加州在1996年通过了著名的209 法案， 也叫加州民权提案。 该提案修改加州宪法，禁止州政府在公务员招募，公共服务合同签订，和公共教育中考虑种族，性别，和族群因素(..."prohibit state government institutions from discriminating against, or granting 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).。也就是说，加州是美国50个州中率先在公共教育入学标准中”废除“了考虑种族因素的州。在此法案通过后， 加州的公立大学在入学标准中尽管也要考虑其他综合因素(比如社会活动，领导才能，特殊才艺等)，但不得考虑申请人的种族背景。因此，学生的学业成绩(包括大学入学考试SAT的成绩)在录取过程中的分量就得到了提高。这对学习成绩普遍较为优秀的亚裔学生无疑是有好处的。但同时，也出台了一些举错来保证在AA 取消之后仍能维持一定程度的校园多元化，比如，加州的高中毕业生只要是在本校的前9% (12.5% in the past)，就能保证被加州大学系统中的一所学校录取(当然可能不一定是学生最想去的那个学校)。在加州之后，德州和佛州也相继在公立大学录取中废除了AA。而德州和佛州也有相似的 “Top Ten” 和 “Talent Twenty ” 项目，保证高中毕业生中的 top 10% 甚至 top 20%
保
证每个高中毕业班的前百分之十学生可以进入该州任何一所公立大学。因为德州的城市住房结构常常和种族结构直接相关,
所以这项举措实际上保证了一定程度的多元化。 - See more at:
http://blog.creaders.net/dreamweaver/user_blog_diary.php?did=83189#sthash.PNdzg3HF.dpuf
2006
年UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies - See more at:
http://blog.creaders.net/dreamweaver/user_blog_diary.php?did=83189#sthash.PNdzg3HF.dpuf
2006
年UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies - See more at:
http://blog.creaders.net/dreamweaver/user_blog_diary.php?did=83189#sthash.PNdzg3HF.dpuf
“I am not proposing quota systems or preferential treatment。 SCA 5 simply allows our public colleges to identify achievement gaps, such as a lack of women in the (science, technology, engineering and math) fields or even a lack of men, especially men of color, in teacher-credentialing programs. … Any program a college adopts to consider these factors would have to be narrowly tailored, consistent with all the Supreme Court decisions that already limit the use of race- or gender-conscious programs.”
At the UC in 1996--the last year prior to Prop. 209's adoption--black accounted for 4% of overall admissions(1628), in 2013 they accounted for 4.3% of admission (2705), they are about 6.6% of the California population. Chicanos and Latinos comprised 14.3% of admissions (5744) in 1996 and are 27.8% (17450) of admission in 2013, they make up about 38.2% of the population. Asian made up 32% (12995) of admission in 1996 and are 35.9% (225363) in 2013, they made up about 13.9% of California population. White have plummeted percentage-wise from being 41%(16465) of admission in 1996 to 27.9% (17516)in 2013, whites make up about 39.4% of the population.
So the whites get hurt most if SCA-5 passed! So there will be less whites in UC if this bill got through!
非常赞同你对AA 目前在美国是否还有存在的必要的观点。这个话题我在以前那两篇文章中有很多讨论。 的确， 非裔中的有识之士早就意识到了过分推行AA 的反面作用。有意思的是，加州209法案的主要发起人Ward Connerly， former UC regent, 就是一位非裔。 他这次也就SCA有明确表态反对：“It is very disingenuous” to contend that the law has harmed minorities. He also said the newly proposed constitutional amendment is being "pushed by members of the Latino caucus, who are counting on a surging Latino population to support the measure".
这篇UT 的文章中还有一个网上调查, "Should College Applicants or Students Receive Preferential Treatment based on Race, Gender, Color, or Ethnicity?", 现在的result是93%的回复者选择了”NO”.当然这不大象是一个随即抽样的调查, 但至少还是可以看出不认同将种族重新放回招生决定的人还是为数不少的。这是值得高兴的事情。后面的一些评论也很有意思
