The passage of I-200 in 1998 continues to plague the state's higher education institutions. They find themselves in a difficult position when competing for minority students, and even offering programs that wander into areas that suggest a minority interest.
I-200, for those who have forgotten, prohibits the state from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
I-200's wording was vague. It did not define what “preferential treatment” is. It did not revoke or amend any pre-existing laws or say how continued implementation, or enforcement, of those laws would be affected. The effect is that I-200's provisions are left to interpretation and subject to judicial clarification.
In an attempt to amend the situation for our universities and colleges, both houses are looking to pass an amendment to clarify I-200's intent that would eventually appear on the next state ballot. The changes would also respond to a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that preserved race-conscious college admissions.
The bill (also known as House Bill 1586) gives universities and colleges limited flexibility in considering race, color, ethnicity, or national origin as positive factors in their admission and transfer policies. The goal is to allow them to holistically review each applicant. The act allows an institution to consider race, color, ethnicity, or national origin in its admission or transfer policies only if: (1) There are no set aside admission slots; (2) All applicants' qualities and experiences that may contribute to student body diversity are considered; (3) There are no preset numerical values or weights involved; (4) There is a periodically reviewed policy for evaluating whether consideration of race, color, ethnicity, or national origin is necessary to promote diversity; and (5) The institution also periodically explores race-neutral alternatives to achieve diversity.
Doug Chin, president of the Seattle chapter of the Organization of Chinese Americans, testified at the legislative hearings in February on behalf of the chapter saying that it “supports affirmative action everywhere, opposed Initiative 200, and strongly supports Senate Bill 5575.”
He stated that there is a misconception that, “Asian Americans oppose affirmative action or the use of race or ethnicity in college admissions because of the high percentage of Asians in our colleges and universities. In fact, 61 percent of Asian Americans opposed California's Proposition 209 and a similar percentage of Asian Americans voted against Initiative 200 here in Washington.”
He went on to tell the legislators that, “We believe that the student bodies of our colleges and university should closely mirror the racial and ethnic composition of the population they are intended to serve.” He noted, “Racial and ethnic bias has left a legacy of limited educational opportunities for Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and some Asian American groups at the undergraduate level. At the graduate school level, there is under-representation across all minority racial groups.”
Our president has since shared his observations that, “Past and current admission standards have the effect of providing a racial preference for white, and some racial and ethnic groups. There is a racial bias or preference as to what constitutes 'merit' and admission standards.” He notes that “preferential treatment,” denied to minorities by I-200, is still given to others such as children of alumni, and kids who have the financial resources to take college-credit classes during high school. “Like the U.S. Supreme Court, we believe that racial diversity on our college and university campuses is important and beneficial.”
OCA-GS Speaks Out on WA Senate Bill 5575
Note: This bill was defeated by those claiming it was a threat to the spirit of I-200
OCA - GREATER SEATTLE CHAPTER