July 12, 2023 • 37 mins
In this episode, I talk with Teresa Watanabe, Staff Writer for the Los Angeles Times who covers the University of California Board of Regents, and Jess Bravin, Supreme Court Correspondent for the Wall Street Journal and a former student regent on the University of California Board of Regents. We discuss the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on race-conscious admissions. We will break down the politics of the decision and the impact on learners and institutions.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Eloy (00:08):
Hi, I'm Eloy Ortiz Oakley, and welcome back to the Rant,
the podcast where we pull backthe curtain and break down the
people, the policies, and thepolitics of our higher education
system.
In this episode, I get to talkto two very special guests,
guests who have been followingthe recent Supreme Court ruling
on affirmative action veryclosely.
(00:29):
My guests today are TeresaWatanabe, staff writer at the
Los Angeles Times, and who hasbeen covering the University of
California Board of Regions forseveral years.
Also, joining me is Jess BravenSupreme Court correspondent at
the Wall Street Journal, andmore importantly, at least for
me, a former Californiacommunity college student and a
(00:50):
former uc student region.
Teresa and Jess, welcome to therank.
Teresa (00:57):
Thank you.
Glad to be here Eloy.
Jess (00:59):
Yep.
Terrific to
Eloy (01:00):
Well, it's good to see you both, and I know that you've
both had, a busy couple of weeksat the beginning of this month.
A lot going on, with the SupremeCourt and a lot going on that
sort of brings back memories of,1996 here in California.
We'll get into that a little bitmore, but.
Okay.
Before we jump into all of that,let me start with a personal
(01:21):
question for each of you so thatour listeners get to know you a
little bit better.
I've had the pleasure of gettingto know you both, and I think
you have wonderful stories,wonderful backgrounds.
So tell us about your highereducation journey and what led
you to your interests injournalism.
Theresa, let's start with you.
Teresa (01:39):
Yeah, sure.
Thanks again for having me,Eloy.
I'm actually, a Seattle native,born and raised there, and so I
started off at the University ofWashington, but.
After I finished my sophomoreyear, I just decided to go,
study at a university in Tokyo,Japan for a year.
And I was really at that timewanting to become a lawyer, but
(02:03):
I didn't want to major inpolitical science or something
that wouldn't pay the bills if Isomehow did not.
Passed the bar exam.
And so the, some of the studentsI met in Japan were from U S C,
sorry, uc.
But they told me that, they hada really good journalism program
and I thought that'd be a goodpre-law major.
(02:25):
So I transferred to U S C and.
I took my first journalism 1 0 1class and it was love at first
sight.
I just said, forget law, this isamazing.
This is what I wanna do for therest of my life.
And I ended up graduating fromUSC with a double major in
journalism and East Asianlanguages and Culture.
(02:47):
Got my first job, out of, usc,with the La Herald Examiner and.
Wrote editorials there as a kidoutta college, like trying to
opine on the world, knowingreally nothing, and then worked
for the San Jose Mercury News invarious assignments, and then
joined the LA Times where I'vecovered various beats.
(03:07):
Most recently higher
Eloy (03:08):
Wow.
hearing the word Harold Examinerbrings back a lot of memories,
for myself.
Jess, how about you tell us alittle bit about your, your
story.
Jess (03:16):
thanks.
Sure.
Oh, well, I'm you know, I wasborn in, in New York City.
both my, my parents were, wereimmigrants and, attended at one
point or another the, the CityCollege of, of New York.
We moved to California when Iwas, 10 where I, attended public
school and I really, you know,had a chance to, to, experience,
different aspects of highereducation in this country.
(03:39):
As you said, I, I took classesat west LA College in, in Santa
Monica College.
I went to, Harvard College, asan undergraduate.
I went to uc, Berkeley for lawschool.
So I had Various institutions,But I had experience, in the in
the intestines of, of several ofthem.
I was always interested ineducation policy and what
(04:02):
education can do.
When I was in high school, I wasthe first Student member of the
Los Angeles City Board ofEducation.
and years later, I, I did thatsame, type of job when I was on
the uc Regents, and I was thereat.
All times are consequential atthe Board of Regents.
So I don't know that my time wasany more than, than any others,
but the mix of issues that wehad was I think, very
(04:25):
interesting and very important.
And as you say continue to, toecho to this day.
right now though, I'm not in thepolicy business.
I'm, a journalist, so I reallydon't take positions on these
issues now.
Eloy (04:37):
Jess, let me ask you.
While you were a student at uc,Berkeley School of Law, you
became the student member of theUniversity of California Board
of Regents.
Can you tell us a little bitabout that experience and in
particular, the conversationsthat the regions were having
about affirmative action andrace conscious admissions at
that time?
Jess (04:57):
the, the affirmative action question was was brewing
before I was on the board.
And it was particularly drivenby, by one of the regents at the
time, ward Connerly, a veryinteresting character.
And actually before he, broughtup his proposal to end race
conscious admissions, he wasvery popular with students
because he was one of the fewreasons who took fee increases
(05:20):
very seriously, and opposedalmost all of them.
He was one of the few regentswho, took very seriously free
speech issues and givingopportunities for the public to,
speak to the regents and, andget involved in regional policy.
So he was actually somebody whowas relatively popular.
If, if any, regent is popularwith the, with the students who
write checks to something calleduc Regents.
(05:42):
once he decided that abolishingaffirmative action was.
His number one objective andquickly, attained, allegiance
from governor Pete Wilson, whohad appointed ward Connerly to
the board.
things changed and this becamehis, His most important issue.
It was something that becameextraordinarily divisive on the
board.
When I was on the board, nearlyall the political appointees
(06:04):
were chosen by our Republicangovernors.
In fact, I think all of themwere, and yet they were divided
on affirmative actionthemselves.
The board was, I think, It waslike a 14th, 10 vote or
something like that.
It was a, a, a relatively closevote on the board where most
issues are decided unanimously.
So it divided the, theRepublicans on the Board of
(06:26):
Regents the, student member atthe time, ed Gomez from uc,
Riverside.
alumni Regents were certainlyopposed to ending affirmative
action.
So was the, the president of theuniversity Dick Atkinson, and
the university administrationand faculty as well.
And it really was something thatwas.
Being imposed or the end, orthis interference in the
(06:49):
admissions process was beingimposed by the Regents on the
university.
And it was a very, it was very,it was a very difficult
experience for the universitywhere academic freedom had been
really taken for granted for,for, for many, many years.
And, Uh, 95 when the boardpassed, SP one and SP two, the
(07:11):
two motions that re and Connerlybrought up, they were, they were
in incredibly raucous events.
There were protests.
The board room was evacuatedseveral times by the u c police.
There were protests outside thebuilding that were massive.
It was a huge wrenchingexperience for the University of
California system.
(07:31):
ward Conley continued beyond.
Just ending.
racially conscious admissions.
he also wanted to end any kindof statistical, research into
the, backgrounds of students hewanted to eliminate.
whether you counted you know,black, Hispanic, what have you,
you know, different racial orethnic characteristics.
(07:52):
And that I believe didn't passlater on, but that took, that
occurred during, during my mytenure.
he had a, a very, I would say, Idon't wanna be pejorative, but
he had a, he had a very extremeview of of colorblindness that
he thought the university shouldpursue.
And it was the dominant socialissue affecting the university
(08:14):
during my term,
Eloy (08:15):
Yeah, I, I imagine they had, Quite a, quite an impact on
you as a member of theUniversity of California Student
Association then as, as astudent regent.
I imagine when SCOTUS recentlyacted on race conscious
admissions some of those memberscame back to you.
Jess (08:31):
Well, they never left.
And and I, I certainly recallthat, that whole episode, and of
course, as, as you know, and asyou suggested, Conley went, went
on past our board after itpassed the, the, the uc Regents,
he then promoted this voterinitiative, prop two a nine,
which passed.
In 1996 and really sort ofsuperseded whatever the regents
were doing and the regents,rescinded conley's motions, in
(08:54):
2000 or 2001.
But that was really a symbolicmove because the, the voter
initiative was still in thestate constitution and voters,
reaffirmed it as you said, in in2020 by even greater margins
than they approved 2 0 9 infirst place.
Eloy (09:10):
that moment in time I was, in Los Angeles and it was
certainly an event that stuck inmy mind and.
When I had the privilege ofbeing appointed by governor
Jerry Brown to the Board ofRegents, that is the first
memory that I had walking into ameeting of the Board of Regents
was Ward Conley.
And that stuck with me my entiretime on the Board of Regents.
(09:32):
Theresa, let me turn to you.
You've been covering the Regentsfor some time now.
what kind of conversations haveyou witnessed about affirmative
action with regards toCalifornia's Proposition 2 0 9,
which is just mentioned bandrace conscious admissions in
California in 1996.
And, and what do you think hasbeen the impact of Prop 2 0 9 on
(09:52):
diversity at the University ofCalifornia?
Teresa (09:55):
Well one thing that, I did want to add to what Jess was
talking about was the enormous.
Influence that governor PeteWilson had on this whole issue.
He was in the middle of apresidential campaign.
He was not gaining traction.
(10:15):
And he decided that affirmativeaction would be one of the major
issues that he was going to runon, which is why in some ways he
was, I don't wanna say the powerbehind the throne, but he was
really pushing ward Connerly todo this, both at the uc Regents,
and later on with, proposition 20 9.
(10:36):
And as Jess also pointed out,The majority, if not all, of the
members of the Board of Regentsat the time were Republican.
Now, fast forward to 2020 whenproposition 16 was in play,
which would've reversed 2 0 9,and the political climate had
changed.
Almost 180 degrees.
(10:56):
You now have Democrats incontrol of the governor's
mansion in control, a supermajority in the legislature.
definitely super majority of theBoard of Regents.
And so the politicalsensibilities are completely
different where there is such aa, a focus on access and equity
(11:18):
and inclusion.
And I think all of that led to.
The support of the Board ofRegions for Proposition 16,
which was introduced in order toreverse 2 0 9, because as you
know, there is a feeling thatfor all the work that you see
has done over 25 years to tryand diversify its students and
(11:42):
faculty without the use of race.
And there has been a lot ofprogress.
but they just feel that withoutbeing able to consider race,
it's not going to be completelyeffective.
And so I think at that time, theuc president, all 10
chancellors, the Board ofRegents all supported Prop 16.
(12:04):
but as just noted, it, it failedagain.
And interestingly, it, it was,opposed by.
White voters and Latino andAsian voters split, and it was
overwhelmingly supported onlyamong black voters in terms of
demographics.
So, You know, I just think thatuc has done really great work.
(12:27):
and it, you know, I often thinkEloy, that uc doesn't give
itself enough credit for all thework it's done.
Because, you know, if you lookat the data, and I've looked at
the data so much and I'vewritten about the data there is
progress.
There are.
More students of color andhigher percentages of students
(12:49):
of color being admitted to theUniversity of California today
than in 1995 before Prop 2 0 9passed.
And granted, it doesn't not yetreflect the percentages in our
California population,especially with Latinos, you
know?
But they've come a long way.
They've spent over half abillion dollars trying to
(13:12):
diversify.
The population, the enrollment,and they've done so many
different programs, much ofwhich you were part of, you
know, they moved tocomprehensive review, which
helped diversify.
They moved to.
Eligibility in the localcontext, which means that any
student who qualifies in the top9% statewide or at your local
(13:36):
high school is guaranteedadmission.
They've done so much outreachrecruiting.
They've, they've worked on, youknow, getting those K-12
pipelines.
ready for students in highschool or even younger middle
school to try to becomecompetitive college applicants.
So I think there's a lot to belearned from uc, especially for
(13:58):
institutions who are now facingcollege admissions without being
able to use race.
And, you know, there is, muchthat uc has done.
Eloy (14:08):
I certainly agree with you, Theresa.
I mean, there has been quite abit done, and I think it is an,
an interesting lesson for therest of the country.
I think in, in the immediateyears after Prop 2 0 9, we saw.
A measurable decline in blackenrollment in the University of
California.
So I think that is a word ofwarning to, to the rest of the
country.
(14:29):
I think it's had the greatestimpact on, on the black
community.
I think, I think 1994 uc wasabout 4% African-American.
2000 dropped to 3%.
It bounced back in 2022 to 4.5%,but that's been the most
stubborn.
Area of enrollment.
And, and I do think that theuniversity has done quite a bit.
(14:52):
and so I'm hopeful that the restof the country can take, take
some lessons from that.
and also the lessons of the dejavu all over again.
We have going on here withRepublican candidates using this
as an issue to run forpresident.
we'll see if it has the sameeffect on the Republican party
that it had on California.
Teresa (15:13):
One thing I wanted to add, Eloy was if you look at.
Who the University of Californiaadmits, I mean, uc admits I.
Nearly enough black and Latinoapplicants to fill the entire
freshman class of Berkeley anducla.
So the real challenge is gettingthose students who are admitted
(15:36):
to choose uc, and that is thereal struggle.
And I think a lot of that has todo with maybe cost.
You know, they, they maybe haveunmet.
Financial aid and California isa leader in offering financial
aid.
but I know ucla, which has been.
Incredibly successful in theiryield of black students.
(15:58):
Part of it is just the work thatYolanda Copeland Morgan has done
with her team to get out in thecommunity.
But a lot of it is the fact thatthey've been able to raise more
money for scholarships.
And I think that is the areathat you, that you see is gonna
have to do more work on istrying to increase those yields
of the applicants that they
Eloy (16:18):
No, that's right.
And it's a great point, Jess letme turn to you.
You've had a ringside seat forthis Supreme Court.
What do you feel were theprimary motivating factors for
this ruling and.
You may have seen the recentlegal action taken against
Harvard University over legacyadmissions, cuz that comes up
quite a bit.
How do you think this would playout if this reaches this court,
Jess (16:41):
Well, I don't, I think that, I don't think the, the,
the question has to do reallywith, with with protected
classes of people.
the, the default rule inAmerican law is that anyone can
discriminate against anyoneexcept where they specifically
can't.
And disc discrim obviously is,you know, sounds bad, and, and
(17:02):
it, it is bad.
But really, maybe we should usethe word choose.
Okay.
They can have differentpriorities about who they want
to admit It is.
You know, you could say that aHarvard College discriminates.
You know, in favor of saxophoneplayers because if you are a
fantastic musician, your odds ofgetting admitted to, to Harvard
(17:23):
College are much higher than ifyou are similar in your
credentials, but do not havethat kind of skill.
And if you are a exceptionalhockey player, your odds of
getting admission to HarvardCollege are, I would say,
1000000% at least based based onmy freshman dorm experience.
And the, the gentleman scholarswho who occupied my floor, so I
(17:45):
do not believe that there is atradition of discrimination for
or against, you know, legacyadmins or people whose parents
went to the same college.
There's just no legal.
Structure involved in that.
So Harvard and any college, Idon't believe has any legal
restraint right now on giving apriority to if your parents also
(18:06):
went there.
the, you know, there's not a,you know, it does, it doesn't
fit into any of the specificboxes.
I mean, the law is concernedabout, about equal treatment
based on race.
And race is a third rail for.
The Supreme Court, it's a thirdrail for many, many Americans,
although it functions indifferent ways for, for the
majority on the Supreme Court,it's any government.
(18:28):
Effort to advantage a race, evenone that historically has
suffered tremendousdiscrimination and setbacks.
That's just a terrible conceptin and of itself.
And, and whatever, what, youknow, whatever benign or
beneficial out outcomes might beor outweighed.
By the conceptual harm todemocracy of any kind of racial
(18:50):
prep, that's their view.
All right.
And you know, it's not anindefensible view by any means.
It is their view.
in fact, it's interesting.
I was speaking to, president of,for just a recently retired
president of ColumbiaUniversity, Lee Bollinger, who
was the The defendant in theprior precedents that were
overruled last month you knowGruer and Gratz versus
Bollinger.
(19:10):
And I asked him what he made ofthe other arguments and he said,
if that's of view, that the, thedangers of any kind of racial
classification are so great and,and the risks are so high of
going in the wrong direction,that we simply, as a matter of
principle, can't have it.
He felt that was the defensibleargument.
What he did not feel was adefensible argument was there's
no racial discrimination andthere are no impacts from the
(19:31):
history of racialdiscrimination, and therefore
there's nothing to be solved.
In other words, that was, thatwas his view that he felt was
not a legitimate argument.
The, the US Supreme Court andthe, you know, the, the writings
of Chief Justice Roberts and thehistory of other justices like
justice, Alito from his days in,concerned alumni of Princeton
organization, which was formedafter Princeton University began
(19:56):
admitting women and recruitingminority students.
their views go back many, manyyears, and there's no dispute
that they're sincerely held andthat this is where they were
going, and this is how theyviewed the requirements of the
Constitution when it comes toadmitting legacies.
You know, people whose parentsalso went to those colleges, I
think they don't think it's alegal matter.
(20:18):
I think they would not be for oragainst it.
One point that Chris Grober,who's the president of Princeton
University, and I talked aboutwas this, is that, Highly
selective institutions now havehad forms of affirmative action
going back a couple generationsalready, and those programs have
admitted a number, a significantnumber of black and Latino,
(20:40):
Asian, other, other members ofother groups that historically
were excluded.
And they have children too, andthey benefit from those legacy
admissions.
So if you, if you abolish legacyadmissions, sure.
Most of the beneficiaries of itare, are white.
But not all.
And that would also affect, itwould in effect it would in some
(21:01):
way undermine the, you know,the, the built-in progress, I
guess, or the, or thegrandfathered in progress that
they made during the decades ofaffirmative action when they did
admit or did or permitted toconsider considerate in
admissions.
So now the complaint, you know,going to Harvard, it really.
It is gonna be a policy questionfor Harvard and these other
(21:22):
schools about what they're, whatthey're going to do.
Probably they would win anylegal challenge.
I think they have to decide intheir commitment to diversity
where Fostering donations orloyalty or whatever sense of
community, they believe legacyadmissions, helps, is, is worth
(21:44):
it or not.
And it will in a sense forcetheir force them to make some,
you know, a harder choicebecause, you know, the Harvard,
Alumni are, are much in favor ofaffirmative action.
That's, that's quite clear.
They've elected members to theirboard of overseers who are in
favor of it.
But what if it means some, youknow, marginal unquantifiable
(22:06):
reduction in the chance thattheir own kids are gonna get in?
How much do you care aboutdiversity then?
Okay.
If the diversity involvesexcluding you, you know, what
about that?
We'll see if they announce any
Eloy (22:16):
Right.
Well, it's interesting to see,Larry Summers out recently
talking about, his call to andlegacy admissions.
Of course, Larry's a formerpresident of Harvard himself.
so we'll see where that allgoes.
But I certainly do think thatgiven all the commotion about
the SCOTUS decision, there is somuch.
Institutions of learning can dothemselves to improve the
(22:37):
outcomes of people of color andlow income people who are trying
to get access to these highly,what we call rejective colleges
and universities.
so I'm hopeful that thisconversation does spur a lot of
thinking not just on the legalissues, but on the practices
that many, many colleges anduniversities.
Jess (22:56):
Eli, can I, raise a point that, from what I could tell,
this is what I was, this is whatI thought about a little bit.
When, when I came onto the boardand was looking at this issue
and it was, an analysis thatabsolutely no one else agreed
with.
So, and I don't even know if Iagree with it, and you and
Theresa have more recent dataand you can update it with, with
(23:16):
facts, but during the, the, thetwo polls of the affirmative
action debate, during my, my, mytime around there were kind of
went these ways.
These you know, minorityapplicants, black Hispanic
applicants who are the principalbeneficiaries of affirmative
action.
They are all uc qualified.
So there's not a, a damage, youknow, to the academic quality of
(23:37):
the institution.
And simultaneously, the argumentwas, everyone who was admitted
to affirmative action was alsouc qualified.
Right?
principal document when I was onboard was a master plan for
higher education in 1960 underGovernor Pat Brown's
administration, and it steppedforth at the top 12.5% of the
uc, or the California highschool class was entitled to
(23:59):
admission to the University ofCalifornia.
The only people who benefit fromaffirmative action at uc, were
already in that group.
They're already in the topeighth of the high school
graduating class.
Where is it?
That affirmative action played arole.
It played a role in admissiononly to UCLA and uc, Berkeley,
the other campuses, all, allthat, all those people would all
be entitled to a seat in one ofthe other campuses already.
(24:22):
the, on the one hand we believedand we asserted that all our uc
campuses are all equal.
They're all good.
They're all equal.
They all provide a absolutelyworld class education that no
one could possibly fault.
And at the same time, two ofthese campuses are a million
times better than all the otherones.
And if you go to, if you end upsent to one of the other ones,
(24:44):
boy man, you're doomed.
Right?
So, well, which is it?
You know?
It's not like you're, you know,you still are getting one of the
most fantastic educationsavailable to anyone in the world
at a great sub, a great, greatprice.
And guess what?
If you're one of the whitestudents or Asian students who
is redirected to Santa Cruz orRiverside instead of Berkeley or
(25:06):
ucla, you also have a fantasticeducation being provided to you
at tremendous subsidy.
So the consequences, whether itis.
White legacy student from Cal,you know, or the immigrant
student from Mexico who has togo to Davis instead of Berkeley.
I just don't think that personis educationally disadvantaged
(25:28):
either way, and in and in thepoint of the state of
California's interest inproviding these people in
education.
Mission accomplished to me.
The problem was, and you pointout that uc has taken many more
steps in this direction, werethe many, many people who were
not qualified in the first placeto even be in the mix to go to
one of these schools.
And that's the problem.
this may be heretical.
(25:49):
I even felt, gee, you go tocommunity college or Cal State.
Maybe your life isn't overeither.
You know, maybe you also have anopportunity for a really, really
good education and doingsomething with your life and
being a fulfilled person.
So I thought, you know, thesymbolic message that we were
sending about educationalopportunity was at least as
(26:11):
important as the consequencesfor any student who has the
tremendous horror of going touc, Santa Barbara instead of
ucla.
whether that is a white studentor or Hispanic or, or black
student.
Eloy (26:24):
similar conversations keep happening now and I love to get
Teresa's take as well.
But I mean, for me, the questionof who gets into Berkeley, who
gets into UCLA is still in play.
their diversity is not quite as,Rich as perhaps a Merced or
Riverside.
But the fact of the matter isuc, San Diego is in that mix as
(26:44):
well.
It's become quite difficult.
UCI is getting quite difficult,although it's a Hispanic serving
institution.
But for me, there is oneUniversity of California and
regardless of which campus yougo to, you get an amazing
education.
But we've put a premium overtime on two particular campuses,
and today probably three, thebig three, what we call'em, but
(27:06):
there is still a challenge,particularly for black
Californians.
having access to University ofCalifornia is still a challenge
and there's a lot of work thatneeds to be done for Latino
students.
It, it's getting there.
but there's still a challenge inaffordability that Therea
mentioned.
So there's still a lot of workto do, Theresa, I love your,
your take on on Jess's point.
Teresa (27:28):
Well, I, I think the admission counselors that I
interview all the time reallytalk about fit.
Don't be blinded by the brandname.
Really look at the campus andfind out is that the campus that
is fits you the best.
Berkeley is not for everybody.
If you wanna major in datascience or computer science,
(27:50):
Berkeley is, is like the topschool in the nation and they
also make a lot of money whenthey graduate.
But if you wanna studyenvironmental science, I know
people who've done really wellat uc, Santa Barbara, because
they've at uc, San Diego aswell.
Merced has some of the happieststudents in the whole uc system
because it's smaller, it's moreintimate.
(28:11):
You know, the professorsactually get to know the
students.
They have amazing experienceswith undergraduate research and
there's a lot of students ofcolor and so in many cases,
students of color who may beleaving their home for the first
time ever feel a little moresecure at a place like Merced.
So I think, as Eloy said, All ofthe campuses are amazing.
(28:33):
They all offer somethingslightly different and I really
think that students orapplicants need to look and see
what it is they wanna do andthen match that interest and fit
with the uc campus.
Jess (28:46):
One thing that, they could be doing at the, at the Regents,
the, the organic act of, of theUniversity of California.
says that the Regents aredirected to, as soon as
practicable establish tuitionfree education for qualified
residents.
How's that going?
Teresa (29:04):
most, more than half of uc students don't even pay
tuition because of theincredibly generous Cal Grant
program.
I don't know that making uc freefor students who have the
ability to pay is necessarilythe right answer.
I think it's really up thefinancial aid for students who
(29:27):
can't afford to go to uc.
Jess (29:30):
When I was on the board, I had a completely different idea.
Theresa, my view was this meanstested.
Programs like that, areincredibly damaging to creating
popular support.
In other words, voters do notlike the idea of, Hey, I have a
great program.
I'll give money that will helpsomebody else.
How about that?
That's a great program.
The government will take moneyfrom me and give it to somebody
(29:52):
else.
I'm all for that.
They programs like socialsecurity.
Or Medicare that provideuniversal benefits are popular
because people believe there'ssomething in it for them.
Even if there's something, evenif there may be more in it for
somebody else.
But if it's just taking moneyfrom one person and allowing the
financial aid, bureaucracy toset up criteria about who gets
(30:14):
the money, that was incrediblydamaging to popular support for
uc and incredibly damaging forvoter support for uc.
it's a private education model.
Okay.
It's the Harvard model.
We will have extraordinarilyhigh retail costs for applying,
and then we'll kick it back topeople who meet our criteria for
financial aid.
Princeton and Harvard now givefree education at certain people
(30:37):
who below certain incomethresholds.
That's the private educationmodel.
The public education model.
At ccny, at uc, until really.
The Reagan and Jerry first,Jerry Brown 1.0 administrations,
and then it really acceleratedunder Duke Ma and Wilson was to
go to the private model, whichis we'll high tuition and.
(30:59):
Reallocate redistribute funds topeople who we wanna see get in.
And that is, you know, meanstested.
Programs are not popularpolitically.
They, that's not what they wannasee.
Teresa (31:10):
I don't know that the voters necessarily object to
California's financial aidprogram and certainly the
legislators right now theirwhole big thing is affordability
and they are funding highereducation.
at pretty high levels.
And also the uc tuition is only,what, about$13,000 a year
(31:32):
compared to U usc, which is$66,000 a year.
So, I mean, the privateeducation model doesn't really
compare to a Harvard orPrinceton.
When you look at the size oftheir tuition.
What do you, do you think
Eloy (31:47):
Well, this is the topic for a whole episode in and of
itself, I've been in those,conversations, mostly arguments
for, for years and years andyears.
I think the University ofCalifornia certainly has a much
richer model than most publicsand certainly all of the
privates, however, The challengehas been the divestment in
(32:10):
public higher education fromstates, including California,
and that has put a lot ofpressure on universities, public
universities.
Some have responded well, somenot so well, and there were
periods of time that theUniversity of California did not
respond so well by trying topass on the cost to, the
student, and then asking thefederal government to
(32:31):
federalize.
The, the cost of, of educationthrough the PE system.
That's, that's been a challengein recent years because the cost
of attendance has gone up sohigh in states like California.
It's been hard.
Now, this, this Californialegislature, the last two
governors have invested quite abit more in the University of
California.
(32:52):
So I, I do think that, thatthere is a balance that has to
be had.
the majority of students now areeither low, low income or middle
income at the University ofCalifornia.
It's tough to fund theireducation without the support of
the state.
but it's gonna be increasinglymore difficult to to raise
(33:13):
tuition at the University ofCalifornia.
This last round of tuitionincrease came after several
years of fights and finallysettled on a, on a cohort
tuition model.
We'll see how the CaliforniaState University system does
here coming up.
But, tuition and financial aidare challenging topics in states
like California.
But let, let me ask both of youas we begin to, to wrap up, if
(33:37):
you had any advice based on yourexperiences in, in your roles in
California for other states onhow to deal with this recent
SCOTUS ruling around.
Race conscious emissions.
what would that be?
Theresa, let's start with you.
Teresa (33:52):
I talk to admission directors all the time and one
thing that really stuck out forme was when Yolanda Copeland
Morgan, who recently steppeddown as Vice Provost of
Enrollment Management at ucla,her big takeaway, which was also
mentioned by Sean Harper of U SC, is do not overreact.
(34:12):
They said after Proposition 2 09, all the legal counsel said,
oh my God, we can't use raise.
And so they were.
Really, really just cut thosenumbers and she said, don't do
that.
Take time to look through it.
There's still a lot you can do,maybe not consider race, but
there's so many different waysthat you can add diversity,
whether it's socioeconomicdiversity, and other things like
(34:34):
that.
So that, that was her bigtakeaway.
In terms of advice.
Eloy (34:39):
how about you?
Jess (34:41):
I, I think that, like Theresa, I'm not gonna give
advice, but the things that I'veheard I think that the, the, the
focus really should be on.
On these, on these, pipelinesthat, that universities if they
wanna maintain or increasediversity, they need to increase
the number and the breadth ofstudents who are qualified on
(35:05):
their own terms to Be admittedto selective colleges and
programs.
And that may mean that mayrequire universities to focus
much more directly on workingwith K-12 education, on working
with community colleges toestablish ways to bring in
people with, varied backgrounds.
When I was speaking to PresidentIce Grouper of Princeton, he
(35:28):
mentioned two things.
I know that's been, they've beenwritten about before, but
Princeton is has a.
Program, a pilot program ofworking with community colleges
to bring transfers to itscampus.
And he also mentioned that theywere going to increase their
recruitment of militaryveterans, which is a more
diverse group of people than thepublic at large.
(35:48):
And if they were to increaseveteran recruitment and veteran
privileges, incidentally arepermissible.
In fact, I believe thegovernment encourages them that
too would promote diversity inenrollment.
So I think that they're going tohave to find, You know, more
creative, perhaps more costlyways to ensure that they have, a
wide variety of, of applicantswho are who, who aren't,
(36:11):
qualified for admission.
Eloy (36:12):
on that note, I certainly wanna echo the importance of
community college transfers.
I think that's how I got intothe University of California.
and as I've said before, thereis diversity at your local
community college because theyserve the top 100% of their
community.
So I do think that that's greatadvice.
And I, I thank you both forjoining me here on The rad.
(36:35):
This is a meaty topic.
We'll also talk about perhapswe'll, Circle back one of these
days and, and talk a little bitmore.
So Jess and Theresa, thanks forjoining me here on the Rent.
Teresa (36:46):
Thank you.
Jess (36:48):
Lot of fun.
Eloy (36:48):
All right, well, this was a great conversation.
I hope you all enjoyed it asmuch as I did.
I really appreciate having,Theresa Watanabi and just braven
here on the rant.
Thanks for joining us, everyone.
If you enjoyed this episode, hitthe like button and if you're
following us on the YouTubechannel, hit subscribe.
Please leave me your comments,your thoughts on this this
(37:10):
interview.
Let me know your thoughts onrace conscious admissions and
continue to follow us on yourfavorite podcast platform.
Thanks for joining us here onthe rant and take care,
everybody
Hi, I'm Eloy Ortiz Oakley, and welcome back to the Rant,
the podcast where we pull backthe curtain and break down the
people, the policies, and thepolitics of our higher education
system.
In this episode, I get to talkto two very special guests,
guests who have been followingthe recent Supreme Court ruling
on affirmative action veryclosely.
(00:29):
My guests today are TeresaWatanabe, staff writer at the
Los Angeles Times, and who hasbeen covering the University of
California Board of Regions forseveral years.
Also, joining me is Jess BravenSupreme Court correspondent at
the Wall Street Journal, andmore importantly, at least for
me, a former Californiacommunity college student and a
(00:50):
former uc student region.
Teresa and Jess, welcome to therank.
Teresa (00:57):
Thank you.
Glad to be here Eloy.
Jess (00:59):
Yep.
Terrific to
Eloy (01:00):
Well, it's good to see you both, and I know that you've
both had, a busy couple of weeksat the beginning of this month.
A lot going on, with the SupremeCourt and a lot going on that
sort of brings back memories of,1996 here in California.
We'll get into that a little bitmore, but.
Okay.
Before we jump into all of that,let me start with a personal
(01:21):
question for each of you so thatour listeners get to know you a
little bit better.
I've had the pleasure of gettingto know you both, and I think
you have wonderful stories,wonderful backgrounds.
So tell us about your highereducation journey and what led
you to your interests injournalism.
Theresa, let's start with you.
Teresa (01:39):
Yeah, sure.
Thanks again for having me,Eloy.
I'm actually, a Seattle native,born and raised there, and so I
started off at the University ofWashington, but.
After I finished my sophomoreyear, I just decided to go,
study at a university in Tokyo,Japan for a year.
And I was really at that timewanting to become a lawyer, but
(02:03):
I didn't want to major inpolitical science or something
that wouldn't pay the bills if Isomehow did not.
Passed the bar exam.
And so the, some of the studentsI met in Japan were from U S C,
sorry, uc.
But they told me that, they hada really good journalism program
and I thought that'd be a goodpre-law major.
(02:25):
So I transferred to U S C and.
I took my first journalism 1 0 1class and it was love at first
sight.
I just said, forget law, this isamazing.
This is what I wanna do for therest of my life.
And I ended up graduating fromUSC with a double major in
journalism and East Asianlanguages and Culture.
(02:47):
Got my first job, out of, usc,with the La Herald Examiner and.
Wrote editorials there as a kidoutta college, like trying to
opine on the world, knowingreally nothing, and then worked
for the San Jose Mercury News invarious assignments, and then
joined the LA Times where I'vecovered various beats.
(03:07):
Most recently higher
Eloy (03:08):
Wow.
hearing the word Harold Examinerbrings back a lot of memories,
for myself.
Jess, how about you tell us alittle bit about your, your
story.
Jess (03:16):
thanks.
Sure.
Oh, well, I'm you know, I wasborn in, in New York City.
both my, my parents were, wereimmigrants and, attended at one
point or another the, the CityCollege of, of New York.
We moved to California when Iwas, 10 where I, attended public
school and I really, you know,had a chance to, to, experience,
different aspects of highereducation in this country.
(03:39):
As you said, I, I took classesat west LA College in, in Santa
Monica College.
I went to, Harvard College, asan undergraduate.
I went to uc, Berkeley for lawschool.
So I had Various institutions,But I had experience, in the in
the intestines of, of several ofthem.
I was always interested ineducation policy and what
(04:02):
education can do.
When I was in high school, I wasthe first Student member of the
Los Angeles City Board ofEducation.
and years later, I, I did thatsame, type of job when I was on
the uc Regents, and I was thereat.
All times are consequential atthe Board of Regents.
So I don't know that my time wasany more than, than any others,
but the mix of issues that wehad was I think, very
(04:25):
interesting and very important.
And as you say continue to, toecho to this day.
right now though, I'm not in thepolicy business.
I'm, a journalist, so I reallydon't take positions on these
issues now.
Eloy (04:37):
Jess, let me ask you.
While you were a student at uc,Berkeley School of Law, you
became the student member of theUniversity of California Board
of Regents.
Can you tell us a little bitabout that experience and in
particular, the conversationsthat the regions were having
about affirmative action andrace conscious admissions at
that time?
Jess (04:57):
the, the affirmative action question was was brewing
before I was on the board.
And it was particularly drivenby, by one of the regents at the
time, ward Connerly, a veryinteresting character.
And actually before he, broughtup his proposal to end race
conscious admissions, he wasvery popular with students
because he was one of the fewreasons who took fee increases
(05:20):
very seriously, and opposedalmost all of them.
He was one of the few regentswho, took very seriously free
speech issues and givingopportunities for the public to,
speak to the regents and, andget involved in regional policy.
So he was actually somebody whowas relatively popular.
If, if any, regent is popularwith the, with the students who
write checks to something calleduc Regents.
(05:42):
once he decided that abolishingaffirmative action was.
His number one objective andquickly, attained, allegiance
from governor Pete Wilson, whohad appointed ward Connerly to
the board.
things changed and this becamehis, His most important issue.
It was something that becameextraordinarily divisive on the
board.
When I was on the board, nearlyall the political appointees
(06:04):
were chosen by our Republicangovernors.
In fact, I think all of themwere, and yet they were divided
on affirmative actionthemselves.
The board was, I think, It waslike a 14th, 10 vote or
something like that.
It was a, a, a relatively closevote on the board where most
issues are decided unanimously.
So it divided the, theRepublicans on the Board of
(06:26):
Regents the, student member atthe time, ed Gomez from uc,
Riverside.
alumni Regents were certainlyopposed to ending affirmative
action.
So was the, the president of theuniversity Dick Atkinson, and
the university administrationand faculty as well.
And it really was something thatwas.
Being imposed or the end, orthis interference in the
(06:49):
admissions process was beingimposed by the Regents on the
university.
And it was a very, it was very,it was a very difficult
experience for the universitywhere academic freedom had been
really taken for granted for,for, for many, many years.
And, Uh, 95 when the boardpassed, SP one and SP two, the
(07:11):
two motions that re and Connerlybrought up, they were, they were
in incredibly raucous events.
There were protests.
The board room was evacuatedseveral times by the u c police.
There were protests outside thebuilding that were massive.
It was a huge wrenchingexperience for the University of
California system.
(07:31):
ward Conley continued beyond.
Just ending.
racially conscious admissions.
he also wanted to end any kindof statistical, research into
the, backgrounds of students hewanted to eliminate.
whether you counted you know,black, Hispanic, what have you,
you know, different racial orethnic characteristics.
(07:52):
And that I believe didn't passlater on, but that took, that
occurred during, during my mytenure.
he had a, a very, I would say, Idon't wanna be pejorative, but
he had a, he had a very extremeview of of colorblindness that
he thought the university shouldpursue.
And it was the dominant socialissue affecting the university
(08:14):
during my term,
Eloy (08:15):
Yeah, I, I imagine they had, Quite a, quite an impact on
you as a member of theUniversity of California Student
Association then as, as astudent regent.
I imagine when SCOTUS recentlyacted on race conscious
admissions some of those memberscame back to you.
Jess (08:31):
Well, they never left.
And and I, I certainly recallthat, that whole episode, and of
course, as, as you know, and asyou suggested, Conley went, went
on past our board after itpassed the, the, the uc Regents,
he then promoted this voterinitiative, prop two a nine,
which passed.
In 1996 and really sort ofsuperseded whatever the regents
were doing and the regents,rescinded conley's motions, in
(08:54):
2000 or 2001.
But that was really a symbolicmove because the, the voter
initiative was still in thestate constitution and voters,
reaffirmed it as you said, in in2020 by even greater margins
than they approved 2 0 9 infirst place.
Eloy (09:10):
that moment in time I was, in Los Angeles and it was
certainly an event that stuck inmy mind and.
When I had the privilege ofbeing appointed by governor
Jerry Brown to the Board ofRegents, that is the first
memory that I had walking into ameeting of the Board of Regents
was Ward Conley.
And that stuck with me my entiretime on the Board of Regents.
(09:32):
Theresa, let me turn to you.
You've been covering the Regentsfor some time now.
what kind of conversations haveyou witnessed about affirmative
action with regards toCalifornia's Proposition 2 0 9,
which is just mentioned bandrace conscious admissions in
California in 1996.
And, and what do you think hasbeen the impact of Prop 2 0 9 on
(09:52):
diversity at the University ofCalifornia?
Teresa (09:55):
Well one thing that, I did want to add to what Jess was
talking about was the enormous.
Influence that governor PeteWilson had on this whole issue.
He was in the middle of apresidential campaign.
He was not gaining traction.
(10:15):
And he decided that affirmativeaction would be one of the major
issues that he was going to runon, which is why in some ways he
was, I don't wanna say the powerbehind the throne, but he was
really pushing ward Connerly todo this, both at the uc Regents,
and later on with, proposition 20 9.
(10:36):
And as Jess also pointed out,The majority, if not all, of the
members of the Board of Regentsat the time were Republican.
Now, fast forward to 2020 whenproposition 16 was in play,
which would've reversed 2 0 9,and the political climate had
changed.
Almost 180 degrees.
(10:56):
You now have Democrats incontrol of the governor's
mansion in control, a supermajority in the legislature.
definitely super majority of theBoard of Regents.
And so the politicalsensibilities are completely
different where there is such aa, a focus on access and equity
(11:18):
and inclusion.
And I think all of that led to.
The support of the Board ofRegions for Proposition 16,
which was introduced in order toreverse 2 0 9, because as you
know, there is a feeling thatfor all the work that you see
has done over 25 years to tryand diversify its students and
(11:42):
faculty without the use of race.
And there has been a lot ofprogress.
but they just feel that withoutbeing able to consider race,
it's not going to be completelyeffective.
And so I think at that time, theuc president, all 10
chancellors, the Board ofRegents all supported Prop 16.
(12:04):
but as just noted, it, it failedagain.
And interestingly, it, it was,opposed by.
White voters and Latino andAsian voters split, and it was
overwhelmingly supported onlyamong black voters in terms of
demographics.
So, You know, I just think thatuc has done really great work.
(12:27):
and it, you know, I often thinkEloy, that uc doesn't give
itself enough credit for all thework it's done.
Because, you know, if you lookat the data, and I've looked at
the data so much and I'vewritten about the data there is
progress.
There are.
More students of color andhigher percentages of students
(12:49):
of color being admitted to theUniversity of California today
than in 1995 before Prop 2 0 9passed.
And granted, it doesn't not yetreflect the percentages in our
California population,especially with Latinos, you
know?
But they've come a long way.
They've spent over half abillion dollars trying to
(13:12):
diversify.
The population, the enrollment,and they've done so many
different programs, much ofwhich you were part of, you
know, they moved tocomprehensive review, which
helped diversify.
They moved to.
Eligibility in the localcontext, which means that any
student who qualifies in the top9% statewide or at your local
(13:36):
high school is guaranteedadmission.
They've done so much outreachrecruiting.
They've, they've worked on, youknow, getting those K-12
pipelines.
ready for students in highschool or even younger middle
school to try to becomecompetitive college applicants.
So I think there's a lot to belearned from uc, especially for
(13:58):
institutions who are now facingcollege admissions without being
able to use race.
And, you know, there is, muchthat uc has done.
Eloy (14:08):
I certainly agree with you, Theresa.
I mean, there has been quite abit done, and I think it is an,
an interesting lesson for therest of the country.
I think in, in the immediateyears after Prop 2 0 9, we saw.
A measurable decline in blackenrollment in the University of
California.
So I think that is a word ofwarning to, to the rest of the
country.
(14:29):
I think it's had the greatestimpact on, on the black
community.
I think, I think 1994 uc wasabout 4% African-American.
2000 dropped to 3%.
It bounced back in 2022 to 4.5%,but that's been the most
stubborn.
Area of enrollment.
And, and I do think that theuniversity has done quite a bit.
(14:52):
and so I'm hopeful that the restof the country can take, take
some lessons from that.
and also the lessons of the dejavu all over again.
We have going on here withRepublican candidates using this
as an issue to run forpresident.
we'll see if it has the sameeffect on the Republican party
that it had on California.
Teresa (15:13):
One thing I wanted to add, Eloy was if you look at.
Who the University of Californiaadmits, I mean, uc admits I.
Nearly enough black and Latinoapplicants to fill the entire
freshman class of Berkeley anducla.
So the real challenge is gettingthose students who are admitted
(15:36):
to choose uc, and that is thereal struggle.
And I think a lot of that has todo with maybe cost.
You know, they, they maybe haveunmet.
Financial aid and California isa leader in offering financial
aid.
but I know ucla, which has been.
Incredibly successful in theiryield of black students.
(15:58):
Part of it is just the work thatYolanda Copeland Morgan has done
with her team to get out in thecommunity.
But a lot of it is the fact thatthey've been able to raise more
money for scholarships.
And I think that is the areathat you, that you see is gonna
have to do more work on istrying to increase those yields
of the applicants that they
Eloy (16:18):
No, that's right.
And it's a great point, Jess letme turn to you.
You've had a ringside seat forthis Supreme Court.
What do you feel were theprimary motivating factors for
this ruling and.
You may have seen the recentlegal action taken against
Harvard University over legacyadmissions, cuz that comes up
quite a bit.
How do you think this would playout if this reaches this court,
Jess (16:41):
Well, I don't, I think that, I don't think the, the,
the question has to do reallywith, with with protected
classes of people.
the, the default rule inAmerican law is that anyone can
discriminate against anyoneexcept where they specifically
can't.
And disc discrim obviously is,you know, sounds bad, and, and
(17:02):
it, it is bad.
But really, maybe we should usethe word choose.
Okay.
They can have differentpriorities about who they want
to admit It is.
You know, you could say that aHarvard College discriminates.
You know, in favor of saxophoneplayers because if you are a
fantastic musician, your odds ofgetting admitted to, to Harvard
(17:23):
College are much higher than ifyou are similar in your
credentials, but do not havethat kind of skill.
And if you are a exceptionalhockey player, your odds of
getting admission to HarvardCollege are, I would say,
1000000% at least based based onmy freshman dorm experience.
And the, the gentleman scholarswho who occupied my floor, so I
(17:45):
do not believe that there is atradition of discrimination for
or against, you know, legacyadmins or people whose parents
went to the same college.
There's just no legal.
Structure involved in that.
So Harvard and any college, Idon't believe has any legal
restraint right now on giving apriority to if your parents also
(18:06):
went there.
the, you know, there's not a,you know, it does, it doesn't
fit into any of the specificboxes.
I mean, the law is concernedabout, about equal treatment
based on race.
And race is a third rail for.
The Supreme Court, it's a thirdrail for many, many Americans,
although it functions indifferent ways for, for the
majority on the Supreme Court,it's any government.
(18:28):
Effort to advantage a race, evenone that historically has
suffered tremendousdiscrimination and setbacks.
That's just a terrible conceptin and of itself.
And, and whatever, what, youknow, whatever benign or
beneficial out outcomes might beor outweighed.
By the conceptual harm todemocracy of any kind of racial
(18:50):
prep, that's their view.
All right.
And you know, it's not anindefensible view by any means.
It is their view.
in fact, it's interesting.
I was speaking to, president of,for just a recently retired
president of ColumbiaUniversity, Lee Bollinger, who
was the The defendant in theprior precedents that were
overruled last month you knowGruer and Gratz versus
Bollinger.
(19:10):
And I asked him what he made ofthe other arguments and he said,
if that's of view, that the, thedangers of any kind of racial
classification are so great and,and the risks are so high of
going in the wrong direction,that we simply, as a matter of
principle, can't have it.
He felt that was the defensibleargument.
What he did not feel was adefensible argument was there's
no racial discrimination andthere are no impacts from the
(19:31):
history of racialdiscrimination, and therefore
there's nothing to be solved.
In other words, that was, thatwas his view that he felt was
not a legitimate argument.
The, the US Supreme Court andthe, you know, the, the writings
of Chief Justice Roberts and thehistory of other justices like
justice, Alito from his days in,concerned alumni of Princeton
organization, which was formedafter Princeton University began
(19:56):
admitting women and recruitingminority students.
their views go back many, manyyears, and there's no dispute
that they're sincerely held andthat this is where they were
going, and this is how theyviewed the requirements of the
Constitution when it comes toadmitting legacies.
You know, people whose parentsalso went to those colleges, I
think they don't think it's alegal matter.
(20:18):
I think they would not be for oragainst it.
One point that Chris Grober,who's the president of Princeton
University, and I talked aboutwas this, is that, Highly
selective institutions now havehad forms of affirmative action
going back a couple generationsalready, and those programs have
admitted a number, a significantnumber of black and Latino,
(20:40):
Asian, other, other members ofother groups that historically
were excluded.
And they have children too, andthey benefit from those legacy
admissions.
So if you, if you abolish legacyadmissions, sure.
Most of the beneficiaries of itare, are white.
But not all.
And that would also affect, itwould in effect it would in some
(21:01):
way undermine the, you know,the, the built-in progress, I
guess, or the, or thegrandfathered in progress that
they made during the decades ofaffirmative action when they did
admit or did or permitted toconsider considerate in
admissions.
So now the complaint, you know,going to Harvard, it really.
It is gonna be a policy questionfor Harvard and these other
(21:22):
schools about what they're, whatthey're going to do.
Probably they would win anylegal challenge.
I think they have to decide intheir commitment to diversity
where Fostering donations orloyalty or whatever sense of
community, they believe legacyadmissions, helps, is, is worth
(21:44):
it or not.
And it will in a sense forcetheir force them to make some,
you know, a harder choicebecause, you know, the Harvard,
Alumni are, are much in favor ofaffirmative action.
That's, that's quite clear.
They've elected members to theirboard of overseers who are in
favor of it.
But what if it means some, youknow, marginal unquantifiable
(22:06):
reduction in the chance thattheir own kids are gonna get in?
How much do you care aboutdiversity then?
Okay.
If the diversity involvesexcluding you, you know, what
about that?
We'll see if they announce any
Eloy (22:16):
Right.
Well, it's interesting to see,Larry Summers out recently
talking about, his call to andlegacy admissions.
Of course, Larry's a formerpresident of Harvard himself.
so we'll see where that allgoes.
But I certainly do think thatgiven all the commotion about
the SCOTUS decision, there is somuch.
Institutions of learning can dothemselves to improve the
(22:37):
outcomes of people of color andlow income people who are trying
to get access to these highly,what we call rejective colleges
and universities.
so I'm hopeful that thisconversation does spur a lot of
thinking not just on the legalissues, but on the practices
that many, many colleges anduniversities.
Jess (22:56):
Eli, can I, raise a point that, from what I could tell,
this is what I was, this is whatI thought about a little bit.
When, when I came onto the boardand was looking at this issue
and it was, an analysis thatabsolutely no one else agreed
with.
So, and I don't even know if Iagree with it, and you and
Theresa have more recent dataand you can update it with, with
(23:16):
facts, but during the, the, thetwo polls of the affirmative
action debate, during my, my, mytime around there were kind of
went these ways.
These you know, minorityapplicants, black Hispanic
applicants who are the principalbeneficiaries of affirmative
action.
They are all uc qualified.
So there's not a, a damage, youknow, to the academic quality of
(23:37):
the institution.
And simultaneously, the argumentwas, everyone who was admitted
to affirmative action was alsouc qualified.
Right?
principal document when I was onboard was a master plan for
higher education in 1960 underGovernor Pat Brown's
administration, and it steppedforth at the top 12.5% of the
uc, or the California highschool class was entitled to
(23:59):
admission to the University ofCalifornia.
The only people who benefit fromaffirmative action at uc, were
already in that group.
They're already in the topeighth of the high school
graduating class.
Where is it?
That affirmative action played arole.
It played a role in admissiononly to UCLA and uc, Berkeley,
the other campuses, all, allthat, all those people would all
be entitled to a seat in one ofthe other campuses already.
(24:22):
the, on the one hand we believedand we asserted that all our uc
campuses are all equal.
They're all good.
They're all equal.
They all provide a absolutelyworld class education that no
one could possibly fault.
And at the same time, two ofthese campuses are a million
times better than all the otherones.
And if you go to, if you end upsent to one of the other ones,
(24:44):
boy man, you're doomed.
Right?
So, well, which is it?
You know?
It's not like you're, you know,you still are getting one of the
most fantastic educationsavailable to anyone in the world
at a great sub, a great, greatprice.
And guess what?
If you're one of the whitestudents or Asian students who
is redirected to Santa Cruz orRiverside instead of Berkeley or
(25:06):
ucla, you also have a fantasticeducation being provided to you
at tremendous subsidy.
So the consequences, whether itis.
White legacy student from Cal,you know, or the immigrant
student from Mexico who has togo to Davis instead of Berkeley.
I just don't think that personis educationally disadvantaged
(25:28):
either way, and in and in thepoint of the state of
California's interest inproviding these people in
education.
Mission accomplished to me.
The problem was, and you pointout that uc has taken many more
steps in this direction, werethe many, many people who were
not qualified in the first placeto even be in the mix to go to
one of these schools.
And that's the problem.
this may be heretical.
(25:49):
I even felt, gee, you go tocommunity college or Cal State.
Maybe your life isn't overeither.
You know, maybe you also have anopportunity for a really, really
good education and doingsomething with your life and
being a fulfilled person.
So I thought, you know, thesymbolic message that we were
sending about educationalopportunity was at least as
(26:11):
important as the consequencesfor any student who has the
tremendous horror of going touc, Santa Barbara instead of
ucla.
whether that is a white studentor or Hispanic or, or black
student.
Eloy (26:24):
similar conversations keep happening now and I love to get
Teresa's take as well.
But I mean, for me, the questionof who gets into Berkeley, who
gets into UCLA is still in play.
their diversity is not quite as,Rich as perhaps a Merced or
Riverside.
But the fact of the matter isuc, San Diego is in that mix as
(26:44):
well.
It's become quite difficult.
UCI is getting quite difficult,although it's a Hispanic serving
institution.
But for me, there is oneUniversity of California and
regardless of which campus yougo to, you get an amazing
education.
But we've put a premium overtime on two particular campuses,
and today probably three, thebig three, what we call'em, but
(27:06):
there is still a challenge,particularly for black
Californians.
having access to University ofCalifornia is still a challenge
and there's a lot of work thatneeds to be done for Latino
students.
It, it's getting there.
but there's still a challenge inaffordability that Therea
mentioned.
So there's still a lot of workto do, Theresa, I love your,
your take on on Jess's point.
Teresa (27:28):
Well, I, I think the admission counselors that I
interview all the time reallytalk about fit.
Don't be blinded by the brandname.
Really look at the campus andfind out is that the campus that
is fits you the best.
Berkeley is not for everybody.
If you wanna major in datascience or computer science,
(27:50):
Berkeley is, is like the topschool in the nation and they
also make a lot of money whenthey graduate.
But if you wanna studyenvironmental science, I know
people who've done really wellat uc, Santa Barbara, because
they've at uc, San Diego aswell.
Merced has some of the happieststudents in the whole uc system
because it's smaller, it's moreintimate.
(28:11):
You know, the professorsactually get to know the
students.
They have amazing experienceswith undergraduate research and
there's a lot of students ofcolor and so in many cases,
students of color who may beleaving their home for the first
time ever feel a little moresecure at a place like Merced.
So I think, as Eloy said, All ofthe campuses are amazing.
(28:33):
They all offer somethingslightly different and I really
think that students orapplicants need to look and see
what it is they wanna do andthen match that interest and fit
with the uc campus.
Jess (28:46):
One thing that, they could be doing at the, at the Regents,
the, the organic act of, of theUniversity of California.
says that the Regents aredirected to, as soon as
practicable establish tuitionfree education for qualified
residents.
How's that going?
Teresa (29:04):
most, more than half of uc students don't even pay
tuition because of theincredibly generous Cal Grant
program.
I don't know that making uc freefor students who have the
ability to pay is necessarilythe right answer.
I think it's really up thefinancial aid for students who
(29:27):
can't afford to go to uc.
Jess (29:30):
When I was on the board, I had a completely different idea.
Theresa, my view was this meanstested.
Programs like that, areincredibly damaging to creating
popular support.
In other words, voters do notlike the idea of, Hey, I have a
great program.
I'll give money that will helpsomebody else.
How about that?
That's a great program.
The government will take moneyfrom me and give it to somebody
(29:52):
else.
I'm all for that.
They programs like socialsecurity.
Or Medicare that provideuniversal benefits are popular
because people believe there'ssomething in it for them.
Even if there's something, evenif there may be more in it for
somebody else.
But if it's just taking moneyfrom one person and allowing the
financial aid, bureaucracy toset up criteria about who gets
(30:14):
the money, that was incrediblydamaging to popular support for
uc and incredibly damaging forvoter support for uc.
it's a private education model.
Okay.
It's the Harvard model.
We will have extraordinarilyhigh retail costs for applying,
and then we'll kick it back topeople who meet our criteria for
financial aid.
Princeton and Harvard now givefree education at certain people
(30:37):
who below certain incomethresholds.
That's the private educationmodel.
The public education model.
At ccny, at uc, until really.
The Reagan and Jerry first,Jerry Brown 1.0 administrations,
and then it really acceleratedunder Duke Ma and Wilson was to
go to the private model, whichis we'll high tuition and.
(30:59):
Reallocate redistribute funds topeople who we wanna see get in.
And that is, you know, meanstested.
Programs are not popularpolitically.
They, that's not what they wannasee.
Teresa (31:10):
I don't know that the voters necessarily object to
California's financial aidprogram and certainly the
legislators right now theirwhole big thing is affordability
and they are funding highereducation.
at pretty high levels.
And also the uc tuition is only,what, about$13,000 a year
(31:32):
compared to U usc, which is$66,000 a year.
So, I mean, the privateeducation model doesn't really
compare to a Harvard orPrinceton.
When you look at the size oftheir tuition.
What do you, do you think
Eloy (31:47):
Well, this is the topic for a whole episode in and of
itself, I've been in those,conversations, mostly arguments
for, for years and years andyears.
I think the University ofCalifornia certainly has a much
richer model than most publicsand certainly all of the
privates, however, The challengehas been the divestment in
(32:10):
public higher education fromstates, including California,
and that has put a lot ofpressure on universities, public
universities.
Some have responded well, somenot so well, and there were
periods of time that theUniversity of California did not
respond so well by trying topass on the cost to, the
student, and then asking thefederal government to
(32:31):
federalize.
The, the cost of, of educationthrough the PE system.
That's, that's been a challengein recent years because the cost
of attendance has gone up sohigh in states like California.
It's been hard.
Now, this, this Californialegislature, the last two
governors have invested quite abit more in the University of
California.
(32:52):
So I, I do think that, thatthere is a balance that has to
be had.
the majority of students now areeither low, low income or middle
income at the University ofCalifornia.
It's tough to fund theireducation without the support of
the state.
but it's gonna be increasinglymore difficult to to raise
(33:13):
tuition at the University ofCalifornia.
This last round of tuitionincrease came after several
years of fights and finallysettled on a, on a cohort
tuition model.
We'll see how the CaliforniaState University system does
here coming up.
But, tuition and financial aidare challenging topics in states
like California.
But let, let me ask both of youas we begin to, to wrap up, if
(33:37):
you had any advice based on yourexperiences in, in your roles in
California for other states onhow to deal with this recent
SCOTUS ruling around.
Race conscious emissions.
what would that be?
Theresa, let's start with you.
Teresa (33:52):
I talk to admission directors all the time and one
thing that really stuck out forme was when Yolanda Copeland
Morgan, who recently steppeddown as Vice Provost of
Enrollment Management at ucla,her big takeaway, which was also
mentioned by Sean Harper of U SC, is do not overreact.
(34:12):
They said after Proposition 2 09, all the legal counsel said,
oh my God, we can't use raise.
And so they were.
Really, really just cut thosenumbers and she said, don't do
that.
Take time to look through it.
There's still a lot you can do,maybe not consider race, but
there's so many different waysthat you can add diversity,
whether it's socioeconomicdiversity, and other things like
(34:34):
that.
So that, that was her bigtakeaway.
In terms of advice.
Eloy (34:39):
how about you?
Jess (34:41):
I, I think that, like Theresa, I'm not gonna give
advice, but the things that I'veheard I think that the, the, the
focus really should be on.
On these, on these, pipelinesthat, that universities if they
wanna maintain or increasediversity, they need to increase
the number and the breadth ofstudents who are qualified on
(35:05):
their own terms to Be admittedto selective colleges and
programs.
And that may mean that mayrequire universities to focus
much more directly on workingwith K-12 education, on working
with community colleges toestablish ways to bring in
people with, varied backgrounds.
When I was speaking to PresidentIce Grouper of Princeton, he
(35:28):
mentioned two things.
I know that's been, they've beenwritten about before, but
Princeton is has a.
Program, a pilot program ofworking with community colleges
to bring transfers to itscampus.
And he also mentioned that theywere going to increase their
recruitment of militaryveterans, which is a more
diverse group of people than thepublic at large.
(35:48):
And if they were to increaseveteran recruitment and veteran
privileges, incidentally arepermissible.
In fact, I believe thegovernment encourages them that
too would promote diversity inenrollment.
So I think that they're going tohave to find, You know, more
creative, perhaps more costlyways to ensure that they have, a
wide variety of, of applicantswho are who, who aren't,
(36:11):
qualified for admission.
Eloy (36:12):
on that note, I certainly wanna echo the importance of
community college transfers.
I think that's how I got intothe University of California.
and as I've said before, thereis diversity at your local
community college because theyserve the top 100% of their
community.
So I do think that that's greatadvice.
And I, I thank you both forjoining me here on The rad.
(36:35):
This is a meaty topic.
We'll also talk about perhapswe'll, Circle back one of these
days and, and talk a little bitmore.
So Jess and Theresa, thanks forjoining me here on the Rent.
Teresa (36:46):
Thank you.
Jess (36:48):
Lot of fun.
Eloy (36:48):
All right, well, this was a great conversation.
I hope you all enjoyed it asmuch as I did.
I really appreciate having,Theresa Watanabi and just braven
here on the rant.
Thanks for joining us, everyone.
If you enjoyed this episode, hitthe like button and if you're
following us on the YouTubechannel, hit subscribe.
Please leave me your comments,your thoughts on this this
(37:10):
interview.
Let me know your thoughts onrace conscious admissions and
continue to follow us on yourfavorite podcast platform.
Thanks for joining us here onthe rant and take care,
everybody
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.