加州在1996年通過了著名的209 法案， 也叫加州民權提案。 該提案修改加州憲法，禁止州政府在公務員招募，公共服務合同簽訂，和公共教育中考慮種族，性別，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).。也就是說，加州是美國50個州中率先在公共教育入學標準中”廢除“了考慮種族因素的州。在此法案通過後， 加州的公立大學在入學標準中儘管也要考慮其他綜合因素(比如社會活動，領導才能，特殊才藝等)，但不得考慮申請人的種族背景。因此，學生的學業成績(包括大學入學考試SAT的成績)在錄取過程中的分量就得到了提高。這對學習成績普遍較為優秀的亞裔學生無疑是有好處的。但同時，也出台了一些舉錯來保證在AA 取消之後仍能維持一定程度的校園多元化，比如，加州的高中畢業生只要是在本校的前9% (12.5% in the past)，就能保證被加州大學系統中的一所學校錄取(當然可能不一定是學生最想去的那個學校)。在加州之後，德州和佛州也相繼在公立大學錄取中廢除了AA。而德州和佛州也有相似的 “Top Ten” 和 “Talent Twenty ” 項目，保證高中畢業生中的 top 10% 甚至 top 20%
保
證每個高中畢業班的前百分之十學生可以進入該州任何一所公立大學。因為德州的城市住房結構常常和種族結構直接相關,
所以這項舉措實際上保證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!
非常贊同你對AA 目前在美國是否還有存在的必要的觀點。這個話題我在以前那兩篇文章中有很多討論。 的確， 非裔中的有識之士早就意識到了過分推行AA 的反面作用。有意思的是，加州209法案的主要發起人Ward Connerly， former UC regent, 就是一位非裔。 他這次也就SCA有明確表態反對：“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".
這篇UT 的文章中還有一個網上調查, "Should College Applicants or Students Receive Preferential Treatment based on Race, Gender, Color, or Ethnicity?", 現在的result是93%的回覆者選擇了”NO”.當然這不大象是一個隨即抽樣的調查, 但至少還是可以看出不認同將種族重新放回招生決定的人還是為數不少的。這是值得高興的事情。後面的一些評論也很有意思
