Where are the BIPOC Engineers? Let’s Talk About Affirmative Action
Californians repealed affirmative action in 1994. So why then are my opportunities and success attributed to university admissions needing to meet a quota?
Last month, the Supreme Court ruled against affirmative action, permanently changing affirmative action’s role in higher education, the workplace, as well as the greater United States.
Nine months ago, the University of California and the University of Michigan also went to the Supreme Court in favor of affirmative action, after their efforts to increase and retain racial minorities within their respective student bodies failed miserably in the post affirmative action era. Namely, both universities have spent billions of dollars on racially diverse outreach and recruitment, yet have had little success in recruiting racial minorities.
This deficit is only exacerbated within the STEM realm, particularly within UCLA’s Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science. As of 2022, minorities made up a mere 13.8% of the undergraduate student body.
This pronounced deficit in students of color, particularly BIPOC students, can be at least partially attributed to the fact that these individuals often have to overcome additional obstacles to maintain an equal chance at enrolling in the nation’s top universities. Beyond this, however, many students of color have cited the low minority enrollment, and the associated higher occurrences of racism as reasons to look elsewhere for higher education.
As both a woman and BIPOC in perhaps one of the most male and white/Asian dominated areas of study, imposter syndrome is, to some degree, inevitable. There are very few people who look like me, and as such, I am subject to, or rather prone to, receiving micro (and not so micro) aggressions with relation to both my sex and race.
What is interesting to me, however, is the differences in these aggressions. You see, I have found that my credentials and accomplishments have been contested and overlooked because I am a woman (“not to be sexist, but can someone check her math?”), while in the case of my race, much more often my accomplishments, as well as those of other BIPOC peers, have instead been discredited. These micro-aggressions often take the form of blasé comments, (“They’re looking to raise their diversity quota” or “She’s Mexican so she’ll be able to get in anywhere”), but will on occasion become more serious in nature, as in the case of attributing favorable grades or internships to my racial identity.
This article intends to explore the history of affirmative action in relation to the UC System in order to unpack the implications of discrediting the success of BIPOC students on the basis of race or ethnicity, particularly within the white-Asian dominated spheres of STEM. Moreover, I aim to address the stigma, misconceptions and hypocrisy surrounding affirmative action itself, with the goal of advocating for public policy geared towards equity within the STEM realm.
So what is affirmative action, or perhaps more importantly, what isn’t it? Affirmative action is most commonly raised as a point of discourse in the context of university admissions. By one definition, affirmative action is said to be “…the active effort to improve employment, educational, and other opportunities for members of groups that have been subjected to discrimination.”
In my experience, California, and in particular liberal Californians (white liberals) tend to comfortably claim the label of progressiveness, coupled with a hearty enthusiasm and verbal advocacy for most progressive legislation. Yet, I have found that these attitudes are very quick to dissipate, when the phrase “affirmative action” is uttered. It is easy to dismiss this as performative activism and an unwillingness to “put your money where your mouth is”, yet I would argue that the complexities in this apparent 180 degree change in attitudes are a bit more nuanced.
From what I have gathered, this hesitation with regard to affirmative actions stems from the sentiment that, I or my child, independent of any qualifications I might possess, will be selected second to any member of one of these so called discriminated groups. It is easy to see how this sentiment turns a lot of people off to the idea of affirmative action. Work hard and it will eventually pay off is the unofficial American anthem. So when we are told, or led to believe, that there exists legislation such that this will not come to fruition, we are not likely to be immediately enamored.
But this is not what affirmative action is. And to better understand this, we’ll briefly examine the history of affirmative action in California. This article does not have the bandwidth nor the breadth to dive into the deeply complex and disturbing history of racialization in the United States. However, this does not exempt the reader from the responsibility that lies with every American to educate themselves on the history of race in the United States.
I digress. In 1978, the Supreme Court allowed race to be considered as a criterion in college admissions. However, it must be noted that the Supreme Court ruled that racial quotas were unconstitutional. This marked the beginning of affirmative action in the UC system. Minority admission and attendance rates subsequently increased by 20% nationwide.
Then, in 1994, California Proposition 209, which prevented race, sex or ethnicity from being considered by any public employer, contract, or educational institution, was passed. Unsurprisingly, the UC-wide minority student population plummeted, along with 1000 fewer Black and Latinx applications being received by the UC system each year.
Note that affirmative action or not, there was never a time in which racial quotas were legalized. Rather, the relatively brief legalization of affirmative action meant that historically marginalized racial identities could be considered among other factors within California public university admissions.
There are likely those who are still dubious about the principal motivations behind affirmative action, and that is understandable. It is disconcerting to feel like you are sacrificing for the sins of others. However, I implore the reader to consider the justification behind affirmative action. As former president Lyndon B Johnson once put it, “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.”
Minorities are statistically more likely to attend lower funded schools. They are more likely to come from lower income households, which implicitly means fewer educational resources are available to them. The longstanding institutionalized de facto and de jure discrimination within the realms of housing and employment in particular, have left historically marginalized groups, particularly Black communities, with significantly less generational wealth. They also — and this is important — face discrimination and racism as an ingrained part of their existence.
And with that, we return to the present day. I was studying with some friends, when, for the umpteenth time, I was told that my race was a favorable consideration in my admission into the school. Irritation flared as I explained, yet again, that Californians, likely their parents and grandparents, made that illegal when they voted against affirmative action some 30 years earlier.
Though it should be evident, perhaps it is worth reminding the reader why a diverse student body is so integral — so integral that the UC system is pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into minority retention, albeit largely in vain.
We already delved into the increased access and representation as it relates to providing opportunities for students who have faced systemic inequalities and discrimination. In addition, we must note the loss the UC system faces in terms of innovation and ingenuity when they forgo a large percentage of the minority population. With many students of color citing the low enrollment rates of students of color and widespread racism as primary reasons to look elsewhere for school (e.g. HBCUs), it is apparent that the university is losing out on unique insights and approaches to academia related issues.
I know it to be unlikely that a single article will change the entirety of a state’s mindset, especially on an issue as enigmatic as affirmative action. Hence, I simply ask the reader to reflect on their personal sentiments about affirmative action, and ask themselves whether their concerns are truly reflective of what affirmative action is as a policy.
When you acknowledge the lower rates of historically marginalized communities at top academic institutions while being opposed to affirmative action, this must be for one of two reasons. One, you believe these individuals to be inherently inferior, in which case you are racist, and there is likely little I can say or do to change your mindset. Alternatively, you acknowledge that these individuals come from households and areas with lower incomes (in large part due to less generational wealth from decades of housing and employment discrimination) and thus have received their education in poorly funded and performing schools. Yet, despite how much they have overcome, you are tacitly okay with these students remaining relegated to inferior castes with no opportunity for mobility. And that is astounding. If you truly lack the compassion to be in favor of aiding the less fortunate, pursuing a society with equal opportunity for all, then we are left with a very dismal outlook for the future of humanity. Ultimately, until this discrepancy is accounted for we will never achieve anything remotely close to equality.
Affirmative action is one partial solution to account for our long history of deep rooted inequities, and albeit imperfect, I have yet to see the opposition offer up any sort of alternative. There is a reason that virtually every private institution in America adheres to some level of affirmative action policy, as do many major companies (think Microsoft, IBM, Coca-Cola). Creating an equitable society is impossible without sacrifice. To create the so-called “level playing field” we must acknowledge that not everyone is starting with the same resources. Maybe then, we as a country will reflect on what we want our commitment to diversity to look like, and perhaps it will be time (read: long overdue) to put our money where our mouths are.
In the meantime however, I leave the reader with this request: at the very least, do reflect on why it is instinctive to attribute the success of our peers of color to some sort of quota, as this only further contributes to the less than ideal academic environment that has persisted since the eve of integration. Why can we not simply applaud their achievements in spite of the struggles they have undoubtedly encountered and do what we can to ensure that others may follow in their footsteps?
