t**a
发帖数: 442 | 1 【 以下文字转载自 Military 讨论区 】
发信人: tsla (青蛙路漫漫。。。), 信区: Military
标 题: [CivilRights-SCA5]Comments on Published SCA5 Bill Analysis
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Wed Feb 19 16:21:33 2014, 美东)
1. Purpose
After the introduction of SCA 5 by State Senator EdHernandez(D), the bill
has been read in various committees and the senate floor as well. In this
process, a few bill analysis documents were published. By commenting on
these documents, people will get a more complete picture of the issues at
hand. A thorough debate on relevant issue helps people cast their votes
better reflecting their common core interests.
The published bill analysis can be found online at
(deleted to avoid deletion by mitbbs)
Although they provide useful historical data serving as justification of SCA
5,the scope of their analysis is neither comprehensive in scope nor valid
inmethodology. It is the purpose of this comment to highlight the logical
and factual shortcomings in the argument provided by the sponsors of SCA 5.
Rather than attempting to close the case in one single text, this comment
strives to provoke an in-depth discussion of the significance of upholding
Prop 209 in public education.
2. Comments on bill analysis published by Senate Committee on Elections and
Constitutional Amendments. Other bill analysis essentially contains similar
arguments.
The remaining three pages of the bill analysis are omitted since they only
provide a summary of court decisionsand past legislature attempts.
3. Arguments in Opposition of SCA 5 (from bill analysis published on the
third reading the SCA 5):
As stated in this argument, Prop 209 led to “increased graduation rates in
Higher Education by using race and gender neutral policies”. This is
exactly what California needs in the new century. If public education is
exempted from Prop 209, as attempted by SCA 5,history tells us that less
students will graduate from higher education and become available for high-
tech jobs. This will impair the quality of work force pool available to
employers in California. Businesses will have to either hire from other
states or countries to fill the openings, or outsource the job all together
elsewhere.
4. Discussion
The fundamental reason that certain (notall) minority group youth accounts
for a relatively smaller percentage ofhigher education enrollment is NOT
Prop 209.
The percentage of minority high schoolgraduates that is admitted to UC
campuses can be calculated as follows:
The enrollment ratio of minority is determined by two factors. The first
factor is race neutral, meaning that the total number of available seats in
UC campuses are limited. Increasing this factor can certainly promote the
enrollment of minority students, but it is not affected by whether Prop 209
is in effect. Increase in higher education investment is one of the ways to
increase this factor. Lack of funding in state higher education reduces this
factor and thus the enrollment ratio. The second factor is related to
racial distribution in student body, but, as is demonstrated by historical
data, it is essentially the same (0.55 vs 0.54) before and after Prop 209
was adopted. It is thus premature to advocate the exemption of the public
education from Prop 209 in order to promote the enrollment of certain
minority students.
More investigation of the data provided by CEPC suggests other factors to
consider. For example, the following figure provides diversity information
from 2008 to 2010 in Cal State enrollment. For Latino women, although they
account for 21.40% of state high school graduates,they represent 22.96% of
freshmen enrollment from state high schools. In contrast, Latino men account
for 18.89% of state high school graduates, but they only represent 14.10%
of freshmen enrollment from state high schools. The opponents of Prop 209
often cite social-economical reasons that position certain minority groups
at a competitive disadvantage in higher education.Coming from the same
background, why women perform much better than men in Latino group? Note
that women is not “favored” by the system, because Asian men is only
slightly “worse” than women.
5. Summary
A diversified education environment provides significant developmental
benefits to students. The proper way to achieve true diversity cannot be
obtained without understanding the fundamental reason why certain racial and
gender group is under represented. Data show that Prop 209 doesn’t change
the race factor in the higher education enrollment. As a result, SCA 5 is
not expected to achieve its stated purpose.
Even worse, statistical data prove that SCA 5 would undermine the quality of
the workforce in California in the future,and hamper the growth of high-
tech industry that has become one of driving forces of the state’s
competitive advantage. Without a healthy economy providing enough funding
for public education, all students suffer, and minority or under privileged
group is probably hit harder.
Original Link: weidb.com/p1627.html
By: 刘宇 |
|
