(Falls Church, VA) The Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) today released a new report, If California Restores Race Discrimination: Implications for Higher Education, which demonstrates how race may once again dominate the college admissions process if voters adopt Proposition 16 on the ballot in California this November. Proposition 16 seeks to override a state constitutional ban on racial and ethnic preferences, adopted overwhelmingly by California voters in a 1996 ballot initiative.
CEO’s report, available here, was written by research fellow Dr. Althea Nagai. The study concludes that when colleges use race as a factor in the admissions process, it is not merely a tie breaker between two equally qualified applicants but is often the determining factor in who gets admitted to college and who does not.
The report examines results from CEO’s past studies of three California institutions before voters banned race in admissions in 1996. The study then looks at three other cases: University of Virginia, University of Michigan, and University of Wisconsin. These cases demonstrate how racial/ethnic preferences actually work in admissions and the enormous weight universities place on race. The study ends with an examination of the cost of preferences in terms of racial/ethnic disparities in college grades, honors, and academic probation, using enrollee data obtained from Michigan.
CEO chairman Linda Chavez said: “No one wins when public institutions discriminate against one group in favor of another. Our report shows that if Proposition 16 passes, we can expect California colleges and universities not only to discriminate against better qualified white and Asian applicants to achieve their desired diversity numbers but also to disadvantage black and Hispanic students who are admitted and may struggle because they lack the necessary preparation.”
Findings from the report include:
- Race will again become a major factor in admissions decisions, discriminating against candidates with better qualifications to achieve desired racial outcomes.
- Race will likely carry more weight than preferences granted to in-state applicants.
- Schools somewhat less competitive than Berkeley, San Diego, and Irvine would place even greater weight on race to achieve their desired campus diversity, based on data from CEO studies of similar institutions in Wisconsin.
- White and Asian applicants will be most likely to bear the costs, by being denied admissions in greater numbers than a race neutral process would produce.
- Blacks and Hispanics will also pay a price by being mismatched to schools where they will struggle to excel.
This review of past CEO studies looks back at three California public universities before California voters in 1996 banned race in admissions.
- Among Berkeley enrollees in 1995, there was a 150-point difference in white-black median verbal scores and a 180-point gap in median math scores. The Hispanic-white gap was 120 points for verbal and 130 points for math. Asian and white scores were roughly the same. Black and Hispanic enrollees also had lower high-school GPAs compared to whites and Asians.
- Among enrollees at Irvine, the black-white gap was 95 points in verbal and 105 points in math scores. The Hispanic-white gap was 80 points in verbal and 100 points in math. The Asian-white gap in verbal scores was 60 points, but scores were roughly the same in math. Average high school GPAs were also lower for blacks compared to Hispanics, whites, and Asians.
- At San Diego, there was an 80-point difference in verbal scores between whites and Hispanics. There was a 60-point gap between whites and blacks and between whites and Asians. The whiteblack gap in math scores was 100 points, while the white-Hispanic gap was 90 points. The Asian and white math medians were the same. High school grades were roughly the same for blacks, whites, and Asians. The Hispanic median was less than two-tenths of a point lower.
The review also summarizes findings from three CEO studies of undergraduate admissions at three other nationally ranked universities: University of Virginia, University of Michigan, and University of Wisconsin. (U.S. News ranks Michigan 25th , Virginia, 28th , and Wisconsin, 46th best in the nation.) The experience of these schools tells us what to expect if California goes back to racial preferences in admissions.
- Especially among California’s most competitive universities, race will be a major factor in admissions, as it is at the University of Virginia and as it was at the University of Michigan before Michigan voters banned the use of race in admissions in 2006.
- Race will often carry more weight in admissions than preferences given to in-state residents.
- Schools that are somewhat less competitive might place even greater weight on race to achieve their desired campus diversity, as happened at Wisconsin.
- White and Asian applicants will most likely bear the greatest admissions burden if California goes back to using race.
- Among enrollees, blacks and Hispanics will also bear the costs of mismatch. Significant disparities would emerge in college grades, honors, and being on academic probation, as was found in Michigan.
The Center for Equal Opportunity, founded by Linda Chavez in 1995, has published studies of racial and ethnic discrimination in admissions at dozens of universities. The Center for Equal Opportunity is a nonprofit research and educational organization that studies issues related to civil rights, bilingual education, and immigration and assimilation nationwide.
