American Behavioral Scientist

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Free Access - Register Here

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by DOUGLASS, J. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 41, No. 7, 938-959 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/0002764298041007007

Anatomy of Conflict

The Making and Unmaking of Affirmative Action at the University of California

JOHN AUBREY DOUGLASS

University of California, Berkeley

California's land-grant institution provides an important window into the affirmative action debate not only because of the 1995 edict by the Board of Regents, and later the passage of Propostion 209, but also because of the demographic context of the university effort to diversify its student body. This article provides a historical analysis of how the University of California has approached the issue of educational opportunity over time, focusing largely on undergraduate admissions. The author argues that affirmative action, and specifically the use of race as a factor in admissions, is historically consistent with the larger effort by the University of California to admit students from a broad range of California society. Yet, the translation of broad and ill-defined policy goals into specific programs has posed substantial problems and paradoxes. The ad hoc and decentralized growth of affirmative action programs within a vast nine-campus UC system led to a disjuncture between the values of the university's Board of Regents and the academic and administrative community.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
American Behavioral ScientistHome page
J. D. SKRENTNY
Introduction: Affirmative Action: Some Advice for the Pundits
American Behavioral Scientist, April 1, 1998; 41(7): 877 - 885.



Home page
American Behavioral ScientistHome page
E. KELLY and F. DOBBIN
How Affirmative Action Became Diversity Management: Employer Response to Antidiscrimination Law, 1961 to 1996
American Behavioral Scientist, April 1, 1998; 41(7): 960 - 984.
[Abstract]