." I'm assuming that this is what 80-20 is referring to in claiming "It has been reliably leaked to 80-20 that the CA Senate will announce "NOT to proceed" with SCA 5 until more hearings on this bill would be held. Hopefully, our three Chinese Am senators, upon learning more about how SCA 5 will hurt the AsAm college applicants, will vote no afterwards."
I am admittedly not familiar with the intricate details of California legislative procedure. But, given that SCA-5 has been passed out of the State Senate and is before the State Assembly, my guess is that the State Senate would not be revisiting the bill again unless the State Assembly amends the bill. So I don't see any reason why the Senate would be stopping anything and Senators Lieu, Yee, and Liu wouldn't have any reason to be voting again.
However, in parsing the public statement by the 3 Senators, the language "until [Sen. Hernandez] has had an opportunity to meet with affected communities and attempt to build consensus," I'm inclined to believe that the supporters of SCA-5 will be responding to the concerns being raised and opening a dialogue about SCA-5 and affirmative action.
The bottom line, 80-20's celebration may be a bit premature. Round 2 is about to start and I'm guessing that the proponents of SCA-5 are going to be hitting back.
Sens. Lieu, Yee and Liu ask Hernandez to hold SCA 5
February 27, 2014
SACRAMENTO – Sens. Ted Lieu, D-Redondo Beach; Leland Yee, D-San Francisco/San Mateo; and Carol Liu, D- La Cañada/Flintridge) have called upon Sen. Ed Hernandez, D-West Covina, to hold SCA 5 to provide more time to discuss the potential impacts the bill will have on the Chinese, Asian Pacific Islander and other affected communities. Yee, Lieu and Liu released the following joint statement:
“As lifelong advocates for the Chinese American and other API communities, we would never support a policy that we believed would negatively impact our children. Prior to this vote, we heard no opposition to this bill. However, in the past few weeks, we have heard from thousands of people throughout California concerned about SCA 5. As a result, we have asked Sen. Hernandez to hold SCA 5 until he has an opportunity to meet with affected communities and attempt to build a consensus.”
SCA 5 is authored by Hernandez. If passed, the bill would place an initiative on the November Ballot that would remove all references to public education from Proposition 209, which amended the state constitution to prohibit state government institutions from considering race, sex or ethnicity in the areas of public employment, public contracting or public education.
Sens. Ted Lieu,
D-Redondo Beach; Leland Yee, D-San Francisco/San Mateo; and Carol Liu,
D- La Cañada/Flintridge) have called upon Sen. Ed Hernandez, D-West
Covina, to hold SCA 5 to provide more time to discuss the potential
impacts the bill will have on the Chinese, Asian Pacific Islander and
other affected communities. Yee, Lieu and Liu released the following
joint statement:
“As lifelong advocates for the Chinese American and other API communities, we would never support a policy that we believed would negatively impact our children. Prior to this vote, we heard no opposition to this bill. However, in the past few weeks, we have heard from thousands of people throughout California concerned about SCA 5. As a result, we have asked Sen. Hernandez to hold SCA 5 until he has an opportunity to meet with affected communities and attempt to build a consensus.”
SCA 5 is authored by Hernandez. If passed, the bill would place an initiative on the November Ballot that would remove all references to public education from Proposition 209, which amended the state constitution to prohibit state government institutions from considering race, sex or ethnicity in the areas of public employment, public contracting or public education.
- See more at: http://sd28.senate.ca.gov/news/2014-02-27-sens-lieu-yee-and-liu-ask-hernandez-hold-sca-5#sthash.GXSAUtKv.dpuf
“As lifelong advocates for the Chinese American and other API communities, we would never support a policy that we believed would negatively impact our children. Prior to this vote, we heard no opposition to this bill. However, in the past few weeks, we have heard from thousands of people throughout California concerned about SCA 5. As a result, we have asked Sen. Hernandez to hold SCA 5 until he has an opportunity to meet with affected communities and attempt to build a consensus.”
SCA 5 is authored by Hernandez. If passed, the bill would place an initiative on the November Ballot that would remove all references to public education from Proposition 209, which amended the state constitution to prohibit state government institutions from considering race, sex or ethnicity in the areas of public employment, public contracting or public education.
- See more at: http://sd28.senate.ca.gov/news/2014-02-27-sens-lieu-yee-and-liu-ask-hernandez-hold-sca-5#sthash.GXSAUtKv.dpuf
Sens. Lieu, Yee and Liu ask Hernandez to hold SCA 5
February 27, 2014
SACRAMENTO – Sens. Ted Lieu, D-Redondo Beach; Leland Yee, D-San Francisco/San Mateo; and Carol Liu, D- La Cañada/Flintridge) have called upon Sen. Ed Hernandez, D-West Covina, to hold SCA 5 to provide more time to discuss the potential impacts the bill will have on the Chinese, Asian Pacific Islander and other affected communities. Yee, Lieu and Liu released the following joint statement:
“As lifelong advocates for the Chinese American and other API communities, we would never support a policy that we believed would negatively impact our children. Prior to this vote, we heard no opposition to this bill. However, in the past few weeks, we have heard from thousands of people throughout California concerned about SCA 5. As a result, we have asked Sen. Hernandez to hold SCA 5 until he has an opportunity to meet with affected communities and attempt to build a consensus.”
SCA 5 is authored by Hernandez. If passed, the bill would place an initiative on the November Ballot that would remove all references to public education from Proposition 209, which amended the state constitution to prohibit state government institutions from considering race, sex or ethnicity in the areas of public employment, public contracting or public education.
Sens. Lieu, Yee and Liu ask Hernandez to hold SCA 5
- See more at: http://sd28.senate.ca.gov/news/2014-02-27-sens-lieu-yee-and-liu-ask-hernandez-hold-sca-5#sthash.GXSAUtKv.dpufI'mMore time needed to study impacts, reach out to affected communitiesFebruary 27, 2014
SACRAMENTO – Sens. Ted Lieu, D-Redondo Beach; Leland Yee, D-San Francisco/San Mateo; and Carol Liu, D- La Cañada/Flintridge) have called upon Sen. Ed Hernandez, D-West Covina, to hold SCA 5 to provide more time to discuss the potential impacts the bill will have on the Chinese, Asian Pacific Islander and other affected communities. Yee, Lieu and Liu released the following joint statement:
“As lifelong advocates for the Chinese American and other API communities, we would never support a policy that we believed would negatively impact our children. Prior to this vote, we heard no opposition to this bill. However, in the past few weeks, we have heard from thousands of people throughout California concerned about SCA 5. As a result, we have asked Sen. Hernandez to hold SCA 5 until he has an opportunity to meet with affected communities and attempt to build a consensus.”
SCA 5 is authored by Hernandez. If passed, the bill would place an initiative on the November Ballot that would remove all references to public education from Proposition 209, which amended the state constitution to prohibit state government institutions from considering race, sex or ethnicity in the areas of public employment, public contracting or public education.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)