State of Denial
The federal Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against California, charging that the Golden State practices unequal treatment by granting illegal aliens in-state tuition, student loans, and other benefits that they deny to U.S. citizens from out of state. As Americans should know, this is a relatively recent development.
The primary mission of the University of California is to serve the top nine percent of the state’s high-school graduates. In 2013, California hired as UC president Janet Napolitano, a former Arizona governor and Department of Homeland Security director with no experience in higher education. Napolitano proceeded to transform the University of California into an immigration agency. (RELATED: California’s Memory Loss)
In 2014, Napolitano launched the President’s Advisory Committee on Undocumented Students. The program provided legal services and advice, counseling, and “Training for students and volunteers in immigration services.” Napolitano also established the California DREAM loan program for undocumented students, with initial funding of $5 million from UC funds and state general funds appropriated to the UC system.
In other words, an academically qualified African-American student from Mississippi would have to pay the “supplemental tuition,” higher than in-state tuition.
The undocumented students are “charged resident fees and exempted from out-of-state supplemental tuition.” In other words, an academically qualified African-American student from Mississippi would have to pay the “supplemental tuition,” higher than in-state tuition. A white student from Mexico — “Hispanic” is not a race — gets the lower in-state tuition.
This is what the DOJ now regards as unequal treatment for out-of-state students. Those students might wonder why it took so long, and why the DOJ and the federal Department of Education ignored other questionable activities in California.
In 2017, when Napolitano was raising tuition and demanding more state funding, state auditor Elaine Howle uncovered a secret slush fund of $175 million. Napolitano’s office interfered with the audit, but state attorney general Xavier Becerra declined to investigate. (RELATED: California’s Elaine Howle — DOGE Before DOGE Was Cool)
The UC system is on the federal gravy train, but shows no funds from the government of Mexico or other nations to cover the educational costs of their citizens illegally present in the United States. If American taxpayers thought that was unfair treatment, it would be hard to blame them. As they should know, the Golden State has a record of denying admission to qualified students. (RELATED: Oh Say Can UC?)
The University of California at Davis twice denied medical school admission to Allan Bakke, a highly qualified veteran, because he was a person of pallor (“white”). UC Davis reserved places for accredited minorities of other skin shades and ethnicities. In 1978, Bakke sued and won, but California continued to give preference on the basis of race and ethnicity. By the 1990s, meaningful change was in the wind.
The California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI) eliminated racial preferences in state education, employment, and contracting. Contrary to opponents, the measure did not eliminate “affirmative action.” The state could still lend a hand on an economic basis, and California had always cast the widest possible net.
The great Jackie Robinson, for example, was an alum of Pasadena City College, founded in 1924. In 1939, Robinson enrolled at UCLA, and in 1954, future Olympic decathlon champion Rafer Johnson attended UCLA on both athletic and academic scholarships.
CCRI, Proposition 209 on the 1996 ballot, passed by a margin of 54.55 to 45.45. As Thomas Sowell noted in Intellectuals and Race, the number of African-American and Hispanic students graduating from the University of California system went up, including a 55 percent increase in those graduating in four years with a GPA of 3.5 or higher. Even so, the state education establishment continues to oppose the measure.
In 2020, the University of California board of regents endorsed Proposition 16, which targeted Prop 209 for elimination. “It makes little sense to exclude any consideration of race in admissions,” Napolitano contended, “when the aim of the University’s holistic process is to fully understand and evaluate each applicant through multiple dimensions,” obvious code for racial and ethnic preferences.
Californians rejected the measure by a margin of 57.2 to 42.8, wider than the vote for Proposition 209 in 1996. That left Assembly Constitutional Amendment 7 (ACA-7), which allowed the governor to make “research-based,” or “research-informed,” exceptions to the 1996 law. The amendment was not put forward for a vote in 2024, and by now, the lessons should be clear.
Proposition 209 remains the strongest force for equality, merit, and high standards. Meanwhile, students across the country will see if the DOJ’s case against California brings them equal justice.
READ MORE from Lloyd Billingsley:
NIH Announces New Pandemic Playbook
China’s New Hongqi Bridge Collapses — Could California’s Chinese Bridge Be Far Behind?
World Series University: Life Lessons From the MLB
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.