The Civil Rights Project / Proyecto Derechos Civiles

The study compares the ways in which California’s ban on affirmative action harms the University of California in comparison to the University of Texas and leading private institutions in terms of both the climate on campus for nonwhite students and the lack of success in recruiting top-ranked applicants of color.

Foreward by Gary Orfield

Publication can also be found at: http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu

This paper briefly reviews the various efforts undertaken by the University of California to maintain diversity in the institution, and especially at its highly competitive flagship campuses, UCLA and Berkeley, in the face of the loss of affirmative action during the mid-1990s.  It demonstrates the continuing decline in representation of underrepresented minorities (URMs) in spite of these efforts, even as URMs have become the majority of all students in the state.  Although applications to the flagship campuses have doubled since 1995, and all groups have seen reductions in the percent of applicants offered admission, African American and Latino admittees have been reduced by 70 to 75 percent at UCLA and UC Berkeley, compared to just 35 and 40 percent for Asian and white applicants.  This disproportionate decline reflects the inequalities in the California educational system that fails to prepare African American, Native American and Latino students for highly competitive selection processes irrespective of their intellectual ability or likelihood of succeeding in their studies.  The consequences of continuing down the same path will likely result in the solidification of educational inequality and economic dislocations for the state.

Also available at: http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/

Foreward by Gary Orfield:

This study by Dr. Liliana Garces raises an issue of great importance for both the nation’s future and the national debate over the necessity of affirmative action. America’s future depends on effectively competing in a global market and maintaining the world’s strong research capability. That capability is developed in graduate training at leading universities. As the nation passes through an historic demographic transformation and members of traditionally excluded racial and ethnic minorities make up a far larger proportion of the next generation, we are failing to train these students with the skills needed to sustain and expand our technology and research capacity. The most important tools for recruiting traditionally excluded students include a variety of affirmative action programs that identify and nurture talent among groups often denied equal opportunity to prepare for such training. All of our leading research universities and professional associations adopted such policies.As affirmative action has been banned in several states and the U.S. Supreme Court is set to consider the issue for the third time this fall in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2011), it is vital to understand what impact the loss of affirmative action has had in particular states and to consider whether these states have found alternatives that maintain diversity without affirmative action. It is particularly important to consider graduate education since the major alternatives proposed for undergraduate access—the percent plan and admission by social and economic status—cannot be applied to graduate admissions where decisions are not made among students from a single state, undergraduate programs vary widely in terms of adequate preparation for graduate work, and students are admitted as adults, not on the basis of their family circumstances.If the need is truly urgent and the programs in states prohibiting affirmative action don’t work, the country’s ability to prepare its changing population to sustain and expand these critical capacities will be severely damaged. Dr. Garces’ important work suggests that this is a likely outcome.

Also available at: http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/

From the foreward by Gary Orfield:

As we face the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, college opportunity has been negatively impacted by drastic cuts and the rising cost of education. In California specifically, higher education opportunity seems to be nearly out of reach for low-income students, academically unprepared students, and students of color. Historically, higher education has been considered a mechanism of upward mobility. Considered part of the “American Dream,” parents encourage their children to strive for this goal, even if parents themselves never attended college.Academically underprepared students, or this lacking the basic skills of math ad/or English to be at college-level, represent over half of entering freshmen at the CSU. What these startling numbers really represent is a growing number of underprepared students graduating California high schools, often with excellent grades, yet being denied admission of the state’s public institutions. Despite California’s commitment to universal access to all who can benefit and tuition-free education, what we are seeing is an inability to uphold this social contract at the cost of student’s futures.The negative impact of budget cuts has been felt beyond the students and their families. Recent pay cuts, furloughs, and other declines in financial support have also impacted faculty and staff at the CSU campuses. Increasingly, faculty and staff have feelings of unfairness, as they struggle to provide services and quality education to students, yet experience enormous cut after cut. Morale continues to plummet as faculty and staff are expected to perform the duties of educating the stat’s youth, ye the value of education seems practically non-existent within the state’s budget priorities.

Also available at: http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu

From the foreward by Gary Orfield:

As we face the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, college opportunity has been negatively impacted by drastic cuts and the rising cost of education. In California specifically, higher education opportunity seems to be nearly out of reach for low-income students, academically unprepared students, and students of color. Historically, higher education has been considered a mechanism of upward mobility. Considered part of the “American Dream,” parents encourage their children to strive for this goal, even if parents themselves never attended college.Academically underprepared students, or this lacking the basic skills of math ad/or English to be at college-level, represent over half of entering freshmen at the CSU. What these startling numbers really represent is a growing number of underprepared students graduating California high schools, often with excellent grades, yet being denied admission of the state’s public institutions. Despite California’s commitment to universal access to all who can benefit and tuition-free education, what we are seeing is an inability to uphold this social contract at the cost of student’s futures.The negative impact of budget cuts has been felt beyond the students and their families. Recent pay cuts, furloughs, and other declines in financial support have also impacted faculty and staff at the CSU campuses. Increasingly, faculty and staff have feelings of unfairness, as they struggle to provide services and quality education to students, yet experience enormous cut after cut. Morale continues to plummet as faculty and staff are expected to perform the duties of educating the stat’s youth, ye the value of education seems practically non-existent within the state’s budget priorities.

Also available at: http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu

From the foreward by Gary Orfield:

As we face the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, college opportunity has been negatively impacted by drastic cuts and the rising cost of education. In California specifically, higher education opportunity seems to be nearly out of reach for low-income students, academically unprepared students, and students of color. Historically, higher education has been considered a mechanism of upward mobility. Considered part of the “American Dream,” parents encourage their children to strive for this goal, even if parents themselves never attended college.Academically underprepared students, or this lacking the basic skills of math ad/or English to be at college-level, represent over half of entering freshmen at the CSU. What these startling numbers really represent is a growing number of underprepared students graduating California high schools, often with excellent grades, yet being denied admission of the state’s public institutions. Despite California’s commitment to universal access to all who can benefit and tuition-free education, what we are seeing is an inability to uphold this social contract at the cost of student’s futures.The negative impact of budget cuts has been felt beyond the students and their families. Recent pay cuts, furloughs, and other declines in financial support have also impacted faculty and staff at the CSU campuses. Increasingly, faculty and staff have feelings of unfairness, as they struggle to provide services and quality education to students, yet experience enormous cut after cut. Morale continues to plummet as faculty and staff are expected to perform the duties of educating the stat’s youth, ye the value of education seems practically non-existent within the state’s budget priorities.

Also available at: http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu

These studies released today call attention to the fact that cuts to higher education impact students, their families, CSU faculty, and staff well beyond the classroom. Reduction in access, retention, and increase in cost are disproportionately impacting traditionally underrepresented students, and are being felt within their personal lives. Related Documents Dismantling College Opportunity in California

These three reports constitute Part Four of The CSU Crisis and California's Future:

Remediation as a Civil Rights Issue in the California State University System by Kimberly R. King, Suzanne Mcevoy, And Steve TeixeiraEconomic Crisis and the California State Public University: The Institutional, Professional and Personal Effects on Faculty and Students by David Boyns, Amy Denissen, And Alexandra GerbasiYou Will Have To Work Ten Times as Hard at the CSU: Reducing Outreach and Recruitment in Times of Economic Crisis by Rebecca Joseph With The Assistance Of Mario Castaneda

Also avaiable at http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu

These reports analyze the impact of the fiscal cutbacks on opportunity for higher education in the California State University system, the huge network of 23 universities that provides the bulk of bachelor-level education in the state. The CSU has a much larger undergraduate student body than the University of California system and educates a much larger group of Latino and African American students. Many CSU students are first-generation college students struggling to get an education in difficult times.

These are the third in a series of reports exploring the impact of California's fiscal crisis on the opportunities for underrepresented students in the California State University system. Although the Master Plan for Higher Education called for tuition-free affordable college for all qualified California students, the fiscal reality of California has led to the abandonment of that promise and rapidly rising tuition and other costs of college. Over the last decade, the California State University (CSU) has sustained a substantial decrease in state general funds and has offset these decreases by increasing tuition and fees by over 166 percent. In 1967 the state paid approximately 90% of a student’s education while today it pays approximately 64%. As costs associated with college rise for students, including housing and books, attending and financing college may become too difficult for students with the greatest financial need, the reports find, particularly the state’s majority of Latino and African American youth. Related Documents Financing College in Hard Times

The first study, by San Jose State University Professor Amy Leisenring, says that due to rising college costs and budget cuts, 86% of students surveyed in the study work for pay while in college, with underrepresented minority students comprising a large majority of students who work while in college.  Leisenring’s study explores the impact of recent budget cuts on Latino, African American and American Indian students, their views on tuition/fee increases and the affects of working in paid employment on their academic success.  Higher Tuition, More Work, and Academic Harm:  An Examination of the Impact of Tuition Hikes on the Employment Experiences of Under-represented Minority Students at one CSU campus is based on survey data of 163 underrepresented minority students (URM), as well as in-depth interviews with 16 URM students.

The second study, by UCLA Professor Jose Luis Santos, explored the SUG, its effects on underrepresented students, and trends over a 20-year period with inflation. Santos reported that middle-income students are becoming the casualties of fee increases because while the middle-income families are seeing an increase in SUG awards, it isn't enough to keep up with the rising cost of tuition. On the other hand, the lowest income groups have seen a proportional decrease, the report states. The study also finds that students who did not qualify for state or federal financial aid have benefitted the most from SUG.

By reviewing the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study from 2008 and other publicly available data from the CSU system and the California Postsecondary Education Commission, Santos’ study, The State University Grant Program and Its Effects on Underrepresented Students at the CSU, explains that SUG helps to mitigate fee increases, regardless of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and/or institution attended. The study asserts that SUG only acts to offset fee increases, and instead should become a more targeted, need-based aid program to assist the most underrepresented and neediest students.

These reports are the third in a series called, THE CSU CRISIS AND CALIFORNIA’S FUTURE, and are designed to analyze the impact of the fiscal cutbacks on opportunity for higher education in the California State University system.  The first report, Squeezed from all Sides documented the struggle of many students to continue their education in the face of soaring tuition, diminished offerings, and a financial crisis seriously hurting them and many of their family members. The students reported essential classes disappearing, rising financial barriers and large delays in finishing their studies. The second reports explored faculty experiences under budget cuts and their inability to deliver the kind of quality education they believe CSU students deserve and need to obtain gainful employment after college.

The fundamental asset of a university is its faculty. Without faculty working with students, the university is just a set of buildings. The faculty design and teach the courses, keep the educational program updated, and work with students to help them gain the skills and knowledge they need to prepare for their careers or professional education. The quality of faculty is very directly linked to the quality of a student’s education and the value of the degree.  The research released in these two new studies from the Civil Rights Project shows that the budget cutbacks at the California State University system are already reducing the quality of education faculty can offer students.  The CSU now faces large additional cuts. Faculty Under Siege, is based on a survey of more than four hundred faculty across the CSU system and it shows that the main sources of stress that appear to affect job satisfaction and the quality of teaching are increased class sizes and teaching loads, a lack of personal time, not receiving support and supplies from the system, working with underprepared students, and advising an increasing number of students. This web-based survey collected data on 424 faculty; 76% are full-time employees of their institution, and the majority of respondents teach at only one campus. In addition, 47% had tenure at the time of the survey, with an additional 22% on tenure track.

Also available at: http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu