Page One

A recent state supreme court ruling on employee recruitment practices in San Jose will deal a fatal blow to affirmative action in California, adversely affecting racial diversity in hiring and college admissions, a university law professor said. 

“I think it's going to mean fewer minority students in our universities, less work for minority businesses, and larger unemployment in minority communities,” said Golden Gate Law School professor David Oppenheimer. 

The ruling, which will eliminate a San Jose program aimed at recruiting minority contractors, was the first time the court had interpreted the scope of Proposition 209, the 1996 ballot initiative that prohibits state and local governments from using race or gender preferences in hiring, contracting or college admissions. 

“It's a very disappointing decision,” said Oppenheimer, a long-time opponent of the ballot initiative. “It seems that any race conscious program constitutes a preference under 209, and what that means is any program that is designed to reach out to minority students is probably going to be improper." 

The scope of the decision could possibly go as far as minority outreach programs like sending targeted mailings about job openings to minority candidates or advertising for employment heavily in minority newspapers, he said. 

Despite these restrictions, administrators say the impact on minority admissions in the UC system should be small. “I don't think this will have a major effect on our recruiting,” said Richard Black, the Assistant Vice Chancellor for Admissions and Enrollment at UC Berkeley. 

Most Berkeley programs that could affect minority recruitment are already structured to not officially constitute “affirmative action.” For example, the outreach programs that help prepare high school and elementary students to enter Berkeley do not focus on minorities directly, but instead target individual low-income students and students whose parents did not go to college. 

“I don't see any impact on our programs," said Marsh Jaeger, director of UC Berkeley’s Center for Educational Outreach. But she wasn't completely sure of the effect and added that she will review the court decision with the university's lawyers. 

It’s too early to say that no UC recruitment policies would be affected, said Kevin Nguyen, a spokesperson for UC Regent Ward Connerly.  

It is possible that UC schools have sent special mailings to minority students in the past, he said. Connerly has said that and any similar recruitment policies would be changed or eliminated. 

Doing away with affirmative action in outreach, both at UC and in general government hiring, is a positive step for race relations, said Nguyen, who also acts as the Director of the American Civil Rights Institute. Connerly chairs this group. 

California, lacking one racial majority, can't rely on preferences, Nguyen said. “That kind of race-based policy is only going to tear the state apart,” he said. “What we need is a color blind approach in this day and age.” 

But despite the efforts of Prop 209 backers, it hasn't yet come to that point, said San Francisco lawyer and UC Regent William Bagley. Any arm of the state government that receives large amounts of federal money must abide by federal affirmative action hiring guidelines. “These hiring guidelines supersede the regents guideline and (Proposition) 209,” he said. 

Bagley says he opposes the ban on affirmative action passed by the UC regents in 1995 and plans to introduce a proposal to overturn it next year. Doing so could possibly put the UC system in violation of 209, and lead to renewed battles in the state supreme court, legal experts said. 

But for now, the outlook appears bleak for the beneficiaries of affirmative action, Oppenheimer said. 

“(These programs) have been important because, in their associations, women and minority contractors tend not to be as informed about potential jobs,” he said.  

“That's a very substantial source of work for women and minorities that’s going to dry up,” he added.