University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Proposition 209: a case study on the impact of race-based legislation on student affairs at the University of California

(USC Thesis Other)

Proposition 209: a case study on the impact of race-based legislation on student affairs at the University of California

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

PROPOSITION 209: A CASE STUDY ON THE IMPACT OF
RACE-BASED LEGISLATION ON STUDENT AFFAIRS AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

by

Joyce P. Perez

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2009

Copyright 2009 Joyce P. Perez

ii

Dedication

This work is dedicated to my mom.
Maraming salamat sa lahat ng iyong itinuro mo sa akin.

iii

Acknowledgements

This dissertation would not have been possible without the support from
numerous colleagues, friends, and family members. I would like to thank
Dr. Michael L. Jackson, Dr. Alexander Jun, Dr. John Hoffman and Dr. Allan E.
Johnson. Without them, I could never have completed this work.
I would especially like to thank the faculty, undergraduate and graduate students
in the Linguistics Department at the University of Southern California who have
encouraged me throughout my program.
I am also grateful to the following people in my personal life for their help and
support: Noemi Adalin, Stephen J. Shanahan, Michael Shepherd, Dr. Michal Temkin
Martinez, and Dr. Randa Issa. Thank you for believing in me, for your encouragement,
and for all the time you put in to help me make sense when I could not make sense of it
anymore.
Finally, I would like to thank my family for their support and patience throughout this
long journey.

iv

Table of Contents
Dedication ii

Acknowledgements iii

List of Tables vi

List of Figures vii

Abstract viii

Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 1
Introduction
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study
Research Questions
Significance of Study
Definition of Terms
Organization of Dissertation
1
4
5
5
5
6
10

Chapter 2: Review of Literature 11
Introduction
Conceptual Framework of Study
Bolman and Deal’s Frames
Higher Education, Student Affairs, and Government Policy
Access within Higher Education
The End of Using Race in Admissions
Affirmative Action
California’s Proposition 209
Chapter Summary
11
13
13
19
25
26
27
32
35

Chapter 3: Methodology 38
Chapter Overview
Approach
Case Study Methodological Approach
The University of California
Sample
Data Collection Procedures
Data Analysis Procedures
Data Reliability and Validity
Methodological Limitations
Chapter Summary
38
38
40
41
43
45
48
51
53
55

v

Chapter 4: Results of Findings 56
Chapter Overview
Result of Interviews for Vice Chancellors and Student Affairs Staff
Research Question 1
Research Question 2
Chapter Summary
56
56
56
74
97

Chapter 5: Conclusion 98
Overview of the Study
Discussion of Findings
Research Question 1
Research Question 2
Frames Analysis
Research Question 1
Research Question 2
Implications
Limitations
Recommendations
Suggestions for Future Research
Closing
98
99
99
105
110
110
117
125
129
132
140
142

References 144

Appendices

Appendix A: Resolution SP-1 Text 154
Appendix B: Proposition 209 Language 156
Appendix C: Table 7: Dates of U.S. Statehood 157
Appendix D: Letter of Invitation 159
Appendix E: Table 8: Participant Contact Information Sheet 160
Appendix F: Interview Protocol 161
Appendix G: Data Analysis Instructions 162
Appendix H: UC Office of the President Memo – Budget Cuts 164
Appendix I: Figure 3: Legislative Analyst’s Office – Role of State 167

vi

List of Tables

Table 1: Percentage Difference of Admitted Underrepresented Students
from 1996 and 1998

2
Table 2: Combined Student Demographic of Sample Universities 43
Table 3: SAT and Graduation Rates of UC Campuses 43
Table 4: Distribution of Sample by Campus 45
Table 5: Categorization of Challenges Confronted by Vice Chancellors and
Student Affairs Staff
57

Table 6: Categorization of Coping Strategies Utilized by Vice Chancellors
and Student Affairs Staff
75

Table 7: Dates of U.S. Statehood 157

Table 8: Participant Contact Information 160

vii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Challenges Experienced by Student Affairs Professionals

100
Figure 2: Coping Strategies Utilized by Student Affairs 106

Figure 3: Legislative Analyst Office – Role of State 167

viii

Abstract

In November 1996, California voters approved the passage of Proposition 209,
the first “race-neutral” law affecting public California higher education institutions. The
purpose of this research is to understand the impact of “race-neutral” law on student
affairs organizations and gain insights into the effective leadership approaches used
within such organizations when they are challenged by external laws.
A qualitative case-study approach, within the framework of Bolman and Deal’s
organizational frames, was used to examine the impact of Proposition 209 on student
affairs administrators and staff at the six University of California campuses. This
research found direct consequences and indirect influences resulting from the passage
of “race-neutral” legislation and unexpected external fiscal issues, which resulted in an
overall negative experience for student affairs professionals. This study determined that
effective student affairs leaders made use of a multi-frames approach in assessing
organizational problems and in the development of organizational solutions. Campus
leaders utilized several strategies to respond to the challenges presented by the policy,
including strategic planning, adopting new strategies, and developing collaborative
relationships with campus stakeholders.

1

CHAPTER 1

OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

Introduction

In 1995, the Regents of the University of California approved Resolution SP-1
[Appendix A]. Although not state law at the time, this resolution “prohibited the
consideration of race, religion, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin as criteria for
admission to the University” (Regents of the University of California, 2001) which
significantly affected admissions practices within the University of California system.
In November 1996, 54% percent of California voters approved the passage of the
California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI), also known as Proposition 209 [Appendix B].
Passage of the proposition amended California’s state constitution, declaring that “the
state shall not discriminate against, or grant 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” (American Civil Rights
Institute, 1996).
The impact of Resolution SP-1 and Proposition 209 within undergraduate
admissions resulted in decreases in the number and proportion of underrepresented
students admitted to University of California (UC) campuses. The overall proportion of
underrepresented students admitted and enrolled in University of California campuses
declined in 1997—beginning one year earlier than expected—and one year prior to the
formal implementation of Proposition 209. Even more distressing to university leaders
were the drastic declines experienced at the most highly selective campuses, such as the

2

University of California at Berkeley (UC Berkeley) and the University of California at
Los Angeles (UCLA). Table 1 highlights the percentage difference in the number of
admitted undergraduate African-American, America Indians, and Latinos/Chicano
students from 1996 to 1998.

Table 1: Percentage Difference of Admitted Underrepresented Students
from 1996 to 1998
Underrepresented Students UC Berkeley UCLA

African-American

American-Indians
Latinos/Chicanos

↓ 59%

↓ 73%
↓ 54%

↓ 51%

↓ 55%
↓ 45%

In 2001, the Regents rescinded Resolution SP-1 as a symbolic gesture assuring
that all University of California institutions welcomed minority students (University of
California Office of the President, 2001). Despite the actions of the Regents, the
legalization of Proposition 209 was a landmark event in the history of the United States
because it was a prelude to the abolishment of race-sensitive policies and acted as a force
that clearly attempted to invalidate affirmative action.
In the years leading up to the passage of both Proposition 209 and Resolution SP-
1, opponents of anti-affirmative action policies expressed major concern about the impact
these policies would have on educational access for underrepresented populations,
including African-American, American-Indian, and Latino-American students (Conrad &

3

Sharpe, 1996; Wallace, 1996). Without the ability to use affirmative action,
administrators at California public universities raised concerns about the challenges in
maintaining campus diversity and in managing issues related to minority student access,
enrollment, and support within their institutions (Orfield & Miller, 1998; Karabel, 1999).
The impact of Proposition 209 extends far beyond the numerical data associated with the
admission of underrepresented students, as the measure has done more than just eliminate
the use of affirmative action practices in higher education. Proposition 209 has altered the
organizational structure and operations that have become firmly established within higher
education institutions and within student affairs over the past 30 years.
The passage of Proposition 209 forced student affairs units to alter organizational
processes and procedures, in order to eliminate the use of race in admission practices as
well as in other units such as outreach, financial aid, and academic support services. In
anticipation of the adverse consequences related to Resolution SP-1, University of
California administrators developed strategies that would offset the elimination of the use
of race and gender in admission decisions. Administrators wanted to counteract the
policy’s negative effect (most explicitly, the decrease in minority admissions and
enrollment) through the implementation of new strategies, which included outreach
efforts, changes in the application review process, variations in admissions criteria, and
an expansion of collaboration programs with K-12 schools and the California Community
College system.

4

Coincidental to the passage of Resolution SP-1 and Proposition 209 were changes
in the leadership within the UC system. Ironically, four chancellors
1
within the system
resigned from their post within an 18-month period from the first introduction of
Proposition 209 in 1996. Speculation about their departure stems from the controversial
issues surrounding the two anti-affirmative action policies (Pusser, 2004) and creates
questions about how these policies affected senior leaders and their subordinates within
the student affairs profession at the University of California.
Statement of the Problem
Existing research on the impact of race-sensitive policies such as affirmative
action has focused on numerical data pertaining to 1) the admissions of underrepresented
students, 2) the achievement of underrepresented groups, and 3) the impact of diverse
populations in academic and non-academic settings within higher education.
Current knowledge about the effect of race-sensitive policies does not provide a
comprehensive understanding of the impact of such policies on organizations.
Consequently, it is necessary to understand the impact these changes will have on higher
education institutions and especially among student affairs professionals, whose work is
affected by such policies. This is particularly important because the changes imposed by
“race-neutral” policies, such as Proposition 209, have had a direct influence on the
organizational efforts, processes, and procedures within student affairs. Overall, research
that addresses the impact of race-sensitive policies on the field of student affairs within

1
Chancellors are similar to presidents and serve as the chief executive officer of a university. The four
Chancellors who left were Chang-Lin Tien (UC Berkeley), Charles E. Young (UC Los Angeles), Laurel L.
Wilkening (UC Irvine), Karl S. Pister (UC Santa Cruz).

5

public higher education institutions is lacking. The current research provides a starting
point in researching the effect of such policies.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to investigate the experiences of student affairs
administrators at selected campuses of the University of California affected by the
passage of Proposition 209, a “race-neutral” policy. The study will explore and highlight
the experiences of student affairs administrators faced with having to redesign and
change work processes and procedures in order to meet the requirements of the law. In
addition, this study will provide an in-depth presentation of circumstances external to the
student affairs organization which effected organizational changes brought about by the
enactment of Proposition 209, as reported by the administrators surveyed in the study.
Research Questions
The major focus of this study is to investigate the following: How did Proposition
209, a “race-neutral” law, affect the professional experiences of student affairs
administrators at the University of California? In addition, the following sub questions
will guide this study:
1) What challenges did Proposition 209 present to student affairs administrators?
2) How did student affairs administrators act in response to the changes and
challenges brought about by Proposition 209?
Significance of Study
The goal of this study is to investigate the impact of the passage of Proposition
209 on the work environments, processes, and procedures on student affairs organizations

6

at selected public universities in California. This study presents an in-depth descriptive
portrayal and analysis of the environment at several institutions within the University of
California (UC) system. The analysis will be based on the lived experiences as told by
student affairs administrators whose work was affected directly by changes due to the
implementation of Proposition 209.
This research is significant because the scope of policies and laws affecting higher
education institutions is extensive, yet the literature addressing the impact of these laws
on higher education and those within the field of student affairs is scarce. This research is
also significant in that it will add to the growing literature related to student affairs
administrators and external influences and impacts on their organizations. Furthermore,
this study will add to the body of research on the effects that external policies or laws
have on student affairs organizations, management, procedures, and processes. The study
will also provide insight into the strategies used by senior student affairs professional
staff in response to external pressures on their organizations brought about by changes in
so-called “race-neutral” policies and laws, insight which may be useful to states
considering the abolishment of affirmative action practices with respect to higher
education.
Definition of Terms
1) Admissions: Unit focused on processing and review of applications related to
admissions in postsecondary institutions.
2) Affirmative Action: Positive steps taken to increase the opportunities for
underrepresented groups including women and minorities, who were historically

7

discriminated against in areas of employment, education, and business (Merriam-
Webster Online Dictionary, 2009)
3) Board of Regents: Governing board of the University of California system
comprised of 26 members 18 Regents, one student, and seven ex officio members
including the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the Assembly,
Superintendent of Public Instruction, President and Vice President of the Alumni
Associations of UC, and the UC President. Under Article IX, Section 9 of the
California Constitution, the board maintains governance of the campuses within
the University of California system (Regents of the University of California,
2006).
4) California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI)/ Proposition 209 [Appendix B]: State-
wide initiative passed by California voters in November 1996 that prohibited the
use of preferential treatment on the basis of race, ethnicity, and gender in the area
of public employment, education, and contracting (American Civil Rights
Institute, 1996).
5) Civil Rights Act of 1964: Legislation outlawing racial segregation in public
places such as schools and prohibited discrimination in employment (Civil Rights
Act, 1964).
6) Comprehensive Review: Admissions selection process approved by the
University of California in November 2001. The comprehensive review replaced
the two-tiered system. The new process assesses an applicant’s application based

8

on grades, standardized test scores, and characteristics that signal academic
potential. (University of California, 2001, para.10)
7) Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act of 1990: Also known as Jeanne Clery
Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, or the
“Clery Act” which requires higher education institutions to track and disclose
information related to campus crimes and safety. (U.S. Department of Education,
2005)
8) Holistic Review: Admissions selection process used to replace the comprehensive
review. The admissions office at UC Berkeley developed the holistic review
process. The holistic review process includes the examination of applicant’s non-
academic achievements and personal circumstances, in addition to academic
merit. (UCLA Today-Faculty and Staff News, 2008, para.5)
9) K-12: An abbreviated description used when referring to primary and secondary
schools.
10) Outreach: University programs designed to assist K-12 and community college
students and schools to encourage more students to become qualified for higher
education (California Postsecondary Education Commission, 2009).
11) Race-neutral: Efforts to achieve the goals diversity through inclusive efforts that
do not exclude based on race (Coleman, Palmer, & Richards, 2005).
12) Resolution SP-1[Appendix A]: Resolution adopted by University of California
Regents in July 1995 eliminating the use of preferential treatment within
admissions decisions.

9

13) Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944: Commonly referred to as the “G.I. Bill”.
Benefit providing financial assistance for higher education given to veterans of
military service (Komives, Woodard, & Associates, 1996).
14) Student Affairs: Area within higher education that is responsible for both out-of-
classroom learning and experiences that focus on the development of the whole
student. The field of student affairs encompasses admissions, orientation,
academic support services and advising, international students, counseling,
residence life, recreation, judicial affairs, financial aid, and other related offices
(Nuss, 1996).
15) Student Affairs Staff/Administrators/Professional: Professionals working within
the field of student affairs (Knock, 1985).
16) Student Right- to-Know Act (1990): Requires higher education institutions that
receive federal student financial assistance to disclose information about the
institution’s student population and graduation rates to current and prospective
students. (California Postsecondary Education Commission, 2009)
17) Title IX of the Education Amendments (1972): Law prohibiting sexual
discrimination in education programs and activities that receive financial
assistance from the federal government (United States Department of Justice,
2000).
18) University of California: A four-year public university system within the state of
California that is part of the three-tier higher education system. The university
grants bachelors, masters, and doctoral degrees. As of December 2007, the

10

University of California includes ten campuses and a combined student body of
more than 208,000 students, 121,000 faculty, and staff (University of California,
2003).
Organization of Dissertation
Chapter One provides a brief introduction to the problem faced by higher
education institutions with respect to the passage and impact of Proposition 209 on
student affairs administrators, including the purpose and significance of this study.
Chapter Two provides an overview of Bolman and Deal’s (2003) organizational
“frames”, which will serve as the framework for this study. This chapter also presents
background on elements related to this study, including a historical overview of the
relationship between higher education, policy, and student affairs, and will provide an
overview of affirmative action and Proposition 209. Chapter Three presents the
methodology used in this study. Chapter Four will describe the findings of this study.
Chapter Five will present the conclusions, recommendations, and suggestions for future
research.

11

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
The field of student affairs, as we know it today, is a young profession that finds
itself in a process of continually learning and evolving. Knock (1985) uses the word
“developing” to describe the current state of student affairs. This is evident in the type of
information found in the existing research within the field. Research on student affairs
primarily focuses on understanding the roles of professionals in particular positions
(Blackhurst, 2000; Lovell & Kosten, 2000; Schuh, 2002), working within specialized
units (Kezar, 2003), dealing with specific student populations, or highlights the various
problems experienced by professionals within the field (Nobbe & Manning, 1997; Rapp
1997; Blackhurst, Brandt, & Kalinowski, 1998; Suzuki 2002).
The ever-increasing influence of public policy and laws on higher education has
made the management of these institutions even more challenging for administrators.
Overall, these policies have affected institutions in terms of expansion, regulation,
accountability, and access. Government policies have affected the growth of American
higher education and its early impact resulted in the development of public colleges and
universities across the country.
During World War II, the government began more directly influencing higher
education institutions. The G.I. Bill of 1944 signaled the beginning of significant policies
affecting higher education. The G.I. Bill provided opportunities for returning veterans to
access higher education by providing financial support. The resulting influx of a more

12

ethnically diverse student population created more demand for the number and types of
services provided by American higher education institutions (Delworth & Hanson, 1989;
Nuss, 1996), and helped lead to the professionalization of the field of student affairs.
The civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s continued the focus on access
in higher education and helped alter societal views about the need for greater equity for
minorities and women. Access included increasing educational opportunities for both
underrepresented minorities and women, particularly in higher education. With the
development of affirmative action policies, higher education institutions made efforts to
voluntarily admit minorities and use race as a factor in their admissions process (Holzer
& Neumark, 2006).
This study will focus on understanding the organizational issues resulting from
the implementation of a law—in this case Proposition 209—which in California prohibits
the use of preferential treatment “on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national
origin” in “public employment, public education, or public contracting” (American Civil
Rights Institute, 1996). As mentioned previously, the concept of organizational frames as
based on Bolman and Deal (2003) will serve as the framework from which to understand
the organizations in question. This chapter will introduce Bolman and Deal’s frames;
provide an historical overview of the relationship among higher education, student
affairs, and policy; highlight access trends within higher education; and provide an
overview of affirmative action and Proposition 209.

13

Conceptual Framework of Study
The increasing focus of external stakeholders on the performance of higher
education institutions and the increasing demands of complying with public policies and
laws, are forcing administrators across all areas of the institution to become strategic in
the decision-making process. One construct to assist higher education administrators in
making better decisions are the “frames”, of which there are four, developed by Bolman
and Deal (2003). These four “frames”, as conceptualized by the authors, serve as a
means to gain insight as well as to develop solutions to organizational matters from a
structural, human resource, political, or symbolic perspective. Each frame provides its
own unique set of assumptions that enable organizational leaders and managers to assess
situations and to make strategic decisions.
The design of this study incorporates these frames in the investigative process and
in the analysis of the data. In this study, the frames serve as a guide to uncover the
organizational issues and challenges presented by the passage of Proposition 209, and in
understanding how student affairs administrators approached these challenges. A critical
part of this study, frames function as a tool guiding the questions of inquiry in order to
develop a comprehensive portrayal of the circumstances surrounding the passage and
implementation of Proposition 209. Similarly, within the analysis process, the frames
provide a model in sorting through and analyzing the collected data.
Bolman and Deal’s Frames
Researchers have extensively examined the four frames as postulated by Bolman
and Deal in the hopes of discovering consistent patterns or methods that can provide

14

clarity in understanding organizational behavior. Bolman and Deal (2003) describe
organizations as being “complex, surprising, deceptive, and ambiguous, they are
formidably difficult to understand and manage” (p. 40). To sort through these
organizational complexities, they have proposed a conceptual paradigm, referred to as
“frames”, to assist leaders and managers in making sense of situations that emerge within
organizational life. Their theory proposes four frames: structural, human resource,
political, and symbolic. Each frame combines ideas from major areas of organizational
theory from various disciplines, including sociology, psychology, political science, and
anthropology, which provides a unique perspective from which to view and understand
organizations.
Structural Frame
The structural frame addresses the architectural design of organizations. This
frame emphasizes formal roles, relationships, and expectations to achieve organizational
goals (Bolman & Deal, 2003). The basis of the structural frame comes from
organizational theorists who assert that organizations require hierarchical structures to
function (Fayol, 1916; Weber, 1922; Jacques, 1990) and that dividing labor into
specialized units is the most effective way to maximize efficiency and productivity
(Smith, 1776; Fayol, 1916; Gulick, 1937). Organizational charts provide the framework
to determine the specific division among the various roles, and job descriptions clarify
responsibilities and expectations. Bolman and Deal (2003) described the ‘structural
leader’ as a social architect and top authority figure in charge of defining organizational
goals, direction, and solutions.

15

The structural frame focuses on the organization as a functioning system and is
effective within environments that are stable and predictable. Problems arise when the
current structural design of the organization conflicts with unstable and unpredictable
environmental conditions that require flexible structures. Problems that exist within the
organization are believed to be the result of poorly defined roles or poorly designed
structures. In such instances, reorganization of the current structure is the response to
these situations.
Human Resource Frame
The human resource frame regards people as the most important asset within an
organization. The root of the human resources frame is human needs. Human resource
theorists view people and organizations as mutually dependent, where leaders and
employees collaborate with one another (Follet, 1926). In order for this mutually
dependent relationship to work, organizations must understand how to motivate
employees. Roethlisberger (1941) supports the notion of motivation with “Theory Y”,
which asserts that people are self-motivated and under the right conditions will do good
work. Therefore, organizations must tailor work to meet the needs of the employees in
order to maximize the productivity and potential of human labor.
Bolman and Deal (2003) assert that human resource leaders communicate their
belief in people, are both visible and accessible, and purposefully empower others. These
leaders uphold supportive environments and empowerment by investing in people.
Human resource leaders are aware that work must be fulfilling and provide challenging

16

opportunities through autonomy, participation, job enrichment, cross utilization, and
teamwork.
Political Frame
The issue of power is the basis of the political frame (Pfeffer, 1981) and the
ability to use it to influence those who control decisions and actions (Mintzberg, 1983).
Kanter (1979) states that the source of a leader’s “real power” is in their ability to gain
“access to resources and information and the ability to act quickly…to accomplish more”
(p. 342). Power, therefore, is not necessarily authoritative, and is described by Mintzberg
(1983) as “a resource, skill or body of knowledge” (p. 335) used to manage
organizations.
Bolman and Deal (2003) described organizations as ‘living jungles’. The authors
characterize organizations as competitive environments where various interest groups
compete for limited resources. Within the political frame, “organizations are viewed as
complex systems of individuals and coalitions, each having its own interests, beliefs,
values, preferences, perspectives, and perceptions…power, politics, and influence are
essential and permanent facts of organizational life” (Shafritz, Ott, & Jang, 2005, p. 283).
According to the political frame, the purpose of an organization is to serve as an
arena where conflict and power struggles exist as part of everyday life. Political leaders
understand the political reality of organizations, the importance of divergent interest
groups, and the conflict associated with scarce resources. Political leaders act as
mediators who focus on managing conflict by creating arenas for negotiating differences,
articulate common issues among divergent groups, and develop reasonable compromises

17

and collaborative opportunities. Organizations achieve goals through acts of negotiations,
bargaining, compromise, and coercion (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Symbolic Frame
The symbolic frame views organizations as living entities and focuses on the
meaning created by participants. Cultural theorist Schein (1993), in reviewing
organizational culture theory through an anthropological lens, asserts that the focus on
cultures is to help “understand the hidden and complex aspects of organizational life” (p.
360). These complex aspects are comprised of a collection of values, beliefs, and
practices that define to organizational members who they are and the expectations on
how to do things.
Bolman and Deal (2003) describe organizations as ‘carnivals, theaters, or tribes’.
They are environments driven by activities that create shared meaning (Schein, 1993).
The cultural frame works best in ambiguous situations, where goals and information are
unclear. The use of symbols, rituals, and stories clarify an organization’s culture and
create meaning. Problems occur when organizational symbols lose meaning and when
people do not perform as expected. Symbolic leaders resolve these situations by altering
existing practices or implementing change. The role of the symbolic leader includes
“giving people something they can believe in” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 329), to provide
vision, and to inspire hope among organization members.
How Frames Work
It is postulated or theorized that leaders and managers utilize frames to gain
clarity about organizational problems and as an approach from which to develop

18

solutions. Bolman and Deal (2003) claim that leaders manage from a single frame, the
one they are most comfortable using. The authors, however, encourage leaders to use
multiple frames to assess and address organizational issues in order “to see and
understand more” (p. 433). The use of multiple frames would help leaders develop
flexible thinking from multiple angles, a skill needed to deal with the increasingly broad
range of organizational issues. The researchers further assert that effective management
of the increasing complexities of organizational life calls for “reframing”, a style of
leadership that “requires an ability to understand and use multiple perspectives, to think
about the same thing in more than one way” (p. 5). The authors further describe
reframing as artistic because it requires a fluid and flexible approach to understanding
and managing organizations.
The existing research on the use of frames has focused on leadership—how higher
education presidents, for example, utilize the frames—and the effectiveness of presidents
as leaders. The primary method used to capture and understand the effectiveness of
higher education presidents involved examining the experiences of presidents (Bensimon,
1989) and investigated the perceptions of presidents held by subordinates (Bensimon,
1990; Thompson, 2000).
Bensimon (1989) determined the extent to which college presidents utilized
Bolman and Deal’s four frames and found that factors such as institution type and length
of tenure influenced the number of frames used by these leaders. The study concluded
that community college presidents and those newer to the presidential position were more

19

inclined to use single frame approaches, while those more experienced in their roles and
working in four-year institutions utilized a multi-frame approach in their leadership style.
Thompson (2000) investigated the perceived effectiveness of college presidents
by examining the responses of their subordinates. A similar investigation by Heimovics,
Herman, and Coughlin (1993) involved a comparative study to determine the
effectiveness among executives in non-profit organizations. Both studies concluded that
effective leaders utilized complex thinking and a multiple frames approach in the
management of organizational issues.
There are very few studies highlighting the use of Bolman and Deal’s frames
within higher education. Existing research highlights the use of the four frames by
leaders. There are no studies, however, that show the use of frames to assess problems
within higher education, nor has a frame-based approach been used to assess the impact
of external policies on organizations within higher education or with people in leadership
positions below the level of president. As a result, this researcher selected student affairs
leaders as the sample for this study.
Higher Education, Student Affairs, and Government Policy
A discussion of the development of student affairs must take place within the
context of the development of American higher education (Nuss, 1996). Both are closely
linked, as the development of American colleges and universities contributed to the
growth of student affairs as a professional field. The following section examines the
progression of the American higher education system and the evolution of the student
affairs profession.

20

Historical Overview of Higher Education and Student Affairs
Early colonial colleges were religiously affiliated institutions patterned after
English universities such as Oxford and Cambridge (Nuss, 1996). Colonial American
colleges and universities were residential institutions open only to men from affluent
families. The goal of the colonial college was to educate and guide the social, moral, and
spiritual development of young affluent men (Knock, 1985).
The seeds for the expansion of American higher education began in the mid-19
th

century, with shifting societal views about education, the emergence of public
institutions, an increase in women taking part in higher education, and the initial
influence of government policy. During this period, society began to change its view on
higher education and began viewing it as a way to improve social and economic status
(Nuss, 1996). In 1825, Thomas Jefferson established the University of Virginia—the first
state-supported university in the country—which was secular and nondenominational
(Knock, 1985). Women began to enter higher education through finishing schools that
prepared them for cultural and social activities, but did not award formal degrees. In
1833, Oberlin College in Ohio was the first to open its doors to both men and women
(Knock, 1985).
Also during this period, the roles of faculty and administrators began to change.
The role of faculty narrowed and focused on academic pursuits, which included research
and classroom instruction. The role of the president shifted from the responsibility of
disciplining students and instead focused more on administrative management and
specialized roles associated with student affairs first developed (Fenske, 1989). In 1891,

21

Harvard University appointed LaBaron Briggs as its first dean. The role of the dean was
to relieve the president from the role of disciplinarian and to provide personal counseling
to students. The manifestation of student affairs resulted from the need for personnel to
take on the responsibilities of unpopular tasks and duties neglected by faculty and
administrators. In addition to disciplining students, the role of student affairs included
activities related to the “social, physical, moral, and spiritual well-being of students”
(Fenske, 1989, p. 6).
The three decades after World War II (WWII) played a significant role in the
growth and development of student affairs as a profession (Fenske, 1989). During this
period, the federal government increased its involvement in higher education through
financial support by enacting policy. Policy changes such as the G.I. Bill (1944), the Civil
Rights Act (1964), and Title IX of the Education Amendments (1972), would further
contribute to the growth of American higher education as well as to the continued
expansion and development of the field of student affairs.
Government Policy and Higher Education
The influence of the government on higher education is evident with the
numerous policies affecting these institutions such as The Morrill Land Grant Acts of
1862 and 1890, the G.I. Bill (1944), Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, Family
Education Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) (Barr & Keating, 1985; Buchanan,
1993). As a result, the scope of student affairs broadened significantly in response to the
growing demands of students, to include areas such as career guidance, maintenance of
student records, curriculum development, health services, personal and academic

22

advising, and student discipline. The organizational structures within American colleges
and universities eventually evolved into the familiar arrangement seen in present day
higher education institutions (Brubacher & Rudy, 1976). Researchers have noted that
within the last three decades alone, the number of government policies that have
encroached upon higher education has dramatically increased and anticipate this
progression to continue to persist (Lane, 1978; Kemper, Mollis, & Tierney, 1998).
To understand the relationship between higher education and government policy
requires one to understand the dependence that institutions have on government funding
(Buchanan, 1993). Barr and Keating (1985) reported that “institutions of higher education
are inextricably linked to larger society…including funding support, expectations for
student access, governmental regulations, and reactions from specific groups to
institutional decisions” (p. 62). Various external factors, including government, control
the financial support regulating the existence of higher education institutions. To ensure
that institutions adhere to the mandates of policies, the government designed contingency
clauses associated with the funding received by higher education institutions and other
federally funded agencies. Contingency clauses provided an assurance for the
government that financially dependent institutions would implement and follow the
mandate. The government imposed a penalty of loss of financial support to institutions
that do not conform.
An overview of the types of policies that affect higher education reveals four
general categories of mandates: expansion, activity regulation, accountability, and
access.

23

Expansion. Policies concerned with the development and expansion of higher
education institutions focused on providing resources and funding that would enable the
development of new colleges and universities. In 1857, the federal government
contributed four million acres of land to set up higher education institutions within the 34
states of the Union [Appendix C] at that time (Barr & Keating, 1985). One of the first
government policies to affect public higher education was the Morrill Act of 1862. This
act created land grants for the development of public colleges specializing in agriculture,
home economics, mechanical arts, and other professions that were practical at the time.
The grant provided 30,000 acres for each state’s senator and representative, based on the
1860 census. The states sold the land and used the funds to establish and finance public
institutions in each state.
The second Morrill Act of 1890 extended the grants provision to southern states
2

and helped establish Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), providing
Blacks with the opportunity to attain higher education. Other policies—such as the
Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963—provided financial assistance to higher
education institutions, funding the construction of residence halls, classrooms, and
libraries to accommodate the growing needs of an increasing student population (Nuss,
1996; Fenske, 1989).
Regulation. Policies related to the regulation of higher education institutions
focused on the standardization of activities. One example is the National Defense
Education Act of 1958 (Fenske, 1989), which targeted the development of standardized

2
Southern states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia

24

math, science, and language programs by providing financial assistance to students as
well as private and public colleges and universities. Similarly categorized policies
regulating the activities of institutions included the Family Education Rights and Privacy
Act of 1974 (FERPA), which protects the privacy of student records, and the Clery Act
(1990), which requires institutions to disclose crime statistics.
Accountability. Policies related to accountability focus on assessing the quality of
performance, productivity, and effectiveness in the use of public funding in higher
education institutions. The most significantly affected institutions are public colleges and
universities, because they rely on government as a primary source of funding. External
stakeholders, including the government, accrediting agencies, and public taxpayers, are
the driving force behind the push for accountability.
The development of accountability measures stems from limited government
funding (Zumeta, 1998) and public concerns related to the rising costs of higher
education (Alexander, 2000). A trend among accountability policies is performance
funding, which links government funding to institutional outcomes. Policies such as the
Student Right to Know Act (1990) requires higher education institutions to provide
annual reports on student performance outcomes. The Spellings Commission (2005), also
known as the Commission on the Future of Higher Education, focused on the
examination and improvement of institutional quality and effectiveness of American
colleges and universities.

25

Access within Higher Education
An area of significant interest within higher education has been government
policies related to the issue of access. Access policies focus on providing opportunities to
achieve higher education by removing financial and discriminatory barriers. A review of
policies influencing higher education reveals that these policies have more than
influenced the activities of colleges and universities. A significant trend has been
“widening opportunity” (Fenske, 1989, p. 14) in the access of higher education to a larger
population of people, especially women and minorities. The increasing diversity of new
college students resulted in increased demands for services and programming, resulting in
the further development of student affairs as a professional field. This firmly established
the role of student affairs within the higher education community.
Initially, as previously discussed, higher education was available only to affluent
white males (Knock, 1985; Nuss, 1996). Eventually, women gained entry with the
formation of women-only colleges. The Morrill Land Grant Acts of 1862 and 1890
contributed significantly to the expansion of American higher education by providing
financial funding and supported the development of Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCU) within the southern states, providing opportunities of higher
education for Blacks.
The most noteworthy financial support policy was the Servicemen’s
Readjustment Act of 1944 (the “GI Bill”). Prior to the war, higher education was largely
accessible only to those from wealthy backgrounds (Knock, 1985). The G.I. Bill provided
opportunity to attend college for millions of servicemen returning from the war, through

26

financial support to cover tuition and living expenses (Greenberg, 1997). Other access
policies such as the Higher Education Act of 1965 provided financial assistance to
students in the form of loans and paved the way for current financial aid programs.
Moreover, affirmative action policies increased access of higher education for
women and underrepresented minorities. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, also
known as “affirmative action”, is a highly debated topic within colleges and universities
across the nation. It is one of the most controversial access policies within higher
education. Affirmative action mandated “the elimination of discrimination and required
equal access and treatment for education and other programs receiving federal financial
assistance” (Nuss, 1996, p. 33). Similar policies include Title IX of the Education
Amendments (1972) which prohibited discrimination based on sex, and Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act (1973) which protected individuals from discrimination based on
disability.
For higher education institutions, affirmative action policies have resulted in a
continual battle between supporters and those opposed to its practice within the area of
admissions. Several landmark court cases have ensued in the struggle to provide access to
underrepresented student populations. These cases include Regents of the University of
California v. Bakke (1978), Hopwood v. State of Texas (1996), Gratz v. Bollinger (2003),
and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003).
The End of Using Race in Admissions
In 1996, thirty years after the passage of affirmative action, opponents shifted
focus and began attacking the policy one state at a time. California was the first to pass a

27

“race-neutral” law with Proposition 209, which prohibited the use of preferential
treatment “on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of
public employment, public education, or public contracting” (American Civil Rights
Institute, 2007). Not long after, several states would follow with similar laws, including
Washington (Initiative 200, 1997), Florida (One Florida Initiative, 2000), and Michigan
(Proposal 2 – Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, 2006).
It appears that the end of increasing access within higher education has arrived, as
“race-neutral” laws, such as Proposition 209, are imposing changes to the use of
preferential treatment upon higher education institutions across the country. As “race-
neutral” laws become more prevalent, they are changing organizational efforts of higher
education institutions, and in turn affecting the jobs of student affairs administrators. The
following section provides an overview of affirmative action and Proposition 209, in
order to provide the context for understanding the effects of race-sensitive laws in higher
education.
Affirmative Action

The civil rights movement of the 1950s brought the issue of racial discrimination
to the forefront of American society. Affirmative action emerged from the need to
remedy the issues of historical discrimination within the United States (Simmons, 1982).
President John F. Kennedy first introduced affirmative action in 1961 by signing
Executive Order 10925 (1961), which required government funded contractors to ‘take
affirmative action’ in the hiring of minorities. In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson
approved Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which stated:

28

No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color or national
origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be
subjected to discrimination under any program of activity receiving federal
financial assistance. (Civil Rights Act, 1964)

These early efforts of the initiative, however, produced little result in improving
conditions for minorities. In 1965, President Johnson further strengthened affirmative
action by signing Executive Order 11246 (1965), which required government-funded
contractors to "take affirmative action" in hiring and promoting minority employees.
Affirmative action was intended to serve as a device that would contribute to the social
advancement of minorities and women. The policy provided equal opportunity by
increasing the representation of minority groups in fields with a history of under-
representation, such as higher education.
During the 1950s and 1960s, higher education institutions realized the benefits of
diversity and the valuable learning experience it provided for students (Bowen & Bok,
1998; Rudenstine, 2001). Due to government mandates and the enforcement of
affirmative action policies, many higher education institutions across the nation “came to
believe that they had a role to play in educating minority students” (Bowen & Bok, 1998,
p. 6). Even though the law did not require higher education institutions to change
admissions practices, many institutions voluntarily made adjustments in their admissions
practices by considering race and ethnicity. This practice of voluntary affirmative action
was based on two goals (Bowen & Bok, 1998). The first goal was to enrich educational
experiences of college students by increasing student diversity. The second goal was to
assist minorities in advancing within the workforce and society by providing opportunity
for higher education.

29

The Debate over Affirmative Action
Since its introduction, affirmative action has faced unending debate that has
resulted in a nation divided in its views about the policy’s use, especially within the field
of higher education admissions (Green, 2004). Most of the controversy has centered on
the rationalization and intent behind the policy’s use.
Tierney’s (1996) analysis of affirmative action policy highlights three underlying
principles used by proponents of the policy to justify its use: “compensation, correction,
and diversification” (p. 123), but for each of these justifications, opponents of affirmative
action have responded with criticism. The rationale for compensation is based on the
legal perspective of compensating “victim injustice”. Opponents disagree with the idea of
compensating previous wrongdoings and argue that solutions for discrimination should
focus on present day issues and not on the compensation of descendents of those wronged
in the past.
The focus of correction concerns “righting present wrongs” (Tierney, 1997, p.
123). Corrective measures within affirmative action involve government intervention to
assure that equal opportunities exist for everyone within society. Criticism of corrective
measures focuses on the issue of merit. Affirmative action opponents claim that
employment and admission practices should be based on achievement, not quotas or
systems that reward people based on race. Proponents of affirmative action, however,
contend that redressing unfair practices requires aggressive and purposeful action.
Lastly, the goal for affirmative action is to advance efforts of diversification
within the workforce and in higher education. Opponents focus on the idea of reverse

30

discrimination, and believe that the procedures associated with affirmative action
redistribute social rewards or shift the issue of discrimination from one group to another.
Legal Issues with Affirmative Action
The practice and legitimacy of affirmative action also has been questioned. Since
the late 1970’s, the debate associated with affirmative action has resulted in numerous
court cases that have tested the constitutionality of the policy’s practice. Higher education
institutions have relied on the judicial system to interpret affirmative action laws, and
administrators have paid close attention to court rulings and state laws that have direct
impact on admissions processes and institutional efforts toward achieving diversity. Two
cases have significantly affected higher education institutions: Regents of the University
of California v. Bakke (1978), and Hopwood v. State of Texas (1996).
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). This case, referred to as
the Bakke case, was the first to challenge the use of affirmative action in admissions
practices in higher education. It set the precedent for the use of affirmative action in
higher education institutions as it addressed the legality of quotas and the use of race and
ethnicity in the admissions process (Rudenstine, 2001).
The case concerned Allan Bakke, a white male who applied twice to the
University of California at Davis School of Medicine and was denied admission both
times. At the time, the university utilized a two-tiered method in their admissions
procedures that incorporated standard admissions and a special program used solely for
minority applicants. Under the special program, the medical school reserved a
predetermined number of places in each entering class for minority applicants. Bakke

31

claimed that the special admission program violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which
says, in part, "No State . . . shall deny to any person… the equal protection of the laws"
(U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.). Bakke alleged unequal
treatment from the university due to his race, and believed that had he been a minority,
the university would have granted him admission to the school.
The United States Supreme Court was closely divided in its opinion of the Bakke
case. Four of the Supreme Court Justices found the reason of overcoming the effects of
past discrimination and minority under-representation important goals to justify the
university’s admissions policy. Four others considered the practice of racial quotas to be
discriminatory, and consequentially an infringement of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Justice
Lewis Powell, the ninth justice, held the final decision. Powell decreed that the use of
racial quotas in school admissions was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution, but allowed the university to consider race as one determinant
among several other factors for the particular purpose of achieving diversity within the
student body.
Hopwood v. State of Texas (1996). In the second case, Hopwood v. State of Texas
(1996), the United States Fifth Court of Appeals barred the use of affirmative action in
university admissions and concluded that the Bakke decision was flawed. In 1992, the
University of Texas Law School denied admission to Cheryl J. Hopwood, a white female.
Hopwood charged that the law school denied her admission despite her being better
qualified than many of the admitted minority candidates. The Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled in Ms. Hopwood’s favor, prohibiting the University of Texas Law School

32

from considering race in the admissions process. The Supreme Court declined ruling over
the case, in effect outlawing the use of affirmative action in admissions in the states of
Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The Hopwood case is an important example of a
federal circuit court of appeals directly contradicting the Bakke decision and it would
serve as the starting point in the revolution of higher education admissions systems across
the country.
Other Cases. Since Hopwood, two additional court cases have challenged the
legality of affirmative action practices within higher education admissions. First, in
Grutter v. Bollinger (2001), the United States District Courts ruled against the University
of Michigan Law School’s use of affirmative action within admissions. In 2002, the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the lower court, and referred to the
Bakke case permitting the use of race. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court in
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), overturned the decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals, and approved the ruling of the District Court, citing that the use of race within
admissions policy was constitutional. The second case, Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), the
United States Supreme Court ruled against the University of Michigan, declaring the use
of race as a factor in undergraduate admissions was unconstitutional.
The conflicting court rulings and constitutional mandates over affirmative action
have produced uncertainty in higher education institutions over how best to implement
affirmative action efforts. Administrators must focus on balancing efforts to preserve
diversity on college campuses without considering race in admissions or face the
possibility of legal challenges.

33

State Involvement
Between 1996 and 2007, several states (e.g., California, Washington, Florida,
and Michigan) passed laws to eliminate the use of affirmative action or race-based
admissions within higher education. The basis of “race-neutral” laws stem from a
reexamination of the need for affirmative action and a belief that minorities have made
significant improvements over the last 30 years. In 1996, California voters passed
Proposition 209, which amended the state constitution to specifically prohibit public
universities from giving “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” (American Civil Rights Institute, 1996). Two
years later, in 1998, the state of Washington followed with the passage of Initiative 200,
which abolished the practice of affirmative action in public institutions such as schools,
employment, and contracting (Washington Secretary of State, 2009). In 2000, Florida’s
governor signed Executive Order 99-281, referred to as the “One Florida Initiative”,
which banned all use of affirmative action in state schools, government employment and
contracting. Moreover, in 2006, Michigan passed Proposal 2—The Michigan Civil Rights
Initiative (MCRI)—which banned the use of preferential treatment within college
admissions, financial aid programs, state contracting and employment.
California’s Proposition 209
In July of 1995, University of California Regent Ward Connerly led efforts to
eliminate the use of race-based systems in the admission practices at the University of

34

California. Connerly’s efforts resulted in a majority vote among the UC Regents to end
the use of race in the admissions process with the adoption of a regental policy,
Resolution SP-1. Approved in July 1995, Resolution SP-1 prohibited the use of
preferences in university admissions, employment and contracting practices. With respect
to higher education, Resolution SP-1 “eliminated consideration of race and gender in the
admission of students to the university” (University of California Office of the President,
2001).
Coincidental to these efforts, Connerly also chaired the campaign for the
California Civil Rights Initiative, otherwise known as Proposition 209, and was able to
qualify the initiative for inclusion on the November 1996 ballot. The initiative states: “the
state shall not discriminate against, or grant 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” (American Civil Rights
Institute, 1996). California voters would pass the initiative, thereby amending the state
constitution, prohibiting the use of race and ethnicity in higher education admissions
practices.
Controversy
The adoption of Resolution SP-1 and passage of Proposition 209 was
controversial among supporters and opponents of affirmative action. The controversy
focused on the issue of equity. Proponents of Proposition 209 asserted that reverse
discrimination involved in the practice of affirmative action was wrong. They also
proposed that to achieve a colorblind society, programs such as affirmative action—

35

which from their perspective focused on dividing races—should be eliminated.
Conversely, supporters of affirmative action believed that Proposition 209 would
eliminate equal opportunity for women and minorities.
University of California administrators raised concerns about changes that might
be required due to the passage of Proposition 209, such as alterations of admissions
procedures and changes in developing and implementing strategies to preserve and
enhance campus diversity. In 2006, ten years after the passage of the policy, literature
related to Proposition 209 has focused on emphasizing the impact on admissions and on
the declining number of college students from underrepresented groups who have
enrolled at University of California campuses.
The effect of Proposition 209, however, extends beyond the issue of race,
ethnicity, and gender. Current literature does not explore Proposition 209’s negative
impact on the university’s programmatic efforts to provide support, training, and outreach
to underrepresented groups. The full extent of Proposition 209’s impact, therefore, is not
known as there has been little research examining the policy’s overall effect on
educational organizations or in understanding the challenges faced by administrators who
had to implement the law.
Chapter Summary
To more fully understand the impact of race-sensitive policies on student affairs
organizations requires stepping back into history to examine the development of and the
interrelationship of various facets within American higher education. This chapter
provided an overview of the development of higher education, the evolution of student

36

affairs, a review of the increasing influence of government policies, access within higher
education, and selectively reviewed affirmative action and Proposition 209.
The issue of access is significant within higher education as the debate
surrounding affirmative action continues today (Orfield, 2001). Affirmative action
required government-funded contractors to be more proactive in recruiting and promoting
minorities and women, to aid social advancement (Bowen & Bok, 1998). From 1978 to
2003, opponents questioned the legitimacy of affirmative action through court cases
arguing against the constitutionality of the use of the policy in higher education
admissions practices (Moreno, 2003; Garrison-Wade & Lewis, 2004; Holzer & Neumark,
2006). Similarly, between 1996 and 2006, state governments have become involved in
the affirmative action debate with the introduction of “race-neutral” laws. California
voters initiated state involvement in 1996 with the passage of Proposition 209, which
amended California’s constitution and eliminated the use of affirmative action—
eliminating preferential treatment.
After the passage of Proposition 209, senior University of California
administrators and student affairs staff expressed concern and uncertainty about the affect
of the law on this organization. In order to understand the impact of “race-neutral” laws
such as Proposition 209 within higher education, an additional factor is needed: a
framework from which to analyze organizations and the events surrounding the policy in
question. Bolman and Deal (2003) present the concept of organizational ‘frames’ as a
possible methodological approach that can provide a unique and flexible way to examine,
analyze, and understand organizations. In this study, the frames serve as a guide in

37

examining the circumstances surrounding the passage and implementation of Proposition
209. The next chapter will address the methodology used in this study.

38

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Chapter Overview
The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of a “race-neutral” law,
Proposition 209, on the organizations and the professional experiences of student affairs
administrators at selected campuses of the University of California. This chapter presents
the approach, methodological design, sample, data collection, data analysis, reliability,
and limitations of the study.
Approach
This study used a qualitative research approach. The goal of qualitative research
is to understand how people make sense of their experiences (Merriam, 1998). This
approach utilizes “methods and techniques most suitable for collecting and analyzing
data…which focuses on meaning in context” (p. 5). This section presents an overview of
the characteristics of qualitative research as well as a rationale for its use in this study.
Characteristics of Qualitative Research
Qualitative research involves various characteristics that are unique to such an
approach. In qualitative research, small samples are purposefully selected in order to
examine the experiences of participants in depth. The objective of qualitative research is
not to generalize findings, as is the purpose in most quantitative research, but rather to
explore information-rich situations that can shed light on the question being investigated
(Patton, 2002).

39

There are various types of data used in qualitative research, such as observations,
stories and narratives, and documents. These data provide detailed descriptions that
illustrate and convey the experiences of participants (Patton, 2002). Qualitative research
is people-centered and places the researcher in close contact with participants; therefore,
the researcher is an instrument for data collection and analysis (Merriam, 1998). By being
closely connected to the participants, the researcher can take full advantage of
opportunities to maximize data collection and to react or respond to the situations
presented (Merriam, 1998).
Rationale for Using Qualitative Research in this Study
There are several reasons for the use of the qualitative research approach for this
study. First, the qualitative approach serves as the best method of inquiry to answer
questions that require exploration in order to uncover the explanations of a phenomenon
(Yin, 1984; Merriam, 1998). Second, this approach also allows the use of descriptive
details to illuminate the experiences of those under study. According to Merriam (1998),
qualitative design relies on rich descriptive data provided by participants and utilizes the
researcher as the principal instrument for data collection. Third, the flexibility of
qualitative design is another factor that allows the researcher to adapt to the situation
presented in order to gain more insight into the research (Merriam, 1998). The flexibility
associated with qualitative research is an advantage that allows the researcher to respond
to changing conditions and to examine emerging issues. Finally, qualitative research is
inductive in design; the inductive nature of qualitative research focuses on generated
themes that emerge directly from the data presented by the participants (Merriam, 1998).

40

Case Study Methodological Approach
This research used a case study methodological approach. There are varying
perspectives in defining a case study. Yin (1989) defines case studies as an empirical
process of inquiry utilizing multiple methods in the collection of evidence to investigate
“contemporary phenomenon” (p.23). Merriam (1998) summarized case studies “in terms
of process of actually carrying out the investigation, the unit of analysis (the bounded
system, the case), or the end product” (p. 34). Specifically, a case study is a research
process in which the objective is to provide detailed descriptions and thorough analysis of
a clearly defined incident or social entity or phenomenon.
The case studies approach is distinct from other qualitative methodologies in
several ways. First, by definition, cases focus on bounded systems. This refers to the
limits and boundaries that define the situation and the people under study (Merriam,
1998; Patton, 2002). The complexities within a bounded system make it interesting to
study cases in depth in order to develop a full understanding of the phenomenon. Due to
the attention that this approach places on bounded units, it exposes the relationships of
important characteristics attributed to the phenomenon.
The second feature, which distinguishes the case study approach from other
qualitative designs, is the openness of the methods used for data collection and analysis
(Yin, 1989). Case study research is open to “any and all methods of gathering data, from
testing to interviewing” (Merriam, 1998, p. 28). Yin (1989) has claimed that the strength
of the case study approach lies in its use of “multiple sources of evidence” (p. 96) which
includes documentation, archival records, interviews, direct observations, participant

41

observations, and artifacts. Yin (1989) asserts that the ability to include a wide variety of
evidence is a distinctive feature of case studies, which enables researchers to address a
wider range of issues. Another important attribute resulting from the utilization of
multiple forms of evidence is the ability to triangulate results in order to validate the
study.
Lastly, Yin (1989) notes that case studies focus on “contemporary phenomenon
within real-life context” (p. 13) where limits exist in “the extent of control an investigator
has over actual behavioral events” (p. 16). Case studies are best used to “explore those
situations in which the intervention being evaluated has no clear, single set of outcomes”
(p.25).
The University of California

The University of California, established in 1869, is comprised of ten campuses
located throughout the state—Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, Los Angeles, Merced, Riverside,
San Francisco, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz (University of California,
2007). In 1960, the California Legislature approved The California Master Plan for
Higher Education (The “Master Plan”), which arose from the need to manage the higher
education demands of the baby boom generation which was expected to swell college
enrollments between 1960 and 1975 (University of California Office of the President -
Education Relations Department, 2007).
The Master Plan established a statewide plan to coordinate a system assuring
California residents universal access to high-quality and affordable higher education
(University of California, 2004). As part of the plan, the state designated a tripartite

42

system encompassing the University of California system (UC), the California State
University system (CSU), and the California Community Colleges (CCC). The Master
Plan designated the University of California as the state’s main academic research
institution. This gave the UC campuses the authority to confer doctoral degrees in
addition to providing instruction within the fields of law, medicine, dentistry, and
veterinary medicine.
The tripartite system systemized admissions procedures to each higher education
system. Campuses within the University of California were designated to provide
admissions to the top one-eighth (1/8) of graduating high school students in California,
while CSU campuses were allowed to admit the top one-third (1/3). The CCC admitted
all students. The California Community Colleges served an important function in
California’s commitment to providing access to higher education, as they assisted
students with transfer eligibility to either UC or CSU campuses.
For this study, six campuses from the University of California system were
chosen—the University of California at Berkeley (UCB), the University of California at
Irvine (UCI), the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), the University of
California at Riverside (UCR), the University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB), and
the University of California at San Diego (UCSD). According to the most recent data
available (University of California, 2007), collectively, these six campuses enrolled
128,849 undergraduate students. Table 2 lists the demographic make-up of students
enrolled in these institutions. Table 3 shows the mean SAT and graduation rates for each
of the six campuses.

43

Table 2: Combined Student Demographics of Sample Universities
Ethnicity

Percentage of Population

African American
American Indian
Chicano/Latino
Asian American
White
2.9 %
0.47%
14.3%
37.9%
32.8 %

Table 3: SAT and Graduation Rates of UC Campuses
Campuses Mean SAT Graduation Rate

UC Berkeley 1313 87%
UC Irvine 1170 76%
UC Los Angeles 1287 87%
UC Riverside 1079 64%
UC San Diego 1243 85%
UC Santa Barbara 1150 75%

Sample
The approach used in this study is termed purposeful sampling, and will include
snowball or chain sampling (Patton, 2002), an approach used to find and gather potential
sources. This technique enables a researcher to locate “information-rich key informants”

44

(p. 237) that can serve as participants relevant to the study. According to Patton (2002)
“the logic and power of purposeful sampling lies in selecting information-rich cases for
study in depth. Information-rich cases are those from which one can learn a great deal
about issues of central importance to the purpose of the research” (p. 230).
In the current study, chain sampling was used to locate key participants employed
at the sampled campuses between 1995 and 2005, the period immediately prior to and
approximately nine years after the passage of Proposition 209. This timeframe was
chosen to assure that participants were employees prior to the passage of Proposition 209
and continued employment during the period when policy changes were implemented at
the respective institutions. One can assume that study participants were familiar with
institutional practices and circumstances on their campuses prior to the implementation of
Proposition 209.
The study sample included six vice chancellors and approximately 24 student
affairs professionals and six faculty leaders (see Table 4). The researcher selected this
combination of individuals in order to provide clarity and detail about the circumstances
and events within each organization from the perspective of various campus members.

45

Data Collection Procedures
A major feature of the case study methodology is the ability of a researcher to
employ multiple sources of evidence (Yin, 1989). Yin asserts that collecting data from
multiple sources enables a broader range of data examination and allows for triangulation
of the evidence. The present study will employ two methods of data collection:
interviews of high-level staff and faculty, and reviews of documentation and archival
records. The next section provides a detailed overview of each of the data collection
procedures and a rationale for their use in this study.
The primary method of data collection—interviewing—involves interacting with
participants. Based on this method, federal guidelines and instructions set by the
University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), participants
Table 4: Sample Distribution by Campus
Campuses Vice Chancellor Student Affairs Staff Professor

UC Berkeley 1 3 1
UC Irvine 1 3 1
UC LA 1 3 1
UC Riverside 1 3 1
UC San Diego 1 3 1
UC Santa Barbara 1 3 1

46

completed informed consent forms in order to participate in the study. The informed
consent included a detailed description of the study, highlighted the targeted institutions,
and noted the interview questions. This information gave subjects the opportunity to
decline participating in the study. The researcher did not share the information collected
in this study in order to protect the identity and privacy of participants.
Interviews
Interviewing participants is a method used to gather information when direct
observation of those under study is not possible (Creswell, 2003; Merriam, 1998; Patton,
2002). Merriam (1998) also noted that when research focuses on past events, interviews
serve as a method to illuminate those experiences. California voters passed Proposition
209 in November 1996; the period of interest for the current study begins in 1995 and
extends to 2005.
The interviewing process involved two stages. The first stage involved
interviewing vice chancellors, the senior level administrators within the division of
student affairs. The second stage focused on interviewing staff from departments within
student affairs impacted by Proposition 209, and faculty leaders.
Stage 1: Vice-Chancellor Interviews. The first stage of data collection involved
semi-structured interviews with vice chancellors from the selected campuses. Semi-
structured interviews allow for the exploration of unknown phenomenon. The approach is
flexible, allowing the researcher to “respond to the situation at hand…and to new ideas
on the topic (Merriam, 1998, p. 74). Interviews were conducted either face-to-face or via
telephone. Each interview lasted from 45-60 minutes. The researcher provided a copy of

47

the interview protocol [Appendix F] to each interview subject one week prior to the
scheduled date of the interview. Each interview was tape recorded, and fully transcribed
by a third party.
As part of the data collection process, the researcher queried interviewed vice
chancellors for other potential key informants to be included in this study. Key
informants are individuals, employed by the University of California as directors, student
affairs professionals, or faculty between 1995 and 2005. Patton (2002) indicates that key
informants are “people who are particularly knowledgeable about the inquiry setting and
articulate about their knowledge - people whose insights can prove particularly useful in
helping…understand what is happening and why” (p. 321). Since more than 10 years has
passed since the passage of Proposition 209, identification of individuals involved in
student affairs becomes significant.
Stage 2: Student Affairs Professionals & Faculty Leaders Interviews. The second
stage involved interviews with individual student affairs professionals and faculty
leaders. These individuals worked for the University of California during the period of
interest (i.e., 1995-2005). The interview protocol was the same as that employed in
interviewing the vice chancellors shown in Appendix F. The interviews lasted
approximately 45-60 minutes. The researcher furnished participants with the interview
questions prior to the interview and each interview was tape recorded and fully
transcribed.

48

Review of Documentation and Archival Records
The second method of data collection involved collecting various documents and
other archival records. The items reviewed included public documents such as
newspapers, magazines, meeting minutes, websites, and organizational reports. The
purpose of gathering the documents was to learn more about the situation, person, the
history and other facts of the event being investigated (Merriam, 1998). As a secondary
data source, the collection of document and archival records can provide further insight
into the context surrounding the phenomenon. According to Patton (2002) “documents
provide the evaluator with information about many things that cannot be observed” (p.
293).
Including documents and archival records in the data collection complements the
interviewing process by establishing an additional opportunity to identify other relevant
issues for inquiry (Patton, 2002). Merriam (1998) highlighted several reasons for using
documents as data. Similar to the rationale in using interviews, documents are descriptive
and can be used to study past events that can no longer be observed or when informants
may no longer be available. Documents can establish the foundation for and background
of the problem under investigation. Finally, documents as data are stable, meaning that
the researcher’s presence does not alter the information.
Data Analysis Procedures
Analysis of data is the process of making sense of the collected data (Patton,
2002; Creswell, 2003; Merriam, 1998). It involves multiple steps that include
preparation, reduction, representation, and interpretation of the data. Analysis is a

49

continual process that begins as soon as the first sets of data are collected. It requires
continual reflection and analysis in order to gain deeper understanding of the
phenomenon under study.
The following sections highlight the analysis procedures for the two types of data
collected for this study: interviews, documents and archival records.
Analysis of Interviews
The analysis of the interview data in this study involved conventional analysis of
content. Since this study relied on data from several institutions or cases, there were
several stages in the process of analysis. Initial data analysis activities included
transcribing the recorded interviews and categorizing them by institution.
The researcher employed measures to protect the privacy and confidentiality of
participants in order not to reveal sensitive or incriminating information. To assure data
confidentiality, the researcher developed a coding system to identify each institution and
participant. Information identifying each institution and each participant remained
separate in a secured location, and separate from the location where data was being
analyzed.
The analysis of the interview data took place in four stages. Stage 1 involved a
within-case analysis of the data collected from the individual institutions at the vice
chancellor level. Stage 2 was a cross-case analysis of the data at the same level as Stage
1 (i.e., vice chancellor level data). Stage 3 involved refining the interviewing process
based on feedback gained during the first two stages. Stage 4 of the analysis was similar
to the first three stages, except that the researcher analyzed the data obtained from

50

interviewed student affairs staff and other significant faculty. The following sections
provide additional detail of what occurred during each of these stages.
Stage 1: Individual Institutions – Vice Chancellors. Stage 1 data analysis
involved within-case methodology. Merriam (1998) defines within-case analysis as a
process whereby each of the individual institutions (cases) is considered as its own
inclusive case. The goal of this process is to learn the background and variables that may
be significant to the case. The researcher transcribed, reviewed, and coded for general
themes and categories, which appeared significant within each of the individual
campuses. This process makes use of the terminology used by the participants. Once
analyzed, the researcher presented the data through tables and charts that highlighted the
various categories and themes that arose.
Stage 2: Cross-Case Analysis – Vice Chancellors. The second stage of interview
data analysis was cross-case analysis, which involved comparing patterns and themes
across the various cases, searching for similarities and differences between cases (Yin,
1981; Merriam, 1998). The goal of cross-case analysis is to link, evaluate, and translate
findings across a number of cases. To increase the external validity or the generalizability
of the study the researcher employed cross-case analysis. The use of more people and
places increases the generazability of the study.
Stage 3: Protocol Refinement. After completing data analysis for vice
chancellors, the researcher refined interview questions based on the themes generated in
the initial interviews with vice chancellors. After the first interviews, the researcher
revised the order of interview questions asked based on the themes shared by interview

51

participants, and revised the wording of some interview questions to provide better flow
and clarity during interviewing process. The revision of the interview questions and the
order in which the questions were asked did not vary substantively from that which
occurred in the first two stages of the data analysis.
Stage 4: Student Affairs Staff, Directors and Faculty Leaders Interviews. The
final stage of data analysis was similar to the analyses performed in Stages 1 through 3,
except this stage used the data obtained from interviewing student affairs administrators
and faculty leaders. First, each individual case was reviewed using within-case analysis.
Next, data from the various institutions were analyzed using cross-case analysis.
Analysis of Documents and Archival Records
Documents and other archival records from each institution were reviewed in
conjunction with the analysis of the interview data. Documents and archival records
reviewed included institution website, meeting minutes, institutional reports, periodicals,
and memos. The first step involved categorization of documents by institution. The
second step in the review of documents focused on determining contextual information
surrounding the passage and implementation of Proposition 209.
Data Reliability and Validity
Researchers incorporate the method of triangulation to increase the strength and
validity of a study by combining methods or types of data (Patton, 2002). Triangulation
involves the use of multiple research methods in the examination of a social phenomenon
(Mathison, 1988; Patton, 2002). The goal of triangulation is to show that different
methods yield consistent findings, and overcome any uncertainties resulting from bias

52

and other problems that may develop from single-method, single-researcher, and single-
theory studies (Patton, 2002).
In this study, the researcher used several methods associated with triangulation to
ensure the reliability of this study. The first method involves data triangulation—the use
of several data sources (Mathison, 1988). The data for this study included several
institutions as well as multiple groups of people with differing job titles and jobs
functions within the University of California; each of these variations served as its own
separate and unique case. This is a cross-case analysis; the inclusion of several
institutions or cases allows for comparison of information about the phenomenon from
each institution or group against another (Patton, 2002).
The second method focuses on multiple analyst triangulation—the use of multiple
people to analyze and compare findings (Patton, 2002). The researcher utilized three
peers, not associated with this study, to review and analyze the collected data. The
researcher selected peers based on their knowledge of Bolman and Deal’s four frames.
The researcher provided instructions to the analysts and outlined the details of how to
conduct the analysis [Appendix G]. Once completed, the researcher compared the
findings of all three analysts along with the researcher’s findings to ensure consistency.
Triangulation of the analysis of data adds credibility and confidence in regards to the
arrived conclusion.

53

Methodological Limitations

Several factors may limit the generalizability of the findings of this study.
1. The first is the sampling approach used—purposeful sampling—which may limit
access to the target sample because of the specificity of the criteria. Because there
were a small number of people that fit within the criteria of this research, it was
difficult to find an adequate number of qualified subjects.
2. The small number of sites sampled, as well as the narrow focus on student affairs
units within the University of California campuses used in this study, may have
affected the applicability and transferability of this study to other institutions.
Additionally, five of the six institutions selected for this study—UCLA, UCI, UCR,
UCSB and UCSD—are geographically located within southern California, which may
bias the results towards the perspectives and experiences of those who work and live
in southern California.
3. The time allotted for the collection of data, six months, is a short timeframe; this did
not allow more time for locating more key informants.
4. A more complete analysis of documents and other archival records was not feasible,
as relevant documents may no longer exists or be available.
5. The passage of Proposition 209 was more than ten years ago, participants were not
always able to remember or recall all of the details related to the event in question and
consequently were not always able to provide a fully accurate account of events.
6. This study focused on the University of California system. As noted in the Master
Plan for Higher Education in California, California has a three-tiered higher education

54

system. This study only investigated the top-tier system—the University of California
—and did not take into consideration the impact that Proposition 209 might have on
other higher education systems or institutions in the state. The findings of this study,
therefore, are not generalizable to those organizations, since this study did not
examine the impact of “race-neutral” policies on other types of higher education
institutions.
7. This study focused on undergraduate admissions. Graduate programs and
professional school programs (e.g., law, business, dentistry, and medicine) may also
have been affected by the passage of Proposition 209. Since this study only
investigated the effects of Proposition 209 at the undergraduate level, the findings of
this study are not generalizable to graduate and professional programs within public
higher education institutions.
8. This study used a very small sample size, which may not have encompassed a broad
view of experiences from student affairs personnel. All participants in this study
indicated both their support for affirmative action practices and their opposition to
Proposition 209. Personnel who supported passage of Proposition 209 did not
volunteer to participate and were not included in this study. This study, therefore,
provides only a partial understanding of the experiences of student affairs
administrators and staff.
9. A person other than the researcher transcribed the taped interviews. Because a
different person did the transcription, there is a possibility of errors in the
transcription of the interviews.

55

10. The utilization of multiple analyst triangulation involved coding and an analysis of
the data by other persons. The use of other people to analyze the data could be a
potential source of error within this study.

Chapter Summary
Chapter 3 reviewed the research methodology used for this study. The research
design will help address the research questions for this study. The next chapter presents
research findings for this study. The final chapter will present conclusions and
recommendations.

56

Chapter 4

FINDINGS

Chapter Overview

This chapter will present the general findings for this research. Chapter 5 will
present a discussion and analysis of the research questions based on Bolman and Deal’s
frames.
Results of Interviews for Vice Chancellors and Student Affairs Staff
Research Question 1:
What challenges did Proposition 209 present to student affairs administrators?
The passage of the Proposition 209 policy forced public institutions within the
state of California to eliminate the use of preferential treatment in carrying out day-to-day
operational procedures. This presented several challenges to senior administrators and
student affairs staff within UC campuses. Four specific themes emerged from the
personal insights shared by vice chancellors and student affairs staff. The first and most
significant challenge related to changes of institutional policies and procedures. The
second focused on the problems brought about by changes to state funding. The third
challenge reported centered on the campus community’s hostile reaction directed towards
UC administrators and staff. The final challenge focused on the morale problems of
student affairs staff. Table 5 presents an overview of these challenges and serves as a
guide for understanding the specific issues that contributed to each of the three main
challenges faced by student affairs.

57

Table 5: Challenges Associated with Proposition 209
Themes Contributing Factors

Procedural Policies and Procedures
Financial Impact on Staff
Political Activity
Community Reaction

Anger
Alienation
Morale on the Job

Personal Conflict
Frustration

Procedural Challenges – Policies and Procedures
The passage of Proposition 209 forced UC campus administrators to review and
revise institutional policies and required student affairs personnel to alter procedures by
eliminating the use of race and ethnicity in operational activities within admissions
and outreach. As previously discussed in Chapter Two, the UC Regents adopted
Resolution SP-1 in 1995, which “prohibited the consideration of race, religion, sex, color,
ethnicity, or national origin as criteria for admission to the University or to any program
of study” (Regents of the University of California, 2001, para.1).
The majority of interviewed student affairs staff—similar to the responses of the
vice chancellors—indicated that Proposition 209 affected their work processes within two
areas: admissions and outreach. Proposition 209 created problems that limited the staff’s

58

ability to make admissions decisions and to develop outreach programs by eliminating
the use of race and ethnicity from the decision-making process within these areas. When
asked to describe the challenges brought about by the law, one staff member described
how it raised questions about current work efforts within the areas of admissions and
outreach:
We were no longer able to use a factor that we know impacts students in terms of
accessibility…We were struggling with trying to capture those elements that a
student gave us in their application …So it did change the way…where we could
decide. Did we have a model for admissions? Did we have a model for outreach
and recruitment that didn’t restrict us in terms of who we had access to? It
actually served a function of restricting us more…It got to the point where we
really couldn’t…run programs.

Proposition 209 affected the university’s ability to make higher education accessible to
underrepresented students, because the law changed the way the university could make
admissions decisions and the ways in which it could recruit underrepresented students.
The law forced campus administrators to eliminate the use of affirmative action, which
previously allowed them to take race and ethnicity into consideration. The changes
brought about by the mandates of Proposition 209 challenged student affairs staff in
determining how to find diversity within these groups without using race and ethnicity.
Student affairs staff viewed the mandates of Proposition 209 as restrictive because it
limited their ability to focus on the diversity of underrepresented students and affected
the implementation of outreach and recruitment programs offered by the institution.
Student affairs staff highlighted the inability to achieve diversity as a major
problem that developed from the passage of Proposition 209. The following staff member
discussed how Proposition 209 eliminated a tool that enabled them to achieve diversity:

59

We no longer had a tool to increase representation from the various
underrepresented ethnic groups in California. Though we continued to value
diversity, in the broad sense of diversity and specifically in areas of ethnicity we
had no tools to impact that aspect of our goal…So we had no tools to increase
underrepresented populations, so the impact was we were put in a position of
valuing a goal but without tools to totally achieve the goal.

UC campus administrators continued to value diversity despite the requirements of
Proposition 209, which affected the way student affairs personnel could do their job.
Another staff member from a different campus described the lack of flexibility resulting
from the elimination of race and ethnicity:
It took away the flexibility that the university had to take race and ethnicity into
consideration in the admissions process. It made that illegal. By taking that
variable out, it made it very difficult to have diversity as it relates to race and
ethnicity upfront in your processes. By making that illegal, it made it a challenge
to look for diversity, to have diversity within your pool.

Student affairs staff viewed affirmative action as an instrument that had given them the
ability to achieve institutional goals related to diversity. Affirmative action enabled
student affairs staff to take race and ethnicity into consideration in their development of
programs that specifically addressed underrepresented student populations and in their
consideration within the application review process. The passage of Proposition 209, a
“race-neutral” law, eliminated affirmative action and no longer permitted state colleges or
universities to give preferential treatment nor consideration of race and ethnicity within
admissions. The law challenged the ability of admissions staff to find diversity within
their applicants because it no longer allowed them to target or implement programs for
specific underrepresented groups. As a result, student affairs staff found it difficult to
achieve institutional goals related to diversity.

60

One new obstacle faced by admissions staff came about from the uncertainty
raised in determining how to achieve the institution’s goal of diversity. In the following
interview excerpt, an admissions staff member sheds light on the questions raised
concerning how to identify students within Proposition 209’s “race-neutral”
requirements:
There are things that we know we cannot do. We can’t exclude anyone based on
race and ethnicity. We can’t give a service to only students who come from a
particular race or ethnicity. But this whole idea of ‘how do we identify students,
how do we recruit students, how do we market this to students?’ It’s a yellow
light area, it’s sort of unclear as to how explicit you could be in that recruitment
process.

Student affairs staff encountered challenges in determining how to value
underrepresented students within the requirements of Proposition 209. Student affairs
staff felt distressed with the dilemma of how to do their work while at the same time
trying to achieve diversity without using race or ethnicity to identify underrepresented
students.
Proposition 209 forced student affairs staff to redesign programs so that they were
“race-neutral.” The elimination of the use of race and ethnicity forced the campus to open
all programs to a broader audience. A staff member raised concerns about new problems
presented with the new “race-neutral” strategy of and non-targeted recruitment and
outreach programs, and described her experience with the implementation of a “race-
neutral” approach:
What we learned is that when we visit the schools and use the resources we have
with that strategy, we don’t see underrepresented students. I can go to a school
and there is an audience of 200. I remember vividly. I would…just see a handful
of underrepresented students…we don’t see large populations of underrepresented
students…so we began to look at a model of where are underrepresented students

61

and how can we gain access to them if we’re not finding them in the schools and
they’re not coming to us.

The outcome in implementing “race-neutral” programs was unfavorable for student
affairs staff because it reduced access to underrepresented student populations. The
neutral or non-targeted approach was not effective in the marketing or recruitment of
underrepresented student populations. The result of following the law compelled student
affairs staff to figure out new ways to gain access to underrepresented students. A
discussion on the new approaches used to access underrepresented students is presented
later in this chapter.
Financial Resources Challenges
Background. The UC Regent’s passage of Resolution SP-1 in 1995 was a unique
event connected to Proposition 209. As part of Resolution SP-1, the Regents viewed
outreach as a strategy to offset their inability to use affirmative action within admissions
and allocated resources to develop outreach programs (University of California Office of
the President, 1997, para.1). In 1998, the Regents promised to designate $35 million
dollars, doubling the amount of the total budget from previous years—to help UC
campuses boost outreach efforts. From 1999 to 2001, the state continued to provide
additional funding geared toward outreach efforts. The inflow of new monies enabled UC
campuses to expand their efforts to develop new programs and to hire additional staff.
Initially, increased financial resources allocated across the UC system enabled
campuses to focus on developing outreach efforts to offset the impact of not being able to
use race in the admissions process. Several of the interviewed staff members indicated

62

the increase in financial support led to the extensive development of outreach programs.
One staff member recounted the expansion of programs and staffing on her campus:
Now in the aftermath of (Prop) 209 right when I came over to CEP (Center for
Educational Partnerships), there was a lot of additional resources that came to us
at the state level. So the state funded programs actually…doubled in size. We
were immediately able to have more middle school outreach and expand the
geographic area we were serving. And so the programs were able to grow very
quickly.

The increase in state funding enabled student affairs staff to expand outreach activities to
student populations not previously included. New programs focused on targeting middle
schools as well as schools in other geographical areas. The same staff member explained
that with the increased number of programs, the campus hired more staff to meet the
growing demands put on their unit:
In fact, the staff of those programs, the actual field people who were going out to
serve directly in schools…doubled at that time. So we had twice as many people
going out to high schools and some middle schools, allowing us to expand into
districts and schools that we hadn’t served before.

The additional funding also provided the means for outreach units to augment the number
of student affairs staff needed to support and implement the newly expanded programs
and services.
In 2001, the University of California system began to feel the effects of budget
cutbacks because of the initial phase of the economic crisis in the state. The height of the
financial reductions took place between 2003 and 2004 when the state decreased
previously allocated resources by nearly 50%. This dramatic decrease in available
funding adversely affected the ability of UC campuses to provide outreach services and
programs. The outreach funding under discussion was not directly associated with the

63

passage of Proposition 209, but instead related to Resolution SP-1. A large number of
participants reported that financial problems presented to be a major challenge for
outreach programs affected by “race neutral” policies.
The major impact was a cutback in financial support available to outreach
programs, resulting in the downsizing of the number of targeted schools and personnel. A
staff member conveyed how the reduced funding resulted in “scaled back services,
redesigned new plans, and … the number of schools served were cut back”. Another staff
member, from a different campus, provided a more detailed account of her experience
with the budget cuts. She recounted the challenges they faced with having to eliminate
middle school programs:
Very quickly, the bottom fell out when the state budget crisis came. So all of the
work that we did in terms of expanding… all of that came to a halt in around
2002-3. When those programs were cut, some of them were cut all together and
others by fifty percent… So it was a very difficult decision to make…We were
forced to eliminate all of that middle school development that we had done...The
combination of (Prop) 209 and then the subsequent cut of all of the funds that
came to us in the aftermath of (Prop) 209 left us in a very challenging position.

The immediate onset of the state’s budget crisis created major setbacks for student affairs
staff in their efforts to achieve the institution’s goal of diversity. The financial dilemma
significantly affected the endeavors of student affairs. The cutbacks forced personnel to
eliminate the number of outreach programs offered and to reduce staffing.
Staff Morale. Negative staff morale was a subsequent effect of the unstable
budget. Staff members from several campuses described how the changes in funding
added to work challenges and negatively affected their outlook. One admissions staff

64

member described how the reduction of financial resources interfered with their
motivation, which created a sense of hopelessness among staff:
So when you’re saying you have to make cuts like that, it meant an absolute
impact on staffing. The disappointment there had to do with, we just got ramped
up and… we thought we were beginning to make some inroads and then all of a
sudden the funding was cut. It is that kind of yo-yo effect…You get started, you
think you are ready to go, and then the next thing you know you do not have
funding…We are facing tremendous budget reductions in our area again. So we
are in the same place. Where all of a sudden, we continue to gain momentum and
now we are faced with how do we move…so it does make for some very difficult
times.

Student affairs staff put a lot of energy and effort into expanding and developing new
outreach programs to offset the effects of Proposition 209. Staff members became
discouraged with the changes and the uncertainty created by the unstable funding.
Dismayed staff members saw the budget problems as an additional source of frustration
and an obstacle that immobilized their efforts in achieving the institution’s goal of
diversity.
Political Activity at the State Level. The financial problems faced by UC
campuses were associated with political lobbying employed by state lawmakers, which in
turn affected the funding of outreach programs. The words of the following vice
chancellor illustrate his understanding of the political activity surrounding the passage of
Proposition 209:
I think that some of the people on the right, and including…Regent
Connerly…who originally said… ‘you should use outreach to help prepare these
kids rather than just admit them to the university,’ were only saying that because
that was a way for them to use that to justify the actions of eliminating affirmative
action. Because what happened is that they systematically began to try to
dismantle the outreach apparatus as well. So what happened was the outreach
apparatus, after Prop 209 passed, began to be attacked by Regent Connerly and
the people on the right as well. It was in the outreach apparatus that people began

65

to say ‘what are you doing and you can’t have special programs for black kids,
you can’t give poor black kids or poor Latino kids programs that help them
educationally, you have to give it to all kids.’

Student affairs administrators believed that state lawmakers and UC Regents initially
promoted their support of outreach programs to gain approval for the passage of
Proposition 209. Once the law passed, the same lawmakers, who lobbied for the passage
of the law, scrutinized the effectiveness and questioned the compliance of outreach
programs. Subsequently, politicians leveraged the state’s scarce financial resources for
outreach programs to gain the support for other state measures. The vice chancellor
continued to describe the legislature’s political activity related to the funding of outreach
programs:
Year after year outreach became a political football because the Republicans
knew that the Democrats wanted it and then they would then use it and hold it
hostage in the budget battles at the legislature. Every year after the first year or
two, it was just used as a political football... I believe that some of those who were
allegedly supportive of outreach at the beginning were only doing so for political
purposes and they simply began to attack it and tried to undermine it once they
had gotten Prop 209 passed. So it’s been a struggle in that arena.

State lawmakers used the financial funding associated with outreach programs as a
bargaining pawn to gain the support of fellow partisans for other political measures.
Student affairs administrators felt that lawmakers were insincere about their support and
believed that the actions of lawmakers threatened the existence of outreach programs.
Outreach programs suffered severe cutbacks because of the political battles over funding.
Student affairs personnel, as a result, felt defenseless and demoralized against the
uncertainty of financial of support for outreach programs.

66

Community Reaction Challenges
Affirmative action advocates opposed the passage of Resolution SP-1 and
Proposition 209. Throughout the UC system, members of the campus community,
including faculty, students, staff, and alumni protested against these policies. The
elimination of the use of race because of the passage of Resolution SP-1 and Proposition
209 symbolically communicated a negative message to the campus communities across
the UC system, especially to underrepresented minorities. A vice chancellor described the
reaction among members of the campus community as follows: “the most difficult and
important overall challenge was the political reaction of the minority students and
minority community, they began to feel targeted by the institution”. Proposition 209’s
focus on race-neutrality made members of the minority community feel unimportant and
neglected because the law eliminated campus programs and services that specifically
focused and addressed underrepresented groups.
Anger. A review of the enrollment of underrepresented students indicated that in
1998, all but one of the ten UC campuses (Riverside) experienced significant declines in
the number of enrolled underrepresented undergraduate students. The vice chancellors
discussed how the enrollment declines increased the campus community’s anger with the
anti-affirmative action policies. One of the vice chancellors described the community’s
reaction resulting from the decline in the admissions of underrepresented students:
Obviously what we were hearing from the community was outrage, everyone was
pretty upset that the (admissions) numbers had dropped so incredibly although we
were telling everyone beforehand that was going to be the result…We were
anticipating dire results and that’s what came about…Clearly the students were
extremely upset. There was lots of angst and reaction. Just very, very dramatic

67

reaction toward the Regents and towards the campuses because campuses were
not prepared to try and offset the effects.

The underrepresented community felt that UC administrators and staff did not do enough
to counteract the adverse effects of the law on the admissions of minority students.
Members of the underrepresented community directed their rage and disappointment with
Proposition 209 towards everyone associated with UC campuses.
Alienation. The passage and implementation of Proposition 209 did more than just
eliminate the use of race and ethnicity. The anti-affirmative action law estranged
members of the campus community. A vice chancellor at another institution conveyed the
antagonizing effect that the passage of Proposition 209 had for him and the members of
his campus. He reported:
It alienated a lot of the population of the campus. A lot of our students, a lot of
our staff and faculty, including me, were alienated from the campus, alienated
from the university... A lot of people felt angry. They felt that they weren’t
wanted. So you know people weren’t happy and I was one of them.

The passage of Proposition 209 negatively transformed the campus climate, making
various community members feel as though it no longer valued diversity. The anti-
affirmative action law distanced members of the campus community (i.e., faculty,
administrators, staff, and students) because it made them feel as though UC campuses
were unwelcoming of underrepresented groups.
Students reacted antagonistically by directing their frustration towards staff
members within admissions and outreach units. A staff member described how students
on their campus viewed the admissions staff as the enemy, stating “I guess one of the
painful experiences was being perceived by student activists as being the enemy, as being

68

the gatekeeper who purposely denied access”. Staff members became distressed when
students developed hostile views of admissions and outreach staff. Another staff member
recounted her negative experience of how students viewed them as adversaries, turned
against them, and blamed staff: “I think the most frustrating was the tension between the
student groups, who saw the administration at many times as the enemy because we
weren’t doing what they felt we should be doing”. The student’s hostile behavior
worsened the work environment for student affairs staff. The staff member continued to
explain how students on her campus ultimately abandoned admission efforts by refusing
to work with the admissions office:
There was one particular year where our student groups refused to work with us in
yield efforts in the spring and they literally walked away from doing anything
with us. I think that was…probably about five years ago, maybe six…that was
like the absolute worst year, where a lot of people lost heart…For example my
AVC (Associate Vice Chancellor)… at the time was very disheartened by all that
had happened and because no one likes to be personally vilified… as a do nothing
or…not doing enough. It really was very disheartening.

Disgruntled students retaliated by turning against admissions and outreach staff and
refusing to join efforts to help execute programs. Staff members felt as though students
treated staff poorly by blaming them for Proposition 209. The resistance and lack of
cooperation presented by the students magnified the work challenges encountered by
student affairs staff.
The opposition experienced by student affairs staff was not limited to angry
students. The challenges faced by student affairs staff continued to escalate as they
encountered similar problems of distrust with the external community. A staff member

69

described dealing with the backlash and concern from prospective parents who were
cynical about the campuses motives and considered them as being anti-diversity:
We would talk to parents of students in the field. We would hear comments like
‘the UC system didn’t care about diversity. What are you going to do about this, I
looked up your campus and I didn’t see any x, y, or z.’ Usually its references to
underrepresented students, concerns about whether one should continue to support
a public institution…Parents were expressing concerns like ‘why should I send
my son or daughter here if there are no other students like them?’ That was tough
for professional student affairs colleagues to continue to send those messages,
remain upbeat and positive about the institution, and respecting the role of the
people at the same time.

The passage and implementation of Proposition 209 made members of the external
community doubt the values of UC campuses. Parents of prospective students
aggressively expressed their uneasiness in associating with an institution that no longer
valued diversity. Student affairs staff found it challenging to engage in a positive manner
with prospective parents who questioned the motives of the institution.
‘Morale on the Job’ Challenges
Personal Conflict. The personal conflict student affairs staff experienced with
Proposition 209 was a major issue affecting their morale. The inability of staff members
to fulfill their personal ambitions was disheartening. More than half of the interviewed
staff indicated that the personal conflict they experienced stemmed from differences
between their own personal value of diversity and the “race-neutral” mandates of
Proposition 209. Staff members revealed that their decision to work in higher education
stemmed from a personal desire to advocate for underrepresented students and diversity.
The staff confronted a challenging work environment and felt the institution no longer
reinforced their personal values. One staff member described the conflict in values as

70

‘philosophical differences’ that existed between the mandates of the law and long held
personal convictions of staff members.
The following passage describes how student affairs staff valued higher education
and that Proposition 209 interfered by no longer enabling them to specifically help
underrepresented student populations. In the following passage, she described the reasons
behind her own personal feelings for the situation they faced:
In all honesty, the word sadness probably applies to me personally. I can’t project
how others felt. Some were very angry, that might have in fact been stronger
emotion. For me it was more, sadness was probably a fairer term because I knew
as a student affairs professional the value of higher education and the importance
of higher education in terms of transforming lives, and yet our policies were such
that my hands were really tied in terms of what I was able to do.

The passage of Proposition 209 negatively affected the work morale of student affairs
staff. Many staff members felt sorrow for the loss of educational opportunity they
associated with the passage of Proposition 209.
Several of the interviewed staff members reported that they themselves were
beneficiaries of affirmative action. Affirmative action policies gave them the opportunity
to attend college. These staff members valued diversity and as a result made it their own
personal goal to advocate for underrepresented students. They made sure that
underrepresented groups were not ignored and ensured that they received adequate access
to resources. A staff member described the conflict between staff members’ personal
desire to advocate for underrepresented students and the mandates of Proposition 209,
which prohibited the consideration of race and ethnicity:
Even though many of our staff in the admissions and enrollment world had
actually come to the university because they truly believed in broad access and
diversity…There was definitely a culture clash between long term employees who

71

had come for one reason and then the law and the Regent policy… I know
that…our admissions staff was experiencing a crisis of purpose. People were torn
because they had come with advocacy in their heart and now they were told, quite
abruptly, that it was against the law.

The passage of Proposition 209 placed staff members in a difficult position because of
the conflict between personal values associated with diversity and the mandates of the
law. Staff members indicated strong beliefs in diversity and their desire to help students
from underrepresented groups gain access to higher education opportunities. Proposition
209 forced student affairs staff to change the way they could interact with
underrepresented groups and challenged staff in their ability to serve them. Staff
members experienced a decline in their sense of purpose with their job because the law
no longer allowed them to focus on racial and ethnic diversity.
In some sense, the passage of Proposition 209 reignited historical issues of
inequality. The law transformed the atmosphere on UC campuses, leaving staff members
feeling tense and guarded. A staff member described how the passage of Proposition 209
negatively affected the overall climate of the campus:
That really raised a lot of those old issues again…it kind of brought back all those
feelings of inequality and defensiveness. And people feeling like they were being
attacked even though they had nothing to do with this…it wasn’t pretty at many
times. At meetings you would have very heated discussions about what should we
do.

The passage of Proposition 209 had a tremendous effect on the campus work
environment because it created a divide between those who held differing opinions. The
law created disagreements between staff members making it uncomfortable and difficult
for student affairs staff to discuss issues related to diversity.

72

Frustration. Another challenge contributing to declining staff morale was the
growing frustrations experienced in the wake of unfolding circumstances, including the
inability to make progress due to constant changes and the distress created for new
professionals in an unstable work environment. Student affairs staff at the surveyed
public institutions perceived Proposition 209 as interfering with their ability to achieve
desired institutional outcomes. UC staff members perceived the policy’s goal of
inclusivity through “race-neutral” processes as a new form of exclusion. The inability to
specifically program for underrepresented student populations constrained staff in their
ability to achieve diversity. One staff member described problems with the perceived
unfairness of Proposition 209.
Now in the irony of it all, I guess the intent was to pass (Prop) 209 so that
everybody would be treated fairly, but it was almost the opposite. Now we were
treating students of color and first generation students unfairly because we
couldn’t have programs that spoke to them, or we couldn’t have programs that
addressed specific issues for them and these were things that were not of their
choice.

Staff members felt that Proposition 209 was discriminating against underrepresented
students. The “race-neutral” law disregarded the unique challenges faced by
underrepresented groups and forced student affairs administrators and staff to develop
and implement broad catch-all type programs and services.
In their efforts to address the issues presented by Proposition 209, student affairs
staff members encountered numerous problems that left them feeling ineffective. A staff
member described her feelings about the law, “it does create this sense of we’re
constantly trying to catch up. Once we have something going, all of a sudden there’s a
change and now were playing catch up again”. Another staff member further described

73

their inability to make any progress with the work they were doing because of the
increasing number of challenges that confronted them:
I felt that we are here to serve all of California but between the legal mandate and
the reduced budget, we were just spinning our wheels…I pretty much felt
strangled. I felt like we had a goal we could not achieve…and we were in a new
environment, a new culture that would not allow us to freely do this.

Student affairs staff member encountered additional problems when having to
interact with members of the campus community. Staff members provided insights into
the changes in their relationship with members of the external campus community,
including prospective students and secondary schools. One staff member reported that the
“reputation” of being anti-affirmative action created a feeling of distrust and heightened
the anxiety among front line staff members that interacted directly with the public
community:
The front line people... were very torn because, they don’t want to go out and talk
to students that have no chance of getting in because that just makes it worse for
our PR (public relations) out in communities. It’s going to invalidate whatever
trust we may have had before then.

This same staff member also reported that uneasiness among staff resulted in their being
hesitant about meeting with an overly critical community:
Early outreach people, like the recruiters that go out to schools, they were the
ones who got beat up...And they were very vocal to them about telling them
(supervisors) ‘you know what I can’t face my counselors, I can’t face these
certain high schools and look at them with a straight face and say yes you have a
chance at UCLA,’ because they look at the statistics and throw them at me and
some of our staff really had to deal with quite a bit of anger and quite a bit of
accusations and you know it was a very trying time for those frontline staff who
really they were just out there.

A great deal of admissions and outreach work involved having to work directly with
prospective students, parents, and K-12 schools. Members of the campus community

74

were disgruntled with the passage of Proposition 209. For example, staff members
indicated that they did not feel comfortable interacting with the campus community
because they felt that Proposition 209 discredited their efforts to engage in outreach
work. Furthermore, unexpected financial issues added to the problems faced by student
affairs staff who reported ensuing challenges resulted in feeling “bogged down” by the
development of additional barriers. In summary, many staff believed their efforts were
ineffective in achieving institutional goals related to diversity.
Research Question 2:
How did student affair administrators deal with the changes and challenges brought
about by Proposition 209?
Proposition 209 forced Student affairs administrators and staff to eliminate the
use of preferential treatment and presented them with several challenges. The vice
chancellors and student affairs staff shared their personal insights into three specific
coping strategies used to address the challenges presented in their implementation of the
new law. The first coping strategy relates to the strategic planning activities engaged in
by senior administrators. The second strategy focused on the adoption of new strategies
within the area of admissions and outreach. The final coping strategy focused on the use
of collaboration between student affairs personnel and members of the campus
community. Table 6 presents an overview of these coping strategies and serves as a guide
for understanding the various factors that contributed to each of the three strategies
utilized by student affairs.

75

Table 6: Coping Strategies Utilized by Student Affairs
Coping Strategies Approaches

Strategic Planning Internal Activities: Task Force Committees
Goal Setting
Adopting New Strategies

Admissions Review
New Criteria
Collaboration

Regent Involvement
Staff Involvement/Engagement
Student Collaboration
K-12 Schools
Community Organization

Strategic Planning
The vice chancellors talked about the efforts made to organize institutional
activities related the implementation of Proposition 209. Vice chancellors reported two
types of strategic planning: internal and external. Internal activities involved
organizational efforts of several campus departments. External efforts focused on
campuses working with external campus community members, including K-12 schools
and community-based organizations.
Internal Activities: Task Force Committees. The vice chancellors indicated that
one of the initial actions taken by the UC Regents in addressing the various challenges
presented by Resolution SP-1 was the formation of the Regents Outreach Task Force,

76

which was carried over to deal with issues related to Proposition 209. The task force was
comprised of staff members representing various campuses and units within the UC
system as well as administrators from school systems within the state, other academic
focused organizations, and local businesses (The University of California, 1997, para. 5).
Two of the four interviewed vice chancellors served as members of the task force. The
task force was initially responsible for determining potential problems resulting from
Resolution SP-1 and for developing an outreach plan to offset the problems.
One vice chancellor explained that the Regents Outreach Task Force was being
“charged with the task of coming up with a strategy for…the university”. He described
the outcomes of the task force’s efforts, which included the allocation of support to
implement outreach activities and stated that “the result of that task force was a
significant increase in resources both from the state and from the university directed at
working more closely with K through twelve (K-12)”. As part of the strategy
development, the task force determined the approach as well as the resources needed to
be able to implement the new plan.
The task force also examined how to incorporate Proposition 209 within outreach
activities and programs. One strategy involved altering language used to identify students
within institutional policies and procedures. Because race could no longer be used, one
vice chancellor said the task force would instead “focus on students who were
educationally disadvantaged…The belief was focusing on those students would
give…the opportunity to still target students of color”.

77

The effect of Proposition 209 on UC campuses was most significant within the
area of admissions and required the need to develop a plan to deal with the negative
effects of the policy such as declining admissions and enrollment of underrepresented
students and the challenges of achieving diversity. One vice chancellor mentioned the
establishment of a second task force focused on admissions. He stated, “the office of the
president created an admissions task force to make recommendations to the campuses on
how to go about conducting its admissions in light of Proposition 209…The office of the
president put it together”.
Regents and campus senior administrators engaged in strategic planning as the
first step in addressing the challenges presented by Proposition 209. Strategic planning
provided an opportunity to bring together key members and experts within the campus
community. It enabled the group to assess the problems, to develop solutions, and to
determine the type of support needed to implement the new plan.
Goal Setting
The passage of Proposition 209 required institutions within the UC system to
eliminate the use of race within their policies and procedures. Vice chancellors reported
that the passage of Proposition 209 prompted underrepresented students to feel unwanted
by UC campuses. As a result, vice chancellors positioned their efforts to offset the
negative perceptions held by underrepresented students. When asked about how they
responded to this challenge, one of the vice chancellors discussed the factors that guided
their actions:

78

You have to make a choice. We’re just going to keep trying to work on this and
you have to do it in a way that is guided by long term thinking… in order to make
changes that in ten years might make a difference.

The vice chancellors made personal choices to continue to work at their campuses and
personal commitments to do everything they could to counteract the challenges brought
on by Proposition 209. In their efforts to develop strategies, vice chancellors understood
that whatever decisions or goals they established needed to have long-term effects for the
institution. Vice chancellors took into consideration the effect that the law had on
underrepresented student populations because it negatively affected them.
In their efforts to develop a new plan in addressing the challenges presented by
Proposition 209, vice chancellors mentioned the need to understand factors that would
help guide the decisions and direction taken. Vice chancellors reported two significant
goals developed to guide the decisions and actions of the campuses: resolving inadequate
academic preparation and further committing to diversity.
Inadequate Academic Preparation. The passage of Proposition 209 revealed that
the underlying problems of inadequate academic preparation within California’s K-12
school system was an obstacle for higher education institutions admitting more
underrepresented students. In the following account, a vice chancellor described how the
task force came to focus on the issue of inadequate preparation:
Proposition 209 basically [sic] was like pulling a band-aid off of a sore that was
festering underneath. What was clearly evident as a result of those (admissions)
drops was that the state was not doing an adequate job in preparing students of
color to be academically competitive.

Administrators needed to determine and address the underlying problems associated with
the low admission of underrepresented students. The examination revealed poor

79

academic preparation as the primary problem for many underrepresented students.
Administrators recognized that in order to help these students, the task force needed to
get to the source of the problem and focus on addressing the issue of academic
preparation. The vice chancellor further described how the lack of academic preparation
of underrepresented students at the K-12 level influenced endeavors on his campus:
We needed to focus our energy on getting those students competitive. So I
focused my energies around that issue. The game has changed so now let’s focus
our energy on addressing the real problem here, which is inadequate academic
preparation… to work more closely with K-12 to make sure that student’s from
all backgrounds were competitive for admission to the university.

UC campus officials focused their objectives more clearly, because the underlying
problems faced by underrepresented students resulted from the lack of academic
preparation at the K-12 level. Administrators concentrated their energies in the areas that
would help students become more academically competitive by expanding existing
academic enrichment programs (e.g., Early Academic Outreach Program [EAOP], the
Puente Project, and the Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement [MESA]
program) offered by UC campuses.
Commitment to Diversity. The relationship between UC campuses and
underrepresented communities was also a significant factor that influenced the decisions
made by campus officials in determining how to deal with the challenges presented by
the passage of Proposition 209. At one institution, a vice chancellor discussed how his
campus based their approach on the institution’s existing commitment to diversity:
The university remained committed to diversity… so we worked very hard to try
to both ameliorate the great damage that had been done to the university... If we
are really a university committed to diversity, our job then as now is to figure out

80

how to ensure that strong interesting well-qualified students continue to come to
Berkeley.

One of the major challenges brought on by Proposition 209 were the hurt feelings and
negative reactions from members of the underrepresented community. UC administrators
made it a goal to show their commitment and support of the underrepresented community
by focusing institutional efforts on improving diversity. Campus administrators used
diversity as a guiding factor in their approach to address the challenges presented by
Proposition 209.
Another example of goal setting and commitment was evident in the actions of
one chancellor, who supported his institution’s commitment to diversity by establishing a
“public pledge” in 1995. The pledge was a university-wide program which aimed to
develop and support outreach programs in response to Resolution SP-1, which carried
over to respond to the challenges posed by passage of Proposition 209. The vice
chancellor described how the pledge began:
We initiated what we called the… Pledge, which was just after the Regent’s
action. The…pledge was a campus action in which then Chancellor Smith
3
put
one million dollars into a fund that would allow us in student affairs to increase
our outreach to the schools or programs … for underrepresented students…So we
made that commitment to them at a very early stage and I think that we were
successful at getting that program duplicated or reproduced at the other UC’s and
within the system itself.

The development of the pledge was a symbolic action taken by the campus’ senior leader.
The pledge clarified and refocused the attention of the campus on the goal of improving
diversity. The pledge was a public commitment that signaled a time for change and
communicated the institution’s values to all members of the campus community.

3
Pseudonym used to protect identity of individual.

81

Adopting New Strategies
To counteract the negative effect of Proposition 209, admissions and outreach
staff members focused on finding new work strategies that would enable them to develop
alternate criteria to identify diversity. Admissions staff focused on developing new ways
to assess student applicants and redesigned the application review process. Since the law
no longer permitted the use of race and ethnicity, outreach staff found alternate criteria to
identify underrepresented groups.
Admissions Review Process. UC campus administrators were aware that
procedures for reviewing applications would have to be altered. In 2002, UC campuses
implemented the comprehensive review
4
. Four years later in 2006, campuses adopted a
more labor-intensive holistic review process developed by UC Berkeley. One staff
member described the development of the holistic review:
We were opposed to and very concerned about Proposition 209 and its impact on
us. Knowing that it was coming we spent quite a while trying to develop a process
that would enable us to select from among the best students. We didn’t want, of
course, our diversity numbers to go down significantly, so we designed a holistic
review process where we not only had academic indicators, but we also took into
account contextual kinds of information, family background, characteristics of the
student, persistence and so on, and so we developed that kind of process.

Student affairs administrators and staff realized that in order to give underrepresented
students a chance for admission, the existing two-tiered admissions procedures based on
GPA and SAT scores would not be an effective form of evaluation. Administrators made
efforts to develop new approaches in the review of admissions applications. This was not
an easy task. Under the comprehensive review, admissions staff began to read applicant

4
Comprehensive review: Admissions process whereby two readers or reviewers assess different sections of
admissions applications and provided a score, which was combined for a final total.

82

essays. Following this process, UC campuses developed the holistic review a few years
later, which provided a broader review of an applicant’s file by taking into consideration
contextual factors such as socio-economic status and academic performance of the high
school the applicant attended.
New Criteria. The major challenge presented by the passage of Proposition 209
was the elimination of race and ethnicity. The law left student affairs staff challenged in
accessing underrepresented student populations. A staff member spoke about needing to
adjust the approach they took with outreach activities by finding alternate criteria to
identify students:
We reframed things…to be able to target students but rather than identifying
race…we would identify other things…that would make it possible for others to
be included, but would allow us to pretty much continue the program as it had
been done.

Student affairs staff believed that it was important to find alternate criteria to identify
underrepresented groups so that staff could continue to provide outreach programs and
services to underrepresented students. A staff member working in admissions from a
different institution described the criteria or student qualities admissions staff were
looking for. She relayed the following: “one of the things that we discovered in
developing these materials is that we were looking for ways to value students from many
kinds of backgrounds”. To ensure that the pool of underrepresented students was not
depleted, admissions and outreach staff utilized alternate factors that would still enable
them to include underrepresented student populations.

83

Student affairs identified three alternate criteria: schools with low Academic
Performance Index (API
5
) scores, low socio-economic status, and geographic location.
These new criteria enabled student affairs staff to maintain contact with large numbers of
underrepresented student populations, while at the same time complying with the
mandates of Proposition 209. One approach to assuring the inclusion of underrepresented
students was to take into consideration the API of schools. Admissions staff members
understood the correlation between low performing schools, large proportion of first
generation students, and large number of underrepresented student populations. The
following staff member explained how the new strategy of focusing on a school’s
academic performance index increased their access to large numbers of underrepresented
student populations.
We moved to policies where we were really looking at a set of schools based on
their annual performance index you know based on a broader set of criteria such
as having a large percentage of low income, first generation students, all of that.

A staff member from a different campus described how focusing on alternate
criteria, such as low-income, enabled admissions staff to continue to direct recruitment
efforts to a diverse student population. The use of low-income or low socio-economic
status enabled campuses to spread their efforts to a larger group of students, including
those that were not previously included such as low-income Whites and Asians. A staff
member described the new approach as casting a wider net in their use of low socio-
economic status as new criterion. She stated:
We are allowed to focus on students who are low income, first generation… In a
way that’s good because now I’m also reaching first generation low-income white

5
API: An index rating the performance of public K-12 in meeting state requirements.

84

students who are just as deserving and need the information just as much. So in
essence, what we’ve had to do is dramatically expand our outreach, kind of cast a
wider net. We’re picking up more non-traditional low-income white students, and
low-income Asian students.

The same staff member continued to explain the advantages of the new criteria. She
stated, “the schools that we target for outreach are targeted because we know they enroll
large numbers of underserved low income students and obviously that translates …to… a
lot of diversity there”.
Student affairs staff recognized that large numbers of underrepresented groups met the
new criterion of low socio-economic status which made it possible for staff to continue to
maintain access and to target these populations.
The last alternate criterion used by student affairs staff focused on targeting
students based on geographical location. A staff member described how their process was
redesigned by shifting from the use of race and ethnicity to using geography and school
performance:
They all had to really rethink every program from the ground up and they could
no longer do the kind of outreach that they had done in the past. For example in
the outreach arena, we no longer do targeted outreach at all. We very much just
focus on geographical representation; we have a lot of outreach that occurs by
regions, we do a lot of extensive outreach to low API schools.

In developing new strategies, student affairs staff became creative in developing new
approaches to accessing underrepresented student populations. The use of geographical
location expanded the network in accessing underrepresented student populations.
Similar to the other new criteria, the use of geographical location enabled student affairs
staff to pinpoint regions not previously targeted, but which included areas highly
populated by underrepresented populations.

85

Collaboration
A number of student affairs administrators and staff used collaboration as a
strategy to respond to the challenges they confronted. Collaboration allowed
administrators to develop partnerships or alliances with various members of the campus
community. It enabled student affairs staff to address and overcome work challenges
presented by Proposition 209 by engaging in discussions, learning about new ideas, and
garnering support from other campus community. Two forms of collaboration took place,
internal and external. Internal collaboration focused on working with university Regents,
staff, and students, while external collaboration focused on joint activities with
lawmakers, K-12 schools, and community organizations.
Internal Collaboration: Regent Involvement. Senior administrators stated that
Regents frequently scrutinized staff work and accused staff of non-compliance—not
implementing Proposition 209. One vice chancellor described the controversy
surrounding the implementation of their new admissions process:
Some of the Regents would challenge us, accuse us… as we were accused on
many occasions of contriving a system in which we would continue to admit
undeserving students. We were accused literally of cheating on the admissions
process and so we wanted a comprehensive review process to be able to hold up
to full scrutiny.

Immediately after the implementation of Proposition 209, administrators and staff within
admissions and outreach faced constant questioning about the admissions of
underrepresented students. The Regents distrusted student affairs administrators and staff,
with the distrust based on anonymous allegations of staff violating the law. As a result,

86

administrators focused on developing new admissions procedures that would withstand
Regent scrutiny.
Administrators and student affairs staff reported collaboration as an approach
used to respond to the accusations of cheating. One vice chancellor involved the UC
Regents in order to directly inform and validate the new admissions procedures adopted
by the campus: “we invited the Regents, well we invited Regent Connerly… the
mastermind of the anti affirmative action…to attend what we call
a norming session”
6
. Senior administrators purposely involved Regent Connerly because
he led the campaign for the passage of Resolution SP-1 and Proposition 209. The vice
chancellor explained how personally involving Regent Connerly in the admissions review
process would help justify the procedures used and negate the claims of cheating:
He (Regent Connerly) would come to an admission review, take a look at ten
applications, and help us determine which of those ten students we would admit...
Once he went through that process, he knew that it was rigorous…and once he
went through that process himself, he agreed that the comprehensive review that
we had styled here…was fair and fair-minded and could stand up to scrutiny from
the outside.

Involving the Regents in the admissions review process was a strategy used to counteract
any suspicions or doubts about the legitimacy of the newly developed admissions
procedures. This approach allowed student affairs staff to engage the skeptical Regents
within the actual admissions process by allowing them to see it for themselves. The

6
Norming Session: Admissions training session “where sample student files are read
and evaluated. These exercises and discussions guide the readers and allow us to make
sure that everyone understands the selection criteria and is using them in the same way”
(Regents of the University of California, 2001).

87

engagement of Regents demonstrated the honest intentions of staff members in their
efforts to clarify and prove the fairness of admissions review procedures.
Internal Collaboration: Staff Member Involvement. Collaboration of staff
involved student affair staff providing assistance to admissions and outreach personnel.
Admissions staff initially used collaboration to help alleviate the increased workload
created by the implementation of new admissions procedures. The strategy, however,
provided additional benefits including countering suspicious beliefs about admissions
procedures and developing a supportive work environment.
Employing collaboration served two purposes. The first was to get additional
application readers in order to meet application review deadlines. The second objective
was to influence and change the negative opinions of other staff members. The following
staff member explained why collaboration was so important:
So our thinking was that if they came in to read some of these applications with us
they would be better educated in terms of the realities of what it took to be
admitted to the University of California... So our motivation was not only to get
help, but to educate them on the realities…in admissions, and that was very
successful because we needed the help and they could see what was going on in
terms of the changing nature of the applicant pool.

Student affairs initially used collaboration as a way to manage the time-consuming
admissions process and the increasing volume of applications received. Admissions units
recruited personnel from other departments to assist in reading applicant files. The same
staff member discussed how collaboration brought much-needed help to admissions units
in order to meet application review deadlines. She stated, “we needed more people to
help us, because we simply couldn’t get the work done given the volume of applications
and the short time frame that we had”. The redesign of admissions procedures required

88

admission readers to spend more time reviewing applications and resulted in increased
workloads for admissions personnel. She continued to describe the development of
working with other campus units:
So somewhere along the line we came up with the idea…that we would bring
in…staff from the Center for Educational Partnerships to be readers. This was the
staff that was primarily working with Early Academic Outreach, they were out in
schools working with…underrepresented students trying to get them prepared for
the university.

The joint efforts provided more than just the needed labor to review the applications, it
served as a way to weaken suspicions about staff disregarding the law. One staff member
stressed the usefulness of collaboration in countering the suspicious beliefs and opinions
about admission activities:
Now there was a particular reason why inviting them to participate in the reading
process, was we thought a good idea…Colleagues in other offices around the
campus, including in the Center for Educational Partnerships were very suspect of
what was going on in admissions. They thought maybe we were being too hard on
applicants, we weren’t being fair, we were being arbitrary, we were doing things
that would exclude more underrepresented students from being admitted.

Initially, staff members used collaboration to get help, but collaboration made it possible
for admissions offices to educate other campus personnel about admissions efforts and
procedures. By involving non-admissions staff as part of the application review process,
those staff members were able to see for themselves the challenges that admissions staff
experienced. The strategy educated other members about the challenges and endeavors of
admissions staff to counter the problems created by the passage and implementation of
Proposition 209.

89

Furthermore, UC staff viewed collaboration as an outlet, an opportunity to
become involved to do something good by helping fellow colleagues in admissions. One
staff member described several positive benefits of engaging outside staff members:
Some readers
7
came from the division of student affairs, they were volunteers.
…There were some positive benefits of including these folks in our process. They
understood the process better. They were sort of emissaries for us, out on campus,
as well as in their communities. We tried to…include in our review process
diverse staff from around the campus and so I think there was some positive
outcomes of changing our process. Many of the staff who worked with us felt as if
they were able to do something, they were able to make a positive difference by
reading files…and so in the face of the discouragement of affirmative action
going away, they really felt dedicated to helping admissions do the best process
that we could. It was an outlet for them to do something positive about something
that they thought… is a negative.

Involving staff members from other areas of the university created a positive working
environment. The opportunity to bring together staff members from other student affairs
units created a network of support for those within admissions and outreach. Volunteers
also benefitted by doing ‘feel good’ work in helping colleagues and in contributing to a
cause they valued.
Internal Collaboration: Student Collaboration. Campuses used joint efforts with
students as another form of collaboration. To counter student anger, the admissions office
developed student based organizations to work in conjunction with the admissions office.
On two campuses, students participated in Student Heightening Academic Performance
through Education (SHAPES), a student-run organization focused on implementing
community outreach activities to students in K-12. SHAPES focused on “recruitment and
retention”. These activities centered on targeting specific underrepresented groups.

7
Readers: People who read, reviewed, and evaluated admissions applications.

90

Although Proposition 209 made it unlawful for university staff to implement targeted
programs and services, the law did not affect the activities of student organizations
because student fees, which are not provided by the state, funded student activities.
On another campus, admissions and outreach units worked with student
organizations to offset negative beliefs of students that the university was “abandoning
diversity”. Multicultural student organizations worked in cooperation with student affairs
units by developing the Bridges Program, which aimed to help
recruitment and outreach efforts related to yield activities
8
. An admissions staff member
described the origins of the Bridges Program:
Our student groups were very much in favor of continued targeting for outreach
and admissions in yield for students of color. We have a group which developed
during that era called Bridges, which were ethnic specific student groups, which
are still allowed under Prop 209 because they are student organizations. They’re
not part of the UC system…they’re individual groups that have come together to
help.

Admissions staff realized the importance of collaborating with others in order to achieve
their goal of diversity. Staff saw an opportunity to engage with underrepresented
students, as student organizations were not required to adhere to the mandates of
Proposition 209. The law did not allow admissions staff to provide programs that
specifically targeted racial or ethnic groups. Student organizations had the ability to do
recruitment activities not allowed by Proposition 209, such as the recruitment of students
from specific ethnic backgrounds. Utilizing current students would enable student affairs

8
Yield activities: Communication related to the recruitment of admitted students to
students to confirm their intent to accept an offer of admissions to a college or university
(Maine Public Universities, n.d.).

91

staff to augment their efforts because student groups would be able to target
underrepresented students:
We began to understand that in order to accomplish the goal of outreach and yield
activities…but to still stay within the parameters of Prop 209, we needed to gain a
new perspective and really assist those who could actually do targeted outreach
and so we were very fortunate that our students were willing to provide that
manpower.

Student affairs staff became conscious of the need to find new ways of doing their jobs.
In realizing this, staff determined they could not accomplish their goals alone and needed
the assistance of members from the campus community. The best approach was to
collaborate with campus community members, in this case students, who were willing
and able to help them.
Another approach to student collaboration involved using a different department
within student affairs, the Office of Residential Life. On one particular campus, a
residential life staff member discussed how they implemented new efforts within their
student programming focused on outreach activities to the local community:
Throughout the university, there was an interest to meet the challenge of outreach.
For example in the Office of Residential Life, after Proposition 209, we started to
organize student programs that would involve residents in community outreach,
particularly to underrepresented minority areas. You can call that community
service projects.

Senior administrators encouraged all units within student affairs to make efforts to
augment the institution’s outreach efforts. Residential life staff developed brand new
programs that provided various forms of academic support services to students in the
local community. The programs helped to create new relationships with the community
and engaged students as university representatives. One particular unit, residential life,

92

staff saw an opportunity to develop programs that engaged current students in community
service activities while at the same time met the needs of both the community and the
campus. The residential life staff member described the new activities used in their
community service efforts:
Those projects included academic support for young students in elementary and
junior high school levels, by providing tutoring and study assistance, as well as
just being ambassadors … out in the community. …Prior to Proposition 209,
residential programs did not involve resident students in those ways.

The declaration of the campus wide initiative was an important catalyst in getting other
staff members involved. The campus wide initiative encouraged members of the campus
community to be creative and innovative in developing programs that would enable them
to augments the campus’ outreach efforts. Here we see a staff member not closely
connected to admissions willing to help through his own unit. The benefits for the
university were three-fold: 1) helping the university meet institutional goals related to
diversity, 2) engaging students in service learning activities, and 3) reaching out to the
community with academic support services.
External Activities:K-12 Schools. The passage and implementation of Proposition
209 resulted in hurt feelings among various members within the UC campus community.
As previously mentioned earlier in this chapter, external campus constituents developed a
negative impression of the institution, and previous efforts utilized by UC campuses to
work with K-12 schools were no longer effective.
Campuses viewed K-12 schools as points of access to students with academic
potential. The aim was to increase outreach activities. As a result, the approach used by
student affairs personnel in response to the challenges of Proposition 209 centered on

93

joining efforts with K-12 schools. It was important for UC campuses to focus on
developing new relationships with community organizations as well as revitalizing
existing relationships with K-12 schools distressed by the passage of Proposition 209.
One vice chancellor described the skepticism of the schools that were unwilling to work
with the campuses:
Many people in the schools and for good reason didn’t even like the term
outreach. They felt like it was condescending, ‘I see, so you guys from the
university are going to come in here and tell us how to do a better job. You know
more than we do, apparently you’re going to teach us.’

After the passage of Proposition 209, K-12 officials became apprehensive about joining
efforts in working with UC campus outreach programs. K-12 officials felt UC campuses
were overbearing in their approach to working with K-12 schools. They felt that UC
campuses were aggressive in implementing outreach programs. As a result, K-12 officials
felt inferior with the imposition of UC outreach programs. In order for the UC campuses
to be successful with their outreach efforts, they had to focus on changing the negative
perceptions of their campus. The vice chancellor explained the need for his campus to
alter their approach with K-12 schools:
We had to make clear to folks that we wanted a partnership, ‘what are the things
you need from us?’ How can we help with this rather than ‘we’re the big shot
experts…and we’re going to teach you what you’re not doing right and that kind
of thing.’

Student affairs staff altered the approach used to persuade K-12 schools to participate in
outreach programs. UC administrators discussed having to soften the outreach approach
used in collaborating with K-12 schools. Student affairs staff focused on clearly
communicating their motive of developing a partnership with K-12 schools. Staff

94

reassured K-12 administrators by engaging them in the development of outreach
programs. Administrators wanted K-12 schools to perceive UC campuses as partners and
not bullies, by presenting an image that respected and valued the goals of K-12 schools.
The vice chancellor described the actions taken to make the partnership work:
I certainly wanted to make sure that we didn’t walk into a school with that kind of
attitude. So you know that’s a learning process from our side…Instead of coming
to the schools as experts, we would be open to hard questions and we would be
working in collaboration. It means the model that we operate with is ‘our model’,
not just another ‘this is your model and our model’. We’re going to work this out
together, its not something we’re simply throwing on you. So working with the
schools to assure them that their input was more than meaningful, we needed to
learn how to do what they were doing and to bring that into our admissions
process in a way that was fair to their students. They didn’t want empty promises,
they wanted something that was real and makes a big difference.

UC administrators recognized the value of fostering positive relationships between UC
campuses and K-12 schools in order to make outreach efforts successful. Administrators
were aware of the need to alter their approach in persuading K-12 officials to join forces
in implementing new outreach programs because of resentment stemming from old
endeavors. In order to counter the negative feelings and reassure K-12 schools, student
affairs personnel needed to focus on creating meaningful and valuable relations with K-
12 schools. Student affairs staff adjusted their frame of mind in developing programs by
being more open and flexible in order to address the specific needs and concerns of K-12
schools.
External Activities: Involvement of the State Legislature. The political lobbying
that took place among state lawmakers was mainly responsible for the financial
challenges faced by student affairs administrators. Just as the campuses involved the
Regents to help offset issues of scrutiny in the admissions process, UC campus officials

95

engaged in joint efforts with the state legislature to address the budgetary challenges
faced by outreach programs. One vice chancellor relayed his account of working with
state officials:
So one of the things we did and I did this only to appease the Republicans. We put
together a strategy that especially involved that staff in Sacramento in the process
of creating a much more transparent accountability system for these programs so
that they could not say to us ‘we don’t know if these programs work or not.’ ‘We
don’t want to support these programs because were not sure that they have any
impact.’ We worked in partnership with them to develop a system of
accountability to provide the information that they needed to be assured that the
programs were effective.

State politicians claimed that outreach programs were ineffective and therefore no longer
needed state funding. Vice chancellors and senior administrators realized the need to
guard the funding of outreach programs by proving its effectiveness. The campus
administrators developed a system of accountability—together with the state
lawmakers—to justify the funding of programs and to illustrate the effectiveness of
outreach efforts. The development of accountability measures enabled UC campuses to
show evidence of the effectiveness of outreach programs and justify continued financial
support.
External Collaboration: Community Organizations. Student affairs staff
encountered challenges in accessing underrepresented communities because staff
members were unable to target specific students within admissions and outreach efforts.
Another collaborative method used by the campuses to gain access to students was by
accessing community groups already working with underrepresented populations. A staff
member indicated that through collaboration with local community organizations,
admissions and outreach staff were able to “ensure that we’re reaching the population

96

that we need to reach” without specifically targeting those groups. Staff members
explained how they shifted focus to community-based organizations as a way to gain
access to underserved students:
So we started looking to the community-based organizations that serve students
we don’t see when we go into the schools. Faith-based organizations, programs
where we get invitations from parent groups who are from underrepresented
populations. We started to serve those populations more and they are developing
and becoming more prevalent in working with those groups … We have started to
serve the public in different ways in order to gain access and I am beginning to
see that they are producing. It’s taken a while for them to produce but they are
producing.

Proposition 209 eliminated the ability of student affairs staff to implement programs that
specifically targeted underrepresented populations. As a result, student affairs staff
needed to think differently in developing alternate ways to connect with underrepresented
student without violating the law. Collaborating with local community organizations was
an approach that enabled them to do so. Community organizations served as an ideal
access point to continue to serve underrepresented populations because they already
engaged with these groups. By utilizing community organizations, student affairs staff
developed positive relationship with the community and expanded their reach to
underrepresented communities.
The joint efforts with community organizations provided UC campuses with a
different strategy to connect with underrepresented populations. The strategy involved
acknowledging the importance of expanding working relationships with community
organizations in order to achieve the goal of improving diversity:
There are lots of organizations in the community that serve underrepresented
populations and it’s becoming a trend among them to do things like college night
or college fairs and we accepted their invitations to come to and meet and talk

97

about it. So that’s exactly what working with the community based organizations
does for us and yes it’s very important and it’s opened us to them so there’s less
distance between the campus and the community. It’s made us more open to each
other. So that’s one of the great outcomes. I mean we were forced to deal this way
and it’s produced some great alliances. So yes, we do need the community to meet
this goal, absolutely.

Student affairs staff recognized the need to expand their network in reaching out to
underrepresented students. The intention of student affairs was to develop alliances with
community organizations in order to gain access to underrepresented students. Similar to
the efforts put in place to work with student organizations, working with community
organizations enabled student affairs staff to augment their efforts by engaging with those
that could do what staff could not, which was target underrepresented groups.
Chapter Summary

Chapter 4 presented the findings of this study. Vice chancellors and student
affairs staff reported several themes related to the challenges they faced with the passage
and implementation of Proposition 209 including procedural, financial, community
reaction, and morale challenges. Administrators and staff reported using several coping
strategies, including strategic planning, adopting new strategies, and collaboration. The
following chapter will present the conclusions of this study.

98

CHAPTER V
.
CONCLUSION

Overview of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of Proposition 209, a
“race-neutral” policy, on the experiences of student affairs administrators at selected
campuses within the University of California. This study investigated the effect of the
law on organizational endeavors and the actions taken by student affairs leaders to ensure
the success of their organization as they worked to make the university more diverse.
The goal of this research was to gain insight into the principles of effective
leadership when external laws challenge administrators. By investigating the experiences
of senior student affairs leaders and staff in response to the passage and implementation
of public law, this study may provide insights that might benefit other student affairs
leaders as they confront similar legislation.
Six campuses of the University of California were included in this study:
Berkeley (UCB), Irvine (UCI), Los Angeles (UCLA), Riverside (UCR), Santa Barbara
(UCSB), and San Diego (UCSD). From these six campuses, four vice chancellors of
student affairs, 17 student affairs staff members, and two faculty members shared their
personal stories about how Proposition 209—a state law that prohibited the use of
preferential treatment and eliminated the use of race and ethnicity in admissions
decisions—affected their work and organizations. The 23 participants provided accounts
of the challenges they faced and the strategies they used to cope with the issues presented
by passage of the legislation.

99

The findings of this study enabled the researcher to determine the overall impact
of Proposition 209 on the experiences of student affairs administrators. This chapter
includes a discussion of the findings in relation to the research questions that guided this
study, and presents overarching themes which help to explain the impact of Proposition
209 on student affairs organizations. Lastly, this chapter presents an analysis based on
Bolman and Deal’s frames, implications, recommendations, and suggestions for future
research.
Discussion of Findings
This study used Bolman and Deal’s four frames as a guide to assess the events
and circumstances surrounding the passage and implementation of Proposition 209. In
Chapter 4, the researcher presented the personal accounts shared by the interviewed
participants. This section highlights overarching themes that explains the connection
between the passage and implementation of Proposition 209, the challenges experienced
by the UC administrators and staff, and the coping strategies used in response to those
challenges.
Research Question 1:
What challenges did Proposition 209 present to student affairs administrators?
Vice chancellors and student affairs staff reported several challenges resulting
from the passage of Proposition 209. The interview participants indicated procedural and
financial challenges as major issues that resulted in additional problems, including
negative community reaction and issues with morale on the job. The problems faced by
vice chancellors centered on issues affecting the overall organization. On the other hand,

100

student affairs staff confronted issues related to front line or unit level activities and
morale.
The results of this study suggest four overarching themes to explain the impact of
the challenges experienced by student affairs administrators and staff. These included
direct consequences, indirect influences, external fiscal issues, and negative experiences.
The direct consequences of Proposition 209 came about from the changes to work
processes and procedures to meet the mandate of the law. Indirect influences refers to the
effects the passage of Proposition 209 had on other campus community members (e.g.,
student, staff, minority community, UC Regents), who reacted by directing their
frustrations toward student affairs staff. The third theme—external fiscal issues—was the
result of the impact from California’s unexpected financial crisis. The fourth and final
theme—negative experiences—was the ordeal faced by student affairs staff resulting
from the combined challenges associated with the direct consequences, indirect
influences, and the external fiscal issues.
Figure 1 presents the relationship of the events and circumstances surrounding the
passage and implementation of Proposition 209. It highlights the impact of external
forces (e.g., government and stakeholders) on organizations and the resulting effect on
people within the organization. The model depicts the complexity of higher education
institutions by showing the multiple connections of UC campuses with government and
various stakeholders who have an interest in the organization. The left side of Figure 1
illustrates the link between Resolution SP-1 and Proposition 209, and their connection
with the UC Regents, who were at the core of the development of “race-neutral” policies.

101

102

Direct Consequences
According to the modeled data, the direct consequence of Proposition 209 was
challenges associated with changes to institutional operations. The anticipated impact of
the proposition was the direct consequence the law had in eliminating preferential
treatment within institutional policies and procedures. The top section of Figure 1 shows
the effect of Proposition 209 on policies and procedures within admissions and outreach
units. Proposition 209 required UC administrators to alter programs to be “race-
neutral”—meaning that all endeavors make no reference or consideration of race. The
arrow directed downward towards the circle representing the impact on student affairs
illustrates the resulting consequence for student affairs, which was uncertainty in
achieving the organization’s goal of diversity.
Indirect Influences
The passage of Proposition 209 also produced indirect influences that affected
student affairs administrators and staff. An indirect influence refers to problems that
developed, not due to the implementation of the law, but due to the law’s impact on
campus community members and stakeholders. In Figure 1, the dotted line extending
downward from Proposition 209 illustrates the affect the “race-neutral” law had on
campus stakeholders (e.g., UC Regents and the campus community). On the left side of
Figure 1, UC Regents - who were already in favor of “race-neutral” efforts and adopted
Resolution SP-1—pressured student affairs to adhere strictly to the mandates of the law.
The arrow directed towards the center and away from the UC Regents—labeled

103

“pressure/scrutiny”—shows the scrutiny imposed upon student affairs administrators and
staff.
The right side of Figure 1 illustrates the connection between Proposition 209 and
the campus community (e.g., students, UC staff, K-12 schools, minority community). The
campus community reacted negatively to the passage of Proposition 209. The arrow
pointing to the center and away from the campus community—labeled “anger/alienation”
—shows their reaction directed towards student affairs administrators and staff.
Proposition 209’s indirect influence on the campus community (represented by the dotted
lines) resulted in increased frustration and declining morale among student affairs.
External Fiscal Issues
California’s financial crisis was an external factor that presented additional
problems for UC campus administrators and staff by adversely affecting financial
resources available for use by student affairs units. It is important to underscore this
factor because UC campuses are public institutions that rely primarily on state and
federal government funding to support the operation of campus programs and services.
The dependence of state schools on state and federal government funding plays a
significant role in understanding the complex relationship between UC campuses and the
government. Although the fluctuation in financial funding was unexpected and not
related to the passage of Proposition 209, it significantly affected resources of student
affairs organizations and their ability to implement outreach programs focused on
offsetting the effect of the law.

104

In 1996, before the effects of the passage of Proposition 209, the influx of
additional funding to outreach units resulted in the expansion of programs and services.
At the top right of Figure 1, the impact of California’s financial crisis (2001-2003) and its
connection to outreach programs is shown in a separate box. The arrow directed towards
outreach programs indicates the area affected by the reduced resources. The funding
problems forced student affairs leaders to eliminate and scale back programs and
outreach services to K-12 schools. The financial problems added additional work
challenges for student affairs by creating an unstable work environment and contributing
to declining staff morale.
Negative Experiences for Student Affairs Staff
The combination of direct consequences, indirect influences, and external fiscal
issues resulted in negative experiences overall for student affairs staff. The center circle
in Figure 1 illustrates the convergence of all of the problems presented by the various
factors (e.g., Proposition 209, UC Regents, and the campus community) and the
difficulties experienced by student affairs. The consequence for student affairs was the
negative experiences encountered during this period. The various challenges presented by
the passage and implementation of Proposition 209 placed student affairs administrators
and staff in the middle of turmoil.

105

Research Question 2:
How did student affairs administrators deal with the changes and challenges brought
about by Proposition 209?
Vice chancellors and student affairs staff reported several coping strategies used
to manage the challenges presented by Proposition 209, including strategic planning,
adopting new strategies, and collaboration. The coping strategies employed by vice
chancellors focused on organizing efforts and providing guidance for student affairs staff.
On the other hand, student affairs staff used strategies focused on collaborative efforts
needed to implement the new strategies developed by campus leaders.
The results of this study suggest two general sub-themes to explain the approach
used by student affairs administrators and staff: internal mobilization, and external
mobilization. Figure 2 models the coping strategies and processes of implementation used
by the vice chancellors and student affairs staff. Internal mobilization, the top half of
Figure 2, focused on planning activities (e.g., strategic planning and adopting new
strategies) exclusively involving units within student affairs. External mobilization, the
bottom half of Figure 2, refers to the collaborative activities aimed at working with
external stakeholders such as the state legislature, the UC Regents and the campus
community.

106

Figure 2: Coping Strategeis Utilized by Student Affairs

107

Internal Mobilization

UC administrators embarked on internal mobilization—the task of organizing
efforts within admission and outreach student affairs units—as the first approach in
responding to the challenges presented by the passage of Proposition 209. The top of
Figure 1 shows two ellipses, vice chancellors on the left and student affairs staff on the
right. The area of overlap between the two ellipses represents the unification and
coordination of activities between the two groups and transmission of strategies from one
group to the other.
Vice chancellors described strategic planning activities, which included the
creation of task force committees that brought together various members of the campus
community. The task forces assessed problems and developed plans to respond to the
changes and challenges brought on by the passage of Proposition 209. Senior
administrators established goals clarifying institutional objectives focused on sustaining
diversity. They devised strategic approaches to manage the problems faced by their units
and developed an internal plan within student affairs units, which laid the groundwork for
the courses of action taken by each campus in managing the problems staff confronted.
Together, senior administrators and student affairs staff developed and adopted new
admissions and outreach strategies in their efforts to achieve diversity. The subsequent
step—shown in the ellipse labeled “admissions/outreach”—shows the implementation of
changes to admissions and outreach procedures and programs.

108

External Mobilization

External mobilization describes the responses used by student affairs
administrators and staff to manage the external challenges presented by campus
stakeholders (e.g., state legislature, UC Regents, and the campus community). Student
affairs administrators and staff involved external stakeholders in order to: 1) develop
positive working relationships, 2) augment efforts of student affairs staff, and 3) gain
support and acceptance of stakeholders in the implementation of new approaches and
programs. The lower half of Figure 2 highlights external mobilization by showing the
coping strategies used by vice chancellors and student affairs staff: develop
accountability measures, involvement, and partnership/alliance. Figure 2 shows that
student affairs units directed activities outward to each of the three stakeholder groups:
the state legislature, UC Regents, and the campus community. Student affairs
administrators and staff reached out to stakeholders in collaborative ways, which helped
develop positive working relationships to aid the campus in fulfilling its goal of
sustaining diversity.
Each stakeholder group had distinct issues that were important to them. UC
administrators understood the value of working closely with stakeholders because these
groups were vital for the campus to reach their diversity goals. Each of the three
stakeholder groups was in a position of power: UC Regents were the governing authority
over the campuses, state lawmakers controlled financial resources, and K-12 schools and
community organization served as “facilitators” for accessing underrepresented students.
In order to counter the scrutiny faced in the implementation of new outreach programs

109

and in the development of a revised admissions review process, student affairs needed to
gain the approval and support of the UC Regents. The campuses, confronted with state
budget cuts, needed to work with state lawmakers to find ways to assure funding for
outreach programs. Senior administrators—who needed to find new ways to reach out to
diverse student population—also needed to gain access to minority groups by working
with facilitators in the campus community.
The bottom section of Figure 2 shows the response—external mobilization—of
student affairs to stakeholder concerns with the implementation of collaboration
strategies to foster mutually dependent relationships. The set of ellipses in this section of
Figure 2 displays the types of collaborative activities utilized by student affairs units to
address the particular challenges presented by each of the various stakeholders—shown
in the three boxes below. The three collaboration strategies include the development of
accountability measures with state legislature, involvement of the Regents, and the
development of partnership/alliances with both internal and external community
members.
The direction of information exchange between student affairs and stakeholders is
represented by the two-way arrows between the ellipses—collaborative strategy—and the
boxes—stakeholders. Figure 2 shows collaborative reciprocation of information and
interaction between student affairs and the UC Regents and the campus community. The
two-way arrows indicate the continuous interaction and communication between student
affairs and the stakeholder. On the other hand, Figure 2 shows a different interaction
between student affairs and state legislature—represented by the dashed arrow between

110

student affairs and state legislature. Student affairs collaborated with state legislature to
develop accountability measures to show effectiveness of outreach programs in the hopes
of retaining financial funding. Student affairs then used feedback from the state
legislature to adjust admissions and outreach efforts accordingly.
The collaborative endeavors provided an opportunity for student affairs to
communicate openly with each of the stakeholders in an effort to understand each other’s
circumstances, and to provide feedback. By developing joint efforts with stakeholders,
student affairs administrators supplemented the efforts within the institution to achieve
the institution’s diversity goal.

Frames Analysis
Chapter Two presented the theoretical basis for this study. Bolman and Deal
(2003) developed four frames that serve as lenses or perspectives from which to observe,
analyze, and understand the events and circumstances that take place within
organizational life. As previously described, these frames include the structural, human
resource, political and symbolic. In this research, the frames were used to assess the
circumstances surrounding the passage and implementation of Proposition 209.
Research Question 1:
What challenges did Proposition 209 present to student affairs administrators?
Structural Frame
The structural frame focuses on the coordination of work activities and
expectations to achieve organizational goals. The structural challenges brought on by
Proposition 209 created disorder within the operation of admissions and outreach units by

111

making it illegal to use race and ethnicity within their efforts. The changes brought about
by Proposition 209 as well as the development of financial resource challenges due to
California’s budget crisis created an unstable environment for senior administrators and
student affairs staff by affecting the organization’s ability to achieve diversity goals.
Procedural Challenges. Both vice chancellors and student affairs staff members
cited procedural challenges as the most significant problems they confronted. The
passage of Proposition 209 undid a long history of progress toward achieving diversity by
affecting the manner in which campuses conducted their activities related to admissions
decisions, as well as the methods and procedures used in the delivery of outreach and
recruitment programs. Proposition 209 mandated new rules, which forced institutions to
redesign and implement changes in their operational procedures while eliminating the use
of race and ethnicity within admissions and outreach activities.
Within the area of admissions, institutional goals related to diversity did not
change. Proposition 209, however, forced campuses to make procedural alterations
associated with admissions and recruitment (e.g., eliminate racial and ethnic
identification within application process, recruitment events, and marketing activities) to
comply with the law. The effect was a loss of clarity in determining how to achieve a
goal without the tools, in this case, how to achieve diversity without the use of
affirmative action. The ability of student affairs staff to achieve diversity became more
challenging, and increased levels of uncertainty among staff members who tried to
determine how to identify students without using race or ethnicity.

112

Recruitment and outreach units faced similar problems. UC campuses redesigned
many programs which were initially and specifically designed for underrepresented
student populations. Proposition 209 forced recruitment and outreach units to revamp
programs by making them open to everyone because the “race-neutral” law no longer
allowed the targeting of specific student populations.
Additional problems developed, however, as the implementation of “race-neutral”
strategies increasingly hindered the efforts of admissions and outreach staff. The revised
recruitment and outreach programs were not effective in meeting campus objectives,
because very few underrepresented students attended outreach events. As a result, staff
members were forced to rework their programs and develop new approaches to reach a
more diverse student population within the confines of the law.
Financial Resource Challenges. California’s financial problems additionally
contributed to the structural challenges already faced by student affairs officials working
in public institutions. The unpredictable nature of state finances produced uncertainty and
instability in the support and existence of outreach programs. The reduction of funding
forced UC campuses to adjust their existing programs. The unexpected reduction in
financial support for outreach activities significantly affected organizational endeavors
because of the lack of stability it created.
Human Resource Frame
The human resource frame regards people as the most important asset within an
organization and “when the fit between individual and system is poor, one or both suffer”
(Bolman & Deal, 1997, p.102). The human resource problems faced by UC

113

administrators and staff originated from a combination of all the challenges experienced
by the organization in implementing Proposition 209. The work challenges associated
with the implementation of the “race-neutral” law had a significant effect on student
affairs administrators and staff, resulting in feelings of demoralization and frustration.
Vice chancellors and student affairs staff discussed the distressing impact
Proposition 209 had on admissions and outreach staff. The multiple challenges
experienced by these staff members left them feeling frustrated with work. Staff members
experienced increased stress brought on by the changes to work procedures. Feelings of
lack of progress in overcoming work challenges did not make them feel good about the
job they were doing. Nor did staff feel energized about the work they were doing because
they felt that their efforts were no longer relevant to making a real difference among
underrepresented students. Additionally, the staff felt distrusted as they experienced
antagonism from students and backlash from the campus community.
Collectively, the changes to work procedures, the problems in overcoming the
policy’s effect, the fear of lawsuits, the loss of job security due to financial problems, and
the unfriendly atmosphere on campus contributed to the challenging environment of
admissions and outreach staff members. Staff experienced declining morale due to their
loss confidence and enthusiasm for their work because of the procedural changes and
financial problems resulting from the passage and implementation of Proposition 209.
Political Frame
The political frame contends that organizations are competitive environments
comprised of multiple interest groups (e.g., affirmative action supporters, UC Regents,

114

the state legislature, student affairs administrators, underrepresented community, and
faculty, students, parents, and alumni) that compete for limited resources (Bolman &
Deal, 2003). The difference in beliefs, values and interest among interest groups creates
conflict within an organization. Vice chancellors and student affairs staff reported
financial and negative community reaction were the two main factors that enhanced
political problems.
Financial Challenges. Vice chancellors and student affairs staff reported fiscal
problems related to California’s budget crisis as an added factor contributing to
challenges related to the passage of Proposition 209. The onset of the fiscal crisis made
financial funding a scarce resource forcing state lawmakers to lobby for financial support.
As a result, state lawmakers leveraged financial support for outreach programs in order to
gain partisan support for other state measures. The consequence for higher education
institutions was the loss of financial support due to political leveraging activities among
state lawmakers.
Community Reaction. Vice chancellors reported that hostile community reaction
stemmed from the negative message the law sent to members of the campus community
(e.g., student, staff, faculty, underrepresented community). Members of the campus
community, especially those from underrepresented groups, valued higher education
because it was a way to improve life. Affirmative action served as a tool that provided
underrepresented groups (e.g., African-Americans, Latinos/Chicanos, and Native
Americans) access to higher education. The race-neutrality of Proposition 209 made
members of the underrepresented community feel disregarded and unwelcomed on UC

115

campuses because it eliminated programs and services directly targeted for
underrepresented groups. The elimination of affirmative action disempowered minorities
because they believed it was a loss of opportunity to attend higher education. As a result,
members of the campus community (e.g., students) retaliated against student affairs
administrators and staff by refusing to collaborate with admissions and outreach efforts.
Symbolic Frame
The symbolic frame asserts that the meanings interpreted from the actions that
take place are more important than the outcomes. Organizations function as living
theaters where audience members construe meaning from the decisions and actions that
take place (Bolman & Deal, 2003). In the current research, the organization—including
the UC system and the various members of the campus community—represent the
audience
9
. The data suggests, based on the perspective of the symbolic frame, that
campus community members negatively interpreted procedural and financial problems
faced by the campuses.
Procedural Challenges. The passage of Proposition 209 created conflict within
student affairs staff because of the philosophical differences between their personal
values related to diversity and the “race-neutral” law. The challenge of student affairs
staff members originated from their personal experience and understanding of the
historical struggle for educational access for underrepresented students. For these staff
members, affirmative action programs had symbolized the opportunity to attain higher
education and a better life for the disenfranchised. With the passage of Proposition 209,
the elimination of affirmative action policies in admissions and outreach with respect to

9
Audience: Vice chancellors, UC staff, students, faculty, K-12 schools, community organizations.

116

underrepresented minorities appeared to them to undo the progress made in improving
diversity.
For other members of the UC campus community, it appeared as though the
campuses were “turning their backs” on diversity. Members of underrepresented
communities perceived this as a re-institutionalization of racism. Because of this
community viewpoint, staff members no longer felt connected to their work as their
personal ambitions and beliefs seemed no longer aligned with that of the organization.
Frames Summary

Proposition 209 presented UC administrators and staff with many challenges.
Structurally, changes made to institutional policies and operating procedures related to
admissions and outreach units reflected the impact of Proposition 209. Fiscal problems
associated with state budget cuts affected all four frames in the manner previously
described. Structural challenges, however, resulted in the reduction of outreach programs
and affected the organizations ability to maximize their efforts. From the perspective of
the human resources frame, vice chancellors and staff members indicated that changes to
institutional procedures were the most significant concerns for staff members. Vice
chancellors were aware of and most concerned about the negative effect the passage of
Proposition 209 had on staff morale. The political frame is evidenced when vice
chancellors and student affairs staff faced problems resulting from the campus
community’s view of the Proposition 209 as a loss of opportunity in accessing higher
education as well as in the political leveraging of financial support. Symbolically, there
were differences in the challenges reported by vice chancellors and staff members.

117

Among vice chancellors, community reaction contributed to symbolic issues, while staff
members contended with personal issues related to the meaning of their work.
Research Question 2:
How did student affairs administrators deal with the changes and challenges brought
about by Proposition 209?
Structural Frame
The structural frame seeks to achieve maximum efficiency through the
coordination of work roles and activities within an organization (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Vice chancellors and student affairs staff engaged in “lateral forms of coordination”
(Bolman & Deal, 1997, p. 44) which allows an organization to be flexible and adapt
when dealing with the challenges and the changing situations presented by Proposition
209. The “race-neutral” law required UC campuses to alter institutional policies and
procedures by eliminating the use of race and ethnicity in admissions decisions. As a
result, senior administrators altered job roles and responsibilities of student affairs staff in
order to address the changing circumstances in order to continue to achieve institutional
goals related to diversity. Vice chancellors and student affairs staff utilized coping
strategies, including strategic planning, adopting new strategies, and collaboration,
while engaging in lateral coordination activities.
Strategic Planning and Adopting New Strategies. UC campuses valued diversity
despite the requirements of Proposition 209, which prohibited the use of race and
ethnicity. Before vice chancellors could determine a goal upon which to focus, they
reported the need to determine important factors in order to guide their overall decision

118

making for the organization. The vice chancellors highlighted institutional commitment to
diversity and improving the relationship with minority communities as the two most
significant considerations. By bringing attention to these two goals, administrators and
staff had a clear vision of what they wanted to achieve despite the constraints presented
by Proposition 209.
The UC Regents and the University of California Office of the President formed
two task forces, one related to outreach and another focused on admissions. The task
forces brought together staff from various campuses and departments to develop new
strategies that would focus on achieving the goal of diversity. UC officials also integrated
long-term planning in their approach by focusing on early student preparation—by
reaching out to middle school students. The thinking behind this idea was to create a
pipeline of students who would be prepared and eligible for admissions to the university.
The outreach task force revamped outreach plans by increasing collaboration with
K-12 schools and changing the criteria used to identify underrepresented students without
specifically using race or ethnicity. The new criteria included income level and
geographic location. The admissions task force redesigned the application review process
in order to improve the evaluation of applicant files. Over a 10-year period, admissions
units modified the application review process twice: 1) first, by instituting the
comprehensive review process—where two readers evaluated different parts of the
application; and 2) second, by using the holistic review—where at least two reviewers
evaluated the entire application and took into consideration achievements, challenges,
and contextual issues relevant to each applicant. The latter process was more labor

119

intensive and required admissions officers to augment their staffing to support their
activities and meet deadlines.
Collaboration. Student affairs administrators and staff used collaboration to
address the challenges presented by Proposition 209. Further discussion related to
collaboration is addressed at the end of this section.
Human Resource Frame
The assumption behind the human resource frame is that “organizations exists to
serve human needs” (Bolman & Deal, 1997, p. 102). Vice chancellors and student affairs
directors utilized people skills in response to the challenges experienced by student
affairs staff by addressing staff concerns related to the uncertainty of events presented by
the implementation of Proposition 209. Student affairs staff members, on the other hand,
employed collaboration as a way to empower themselves and to support other staff
members on their campus and at other institutions. The interviewed vice chancellors
reported utilizing people skills to show their concern and sensitivity to student affairs
staff members directly affected by the changes brought on by the passage of Proposition
209. The senior administrators were sensitive to the anxiety expressed by discouraged
staff members. Although vice chancellors reported having little control over the situation,
they made efforts to communicate openly about the realities presented by the
circumstances and made themselves available to provide staff with the necessary support
for them to get their jobs done.

120

Political Frame
The political frame views conflict from differing interest groups as a normal part
of organizational life (Bolman & Deal, 2003). The role of leaders is to manage
organizational conflict by mobilizing people to develop positive and productive
outcomes. Vice chancellors and student affairs staff utilized collaboration to address the
challenges presented by the various stakeholders.
Collaboration. Senior administrators understood the importance of managing the
conflicting interest by gaining the support and approval of the external community in
order to overcome resistance and to achieve institutional goals. The activities associated
with external collaboration involved student affair staff working with key stakeholders
(e.g., UC Regents, the state legislature, and the various members of the campus
community) and forming coalitions in order to sustain diversity.
One form of collaboration utilized by student affairs administrators was the
development of alliances and partnerships with external community members. Senior
administrators identified major stakeholders to approach, including K-12 schools,
community organizations, UC Regents, and the state legislature. Developing working
relationships with the external community enabled student affairs staff to overcome
community resistance to the endeavors put forth by the campuses.
Both vice chancellors and student affairs staff highlighted the problems related to
scrutiny of the admissions process by the UC Regents. To counter these issues vice
chancellors invited UC Regents to take part in the admissions review process with the

121

intent to influence their opinions about the rigor of the newly developed admissions
procedures and its compliance with Proposition 209.
Student affairs staff members also used collaboration to gain support from
internal and external campus community members. The motivation of staff members to
use collaboration was to increase the awareness of the rigor and fairness of the new
process. Internally, the objective was to offset the accusations among those who felt that
the admissions office was not compliant with the law. Externally, student affairs wanted
to alter the negative opinions (e.g., that the university was anti-diversity) the community
had about the university. Developing partnerships with the external community enabled
student affairs to gain access to underrepresented populations who would benefit from
increased recruitment and outreach services. One facet to the external collaboration
centered on activities related to K-12 schools. In order for student affairs to be effective
with outreach efforts, it was important for campuses to focus on mutual values and build
partnerships with K-12 schools in order to work with their students. The success of
student affairs depended upon the cooperation of the K-12 schools. Student affairs staff
partnered with K-12 officials to develop outreach programs that were mutually beneficial
for both K-12 schools and the university.
An additional method of collaboration used by student affairs was becoming
involved with state lawmakers in the development of accountability measures for
outreach programs. Faced with financial funding problems and state legislative
insinuation that outreach programs were ineffective, senior administrators viewed joint
efforts with the state lawmakers as a way to address the problem. The collaboration

122

focused on developing accountability measures that would demonstrate the effectiveness
of campus outreach efforts to the state lawmakers in an effort to maintain the programs
financial support. This form of involvement focused on UC campuses influencing
government decision makers to overcome resistance.
Symbolic Frame
The symbolic frame seeks to interpret meaning in the events and activities that
take place within organizations (Bolman & Deal, 1997). Vice chancellors employed two
strategies with symbolic meaning: strategic planning and collaboration.
Strategic Planning. The vice chancellors’ account of establishing institutional
goals demonstrates the value placed on diversity—the most important focus for the
campus. In this case, campus administrators focused on commitment to diversity and
building and enhancing positive relationships with the underrepresented community.
These two values clarified the goals that UC campuses strived to meet their efforts to
overcome the negative effects of Proposition 209. Coincidentally, these values also
served as symbols, which communicated the institution’s position with respect to its
relationship with the minority community.
The decisions and actions of UC vice chancellors and other campus leaders were
symbolic to staff, students, and other members of the campus community. The
administration’s declaration of specific goals set the tone for the campus in how to
approach the challenges before them. It conveyed campus priorities and reinforced the
direction and implementation of new procedures. For example, the Berkeley Pledge,
previously discussed in Chapter 4, served as a significant symbol of change for each

123

respective campus. The chancellor’s public declaration of his support for diversity
signaled the values of the institution, the actions, and direction internal members of the
campus community (e.g., faculty, staff and students) would take addressing the
challenges posed by Proposition 209. This action signified the value the campus placed
on diversity and on its relationship with minority communities.
The creation of admissions and outreach task force committees by the UC
Regents and campus vice chancellors was symbolic. The message conveyed from the
process of forming teams with a common goal was that the organization was taking
action to develop plans that would resolve the problems presented by implementing the
law. These actions reassured the campus community members that senior administrators
were seeking solutions to the problems.
Collaboration
The findings of this research indicated that collaboration was a significant
strategy used to address multiple challenges presented by the passage of Proposition 209.
UC administrators and staff utilized two forms of collaboration: internal and external.
The following section discusses the use of internal collaboration from the perspective of
the structural and human resources frame. External collaboration was previously
discussed in the political frame section.
Student affairs administrators used collaboration as a method to coordinate roles
between their campus and community members, including UC staff, K-12 schools, and
local community organizations. Structurally, collaboration served as a way to reorganize

124

and augment the existing structure within admissions and outreach units to support the
goal of maintaining and enhancing diversity.
Internal collaboration involved members from within the UC campus community
in support of the efforts of the institution. Two forms of internal collaboration took place.
The first involved staff members. The new admission review process (i.e., the
comprehensive review and holistic review) overwhelmed admissions staff members
because of the increase workload it created. To meet department deadlines, admissions
staff used collaboration by bringing in staff members from other student affairs units to
help review admissions applications. From the perspective of the human resource frame,
internal collaboration created a positive and supportive work environment for staff
members in affected units. The collaboration between admissions units and other student
affairs staff boosted the spirits of disheartened employees. Collaboration served as an
opportunity for staff to vent work frustrations and to overcome feelings of powerlessness
under the constraints of Proposition 209.
The second form of internal collaboration focused on working with current UC
students. Admissions and outreach units joined efforts with student organizations. The
rationale behind this strategy was to collaborate with those who were able to do targeting
activities not permitted by the “race-neutral” law—student groups. By including students,
student affairs staff structurally augmented recruitment and outreach efforts.
Frames Summary
Structurally, student affairs administrators addressed organizational challenges presented
by Proposition 209 through the coordination of institutional activities. Task force

125

committees developed a strategic plan outlining the approach of new strategies focused
on achieving institutional goals related to diversity. Student affairs staff collaborated with
colleagues in other units to support the increasing work demands brought on by changes
in the application review process. The human resource frame is evidenced in the
sensitivity demonstrated by senior administrators who were concerned with the work
challenges confronted by student affairs staff members. Staff members engaged in
collaborative efforts amongst themselves to provide support and to boost the morale of
staff members in admissions and outreach units. From the perspective of the political
frame, student affairs administrators and staff developed alliances with campus
stakeholders (e.g., students, legislature, K-12 schools, community organizations) in order
to overcome the challenges presented by Proposition 209 and the financial crisis. Student
affairs focused on mutual goals to persuade and gain the support of stakeholders.
Symbolically, senior administrators demonstrated their values to the campus community
by furthering the institutions commitment to diversity.
Implications
There are three major implications of the current study.

1. The definition of diversity will change.
Proposition 209 outlawed the use of race and ethnicity in campus policies and
procedures. However, UC campuses continued to value diversity as a goal.
Student affairs administrators and staff responded by redefining diversity exclusive of
race and ethnicity. In this way, student affairs administrators and staff were able to
comply with the law while continuing to pursue diversity.

126

Historically, diversity has been associated with a person’s race and ethnicity. The
development of “race-neutral” laws such as Proposition 209, however, have forced
campus administrators to reexamine their understanding of diversity and to view it as
more than race and ethnicity. The problem presented to UC campuses was determining
how to go about achieving a diverse campus without giving preferential treatment based
on this old definition.
To address the challenges presented by Proposition 209, student affairs developed
new criteria to serve as substitutes for race and ethnicity, which at the same time enabled
them to continue to encompass underrepresented students while following the mandates
of the law. The new criteria included low socio-economic status, high school academic
performance, and geographic location.
Instead of focusing on personal attributes, the changes to the definition of
diversity highlighted the uniqueness of an individual’s personal circumstances while still
adhering to the requirements of the “race-neutral” law. Redefining diversity based on
personal circumstances allowed student affairs administrators to augment the description
of diversity by including populations previously overlooked by the old definition.
Interview participants described their new approach as “casting a wider net” to
encompass a broader scope of diversity, which increased the pool of students to include
low-income, first generation college-going Whites and Asians, who were not previously
considered.
The passage of Proposition 209 created the need for UC administrators to redefine
diversity in order to ensure inclusivity of everyone from various racial and ethnic

127

backgrounds. Senior administrators modified their approach to achieving diversity, which
resulted in its redefinition. From an organizational standpoint, higher education
administrators implementing “race-neutral” laws need to realize that in order to guide
organizational endeavors focused on diversity they may have to redefine the institution’s
understanding of diversity.
2. Financial dependence presents additional problems for state funded institutions.
UC campus officials stressed dependence on state funding as a significant
external force acting upon the work of campus administrators. Public colleges and
universities rely upon state and federal funding to support day-to-day campus operations.
As mentioned in Chapter Two, numerous public policies regulate the activity of higher
education institutions and make financial funding contingent upon compliance. The
dependence of public colleges and universities on government funding makes them
vulnerable to the instability of state and federal funding cycles and political posturing
deals.
The reduction of financial support was an added challenge student affairs
administrators and staff confronted in having to meet institutional goals related to
diversity. It appears that there is no clear solution to the financial problems faced by the
government at both the state and national level. With increasing challenges in
determining how to resolve state and federal deficits, it is more likely that state funded
institutions, such as public colleges and universities, are more prone than in the past to
the effects of reduced government financial support.
In general, further budget cuts could result in the elimination of diversity

128

programs and services altogether. Interview participants indicated the need to scale back
outreach programs and services due to the reduction of funding experienced from 2001-
2003. The reduction of financial support creates additional constraints and forces campus
administrators to reprioritize institutional goals in order to find a balance between
managing the daily operations of their campuses and effectively serving the public.
3. The passage of race-neutral laws increases the significance of the roles and
relationships public higher education institutions have with members of the campus
community.
The participants reported the campus community’s negative reaction to the
passage of Proposition 209 as a significant problem. Various groups within the campus
community (e.g., underrepresented groups, faculty, staff, students, and parents) were
discontent with the passage of Proposition 209 because the “race-neutral” law made UC
campuses appear to be anti-diversity and unwelcoming of underrepresented groups.
Participants indicated that, because of Proposition 209, the campus community responded
antagonistically towards student affairs personnel, which added to their work challenges.
The evidence of this study suggests that the relationship between UC campuses
and campus community members becomes increasingly important after the passage of a
“race-neutral” law. The basis of this argument stems from the fact that the coping
strategies employed by admissions and outreach personnel are directed outward to work
with the campus community. Student affairs, therefore, could not rely solely on internal
activities within their units or within their campus to respond to the problems presented

129

by Proposition 209. Instead, student affairs personnel needed to involve the entire campus
community to be a part of the solution.
In order for student affairs administrators to address the various challenges
presented by Proposition 209, it became necessary for them to focus on developing their
relationships with campus community members and to recognize the significance of their
particular roles. The campus community serves as an agent to the larger community
outside of the university. Any future organizational changes resulting from “race-neutral”
laws should take into consideration the significance of the institution’s relationship with
the campus community. To ignore or neglect the campus community could be
detrimental to achieving institutional goals related to diversity.
Limitations
Chapter 3 presented several methodological limitations to the study. Two
additional types of limitations are sample bias and researcher bias.
Sample Bias
Sample bias refers to the “limitations based on selectivity in the people who were
sampled” (Patton, 2002, p. 563) which may affect the research findings. This study was
based largely on participant input, which in retrospect creates sample bias and may
reduce the generalizability of this study. In particular, three notable limitations are 1)
employment status at the University of California; 2) willingness to participate; and 3)
participant responses.
One factor contributing to sample bias is the challenge in locating key-informants
no longer employed by the University of California or within the field of higher

130

education. As a result, the sample in this study only includes those currently employed
by the University of California system. This raises the question of whether the input of
those who left might have provided a different outlook on the circumstances and whether
or not their personal experiences with the challenges resulting from adhering to the
requirements of Proposition 209 had influenced their departure from the University of
California.
Another factor associated with sample bias pertains to the willingness of
participants to talk about their experiences. As discussed in Chapter Two, affirmative
action is a controversial subject within higher education. Due to Proposition 209’s
connection to affirmative action, it is no surprise to note the contention surrounding the
race-neutral law. The sensitive nature of Proposition 209 made some potential informants
uncomfortable and unwilling to talk about the subject, thus resulting in their decision to
decline to participate in this study. One staff member stated, “this was a particularly
painful period” and declined to be interviewed. The exclusion of individuals who
declined to participate raises questions about whether or not unwilling participants had a
different experience from willing participants? Was there was something within their
own experiences that made unwilling participants reluctant to talk about it?
The accuracy of participant responses is the final limitation related to sample bias.
The researcher relied on participant responses to determine the context and circumstances
surrounding the passage and implementation of Proposition 209. Consequently, the
findings of this study possibly present a one-sided view of the issues since the sample

131

only included the perceptions of student affairs administrators and staff and not those of
students or other members of the campus community.
Researcher Bias
Researcher bias is an inevitable part of qualitative research and arises from the
personal beliefs and assumptions that the researcher or participants have that could affect
or interfere with the investigation (Merriam, 1998; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Two
limitations contributing to researcher bias include 1) personal views and 2) researcher
background.
A researcher’s personal views may influence the way the data is interpreted and
the participant responses are analyzed. This bias may be due to the researcher’s personal
interests or views related to the subject in question, in this case issues related to
affirmative action.
In addition, the researcher’s background may have influenced the responses of
participants in this study. Two limitations related to the researcher’s background may
have contributed to researcher bias: 1) the ethnic background of the researcher and 2) the
institutional role of the researcher (e.g., student, professor, and administrator).
One of the interviews was conducted in-person, and the rest via telephone. It is
possible that participants in the non face-to-face interviews made assumptions about the
researcher's ethnic identity based on the researcher’s last name which could have
influenced their responses to the interview questions. Additionally, other background
factors associated with the researcher’s institutional role as a doctoral student could have
influenced participants’ responses. It is not known whether participants may have

132

responded to these questions differently if a different researcher (e.g., professor or
administrator) had asked them.
Recommendations
External mandates—such as legislation—will continue to affect higher education
institutions across the country. Colleges and universities will be required to implement
these mandates. Student affairs leaders will play a major role in implementing these
policies on their campuses. Based on the finding of this study, there are several
recommendations offered as guidance for student affairs practitioners.
1. Effective leaders support flexible organizational structures in order to respond
quickly to changing circumstances.
The accounts shared by the participants in this study illustrate the unpredictable
nature of the effect legislative laws can have on higher education institutions. The
passage of Proposition 209 created unfamiliar problems for student affairs staff because it
forced them to alter work policies and procedures by eliminating the use of race and
ethnicity within admission and outreach efforts. The participants reported the
development of unexpected problems not directly related to changes imposed by
Proposition 209, but instead were indirect consequences related to the influence the
“race-neutral” law had on campus community members.
In order for higher education institutions to respond effectively to changes in
legislation, it is necessary for senior administrators to support organizational structures
that can quickly respond to and address unpredictable problems that may arise with the
implementation of new laws. Bolman and Deal (2003) assert, “organizations operating in

133

rapidly changing, turbulent, and uncertain environments need much more complex and
flexible structures. (p. 67). The circumstances presented by the passage and
implementation of Proposition 209 created an unstable work environment for student
affairs administrators and staff because of the forced changes mandated by the law and in
the development of unexpected problems.
Bolman and Deal (2003) argue that the success of an organization in dealing with
changing circumstances depends on its “ability to reconfigure its structure to fit the
situation” (p. 94). In order for this to happen, organizations need to be able to adapt to
changing conditions. The researchers suggests ad hoc configurations as “loose, flexible,
self-renewing” structure as the best type of form to deal with “conditions of turbulence
and rapid change” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 79). Burns and Stalker (1961) use different
terminology to describe flexible organizational structures as organic systems and
emphasize how these systems are “appropriate to changing conditions, which give rise
constantly to fresh problems and unforeseen requirements for action” (p. 202).
Burns and Stalker (1961) believe the focus of organic systems is to unify the
organization in addressing the problems of concern as a distinctive feature of organic
systems. The flexibility of organic systems promotes interaction between workers at
various levels within the structure and empowers workers to be more directly involved in
the decision making process. Job roles are less defined and developed based on the needs
of the situation. Similarly, Bolman and Deal (2003) summarize the distinctive character
of ad hoc structures to include “amorphous roles, lateral coordination, and a flat hierarchy
encouraged participation, creativity, and productive conflict” (p. 94-95). The flexibility

134

of an organic system enables the organization to adapt to changing circumstances by
accessing new sources of knowledge and creativity within the organization.
2. Effective leaders use empowerment to guide and augment organizational endeavors.
The changes mandated by Proposition 209 angered members of the campus
community. The passage of the law made campus community members feel powerless
because Proposition 209 no longer permitted the use of affirmative action. The challenge
presented to senior administrators was simultaneously dealing with the various problems
presented by multiple campus members.
Student affairs staff viewed affirmative action as a tool that helped them achieve
institutional goals related to diversity. Proposition 209, however, disabled staff because it
created feelings of powerlessness and took away their ability to use race and ethnicity.
The challenge faced by student affairs staff was in determining how to achieve goals
related to diversity when the law no longer permitted the use of affirmative action.
Kanter (1979) refers to the powerlessness faced by student affairs staff as
“accountability without power” (p. 343) which results in “frustration and failure” (p. 343)
due to the lack of resources and ability to make things happen. Student affairs staff lacked
power or the ability to change the circumstances presented by the law and were put in a
position “to administer programs or explain policies that they have no hand in shaping”
(p. 346). The challenge confronted by student affairs staff was due to their responsibility
in fulfilling the institution’s goals related to diversity while being restricted by
Proposition 209. Furthermore, the scrutiny of the Regents and the state’s financial
problems presented additional strains to staff. Student affairs staff were left feeling

135

powerless because they were caught in the middle of the various pressures placed upon
them—by the law, the regents, and by the campus community—and without the ability to
change things.
For members of the underrepresented community, Proposition 209 took away
opportunity to access higher education. Proposition 209 created a sense of powerlessness
for community members as well, because community members felt helpless without
affirmative action. The consequence of feeling powerless resulted in what Kanter (1979)
refers to as a type of resistance, where those without power retaliate by “holding others
back and punishing with whatever threats they can muster” (p. 344). The campus
community members, especially students, directed their outrage towards student affairs
administrators and staff because of their compliance with the law. Admissions staff
members reported retaliation from student organizations that refused to work with them
because they were angered and upset with Proposition 209. Students blamed staff and
resorted to non-cooperation as a form of punishment.
In an effort to manage complex circumstances, student affairs administrators should
continue to focus on developing collaborative opportunities that empower others to use
their knowledge, expertise, and energy to make the organization more productive. Kanter
(1979) asserts that leaders can “make pockets of ineffectiveness in the organization more
productive” (p. 351). The ineffectiveness presented by the passage of Proposition 209
resulted in the feelings of powerlessness by members of the campus community.
In order to manage these problems senior administrators need to focus on
harnessing the energy of powerless groups through involvement and collaboration.

136

Kanter (1979) asserts, “organizational power grows by sharing that power with others in
the organization which results in productivity” (p. 351). By engaging campus community
members, student affairs administrators are able to strengthen the work efforts of
admissions and outreach units by augmenting the structure of the organization to include
the larger community. Coupled with the flexible structures of organic systems, senior
administrators should encourage participation of employees in order “to give workers
more opportunity to influence decisions about their work and working conditions”
(Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 145). Bolman and Deal (2003) claim that empowering
employees builds confidence and trust in their ability to do good work.
In working with the various members of the campus community, senior
administrators should use collaboration to help understand the interests and concerns of
stakeholders, build alliances, and to influence change (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Senior
administrators should understand that the significance of developing partnerships stems
from the belief that administrators and staff share common interest with stakeholders and
are dependent on one another in order to achieve institutional goals (Bolman & Deal,
2003). By focusing on the development of working relationships, senior administrators
are better able to address potential problems or barriers because they have involved key
stakeholders in the efforts and activities of the organization.
3. Effective leaders adjust institutional activities in order to preserve organizational culture
while adhering to the mandates of race-neutral legislation.
Higher education institutions exist in a complex environment that consists of
internal and external forces as well as various constituents groups which place pressure

137

on organizational activities. Because of the numerous demands imposed by these forces,
higher education administrators must be able to balance internal and external demands in
their efforts to organize work activities to ensure “organizational success and survival”
(Meyer & Rowan, 1977, p. 513). Proposition 209 created two conflicting problems for
student affairs administrators. The law challenged administrators to implement a “race-
neutral” law while simultaneously preserving the deeply embedded value of diversity
maintained by the organization’s constituents.
The first problem focused on the need for administrators to ensure that campuses
followed the mandates of the law. The issue of organizational survival becomes relevant
because of the financial dependence of public institutions on government funding. At the
same time, government funding has incorporated contingency clauses that ensure funding
as long as the institution complies with the law. In order for public higher education
institution’s to survive and continue to receive financial support, administrators must
make structural adjustments that show compliance with the law. The second problem
centers on upholding the existing organizational culture with respect to the value for
diversity. Organizational culture is the shared values and beliefs (Bolman & Dean, 2003)
that energize an organization. Bolman and Deal (2003) refer to values as qualities that
define an organization and provide a sense of purpose.
In order to manage conflicting pressures, senior administrators should develop a
disjunction within the organizational structure that will enable it to adhere to the law, but
at the same time foster existing organizational values. Meyer and Rowan (1977) describe
this separation as decoupling, a strategy used to address conflicting endeavors and to

138

legitimize the organization to the varying constituents. The need to create legitimacy
stems from the need of the organization to survive and persist internally and externally
(Meyer & Rowan, 1977).
Proposition 209 outlawed the use of race and ethnicity; however, the law did not
affect the institution’s goal of diversity. As a result, to avoid any problems with the law,
campuses can continue to maintain the goal of diversity, as long as they do not do so at
the expense of one group over another. In the first disjunction, student affairs
administrators conformed to the mandates of the “race-neutral” law by eliminating the
use of race and ethnicity within all institutional policies and procedures. The second
disjunction involved administrators’ indirect focus on improving diversity in order to
preserve the existing campus culture and to maintain the support of campus constituents.
Meyer and Rowan (1977) maintain that ambiguous goals, such as diversity, correspond
with the values of the organization. The findings of this study indicated that senior
administrators incorporated activities that enabled them to focus indirectly on diversity.
One example is the substitution of criteria used to replace race and ethnicity. As
previously discussed in the implications section, the definition of diversity changed from
personal attributes to personal circumstances such as low socio-economic status and
attendance at a low academic performing schools. The changes in the definition of
diversity enabled student affairs to continue to encompass racial and ethnic groups
without overtly specifying them. A second example that occurred within the UC system
is the development of new admissions procedures. The new procedures informally

139

demonstrated to campus constituents that the campus leaders value diversity and are
willing to do what is necessary to improve it.
4. Effective leaders influence existing organizational culture to address changing
circumstances through the decisions they make for the organization.
The federal government first introduced affirmative action in the 1960’s. After
more than 30 years, the practice of affirmative action and issues surrounding the need to
improve diversity have become deeply embedded within the profession of student affairs
and within the field of American higher education. Proposition 209, the first so-called
“race-neutral” law approved by California voters in 1996, eliminated the use of
affirmative action practices. The “race-neutral” law changed the way public higher
education institutions could operate. Proposition 209 negatively affected student affairs
staff and members of the UC campus community because the law created feelings of
uncertainty and loss of meaning among those who valued diversity.
The problems that developed from Proposition 209 stemmed from the idea that
diversity was highly valued by many student affairs staff and by members of the campus
community. The mandates of Proposition 209 represented a devaluation of diversity and
disregard for members from the underrepresented community. For many student affairs
staff members, the “race-neutral” law forced them to implement practices they did not
believe in, that conflicted with their personal beliefs, and conflicted with the existing
culture of the institution. As a result, many staff members were saddened and found it
difficult to stay engaged with work. Student affairs staff felt that their work and

140

professional dedication no longer had meaning because they were not able to focus on
diversity, which was what was important to them.
Trice and Byer (1993) assert the need to adjust or make changes to existing
beliefs in order for an organization to “maintain culture” (p. 414). Senior administrators
need to recognize the significance of affirmative action within their campus culture and
should realize that the implementation of a “race-neutral” law prompts a “culture
change…break with the past” (p. 414), a break from the reliance on affirmative action as
the only way to achieve diversity. The passage of Proposition 209 immobilized student
affairs staff because of the long-standing ideologies held about affirmative action and its
connection to improving diversity.
The mandate of a “race-neutral” law requires senior administrators “to replace…
existing ideologies… with new ones” (Trice & Byer, 1993, p. 414) in order to keep the
existing culture of the organization alive. In the case for UC campuses, senior
administrators created conditions that allowed old beliefs to change by redefining
diversity as more than just personal attributes. Another way for senior administrators to
manage culture change is to communicate their vision (Bolman & Deal, 2003) and by
clarifying the institution’s focus and the need for shifting ideologies in order overcome
the challenges presented by the implementation of the “race-neutral” law. In doing so,
campus leaders are better able to focus and harness the energy of the organization
towards productive endeavors.

141

Suggestions for Future Research
This research focused on investigating the impact of the passage of Proposition
209 on student affairs professionals only within selected campuses of the University of
California. There are, however, two other higher education systems within the state of
California: the California State University and the California Community Colleges
system. Future research could examine the impact of the passage of Proposition 209 on
these systems in their entirety in order to increase our understanding of the overall effect
of race-sensitive policies on public higher education. We also need to understand if the
challenges filter into the other two systems for a broader understanding of the issues it
presents for higher education system, since the Master Plan for Higher Education in
California notes their interconnection within the system.
Additionally, the passage of Proposition 209 may have affected activities at the
graduate level and within professional schools, which was not the focus of this research.
An examination of the impact of “race-neutral” laws at the level of graduate and
professional schools is necessary to increase our understanding of the overall impact that
this legislation had on public higher education institutions.
More sustained research is necessary to examine the possible effect of so-called
race neutral policies on institutions that vary by student demographics. For example,
research should examine the impact of such policies on institutions that are more diverse
compared to those that are not as diverse. Would there be differences in how leaders in
these institutions respond to “race-neutral” legislation? What are the similarities and
differences in the types of challenges these institutions face, or differences in how these

142

institutions respond to external challenges? Further research could provide answers to
these questions, and more.
All 23 of the respondents in this study indicated their support of affirmative
action. None of the respondents in this study opposed affirmative action. As a result, a
final area for future research could focus on understanding the experiences of student
affairs staff that support “race-neutral” policies. One focus could explore how their
experiences differed from those presented in this study. Further research could examine
how they coped with working in an environment where the majority of colleagues did not
support similar views.
Closing
In 1996, the state of California passed Proposition 209, which eliminated the use
of preferential treatment within the state’s public institutions. This led to a number of
studies focused on the effect of the law on the admissions and the enrollment of
underrepresented students. In contrast, this study focused on the experiences of student
affairs professionals—those who had to implement mandated changes required by the
law.
This study aims to increase understanding of how external factors—in this case
Proposition 209—aaffect student affairs organizations. The passage and implementation
of Proposition 209 presented multiple organizational challenges, which forced campus
leaders within the University of California to reassess organizational endeavors focused
on achieving institutional diversity. The results of this study suggest that the impact of
policy on higher education institutions is significant and can negatively affect the efforts

143

of student affairs administrators and staff. This study also demonstrates the effectiveness
of student affairs leaders in using Bolman and Deal’s frames to assess and resolve
organizational issues managing various challenges to the institution’s goals.
This study contributes to the existing research about Proposition 209, student
affairs, and leadership effectiveness. The researcher believes that legislative mandates are
an inevitable part of higher education. Consequently, student affairs leaders should be
aware of ensuing legislation in order to prepare their organizations to respond to potential
challenges.

144

REFERENCES
affirmative action.( 2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved February
3, 2009, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/affirmative+action
Alexander, F. K. (2000). The changing face of accountability: Monitoring and
assessing institutional performance in higher education. The Journal of Higher
Education, 71(4), 411-431.
American Civil Rights Institute. (1996). California’s Proposition 209. Retrieved
January 30, 2006 from http://www.acri.org/prop209language.html
Barr, M.J. & Keating, L.A. (1985). Developing effective student services program. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Bensimon, E.M. (1989). The meaning of “good presidential leadership”: a frame
analysis. The Review of Higher Education, 12(2), 107-123.
Bensimon, E.M. (1990). Viewing the presidency: Perceptual congruence between
presidents and leaders on their campuses. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 71-90.
Blackhurst, A. (2000). Effects of mentoring on the employment experiences and career
satisfaction of women student affairs administrators. NASPA Journal, 37(4),
573-586.
Blackhurst, A.E. (2000). Career satisfaction and perceptions of sex discrimination
among women student affairs professionals. NASPA Journal, 37(2), 399-413.
Blackhurst, A.E., Brandt, J.E., & Kalinowski, J. (1998). Effects of career development
on the organizational commitment and life satisfaction of women student affairs
administrators. NASPA Journal, 36(1), 19-34.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and
leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Bowen, W.G. & Bok, D. (1998). The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of
Considering Race in College and University Admissions. New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.

145

Brubacher, J. S., & Rudy, W. (1976). Higher education in transition: A history of
American colleges and universities (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Buchanan, E.T. (1993). The changing role of government in higher education. In M.J.
Barr (Ed.), The handbook of student affairs administration (pp. 493-508). San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Burns, T. & Stalker, G.M. (1961). Mechanistic and organic systems. In J.M. Shafritz &
J.S. Ott. (Eds.), Classics of Organization Theory (pp. 198-202). Belmont:
Wadsworth Group/Thomson Learning.

California Department of Education. (2008). 2007-08 Accountability Progress
Reporting. Retrieved February 7, 2009, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/TA/ac/ay/glossary08a.asp

California Postsecondary Education Commission. (2009). Information for students:
Student Right-to-Know. Retrieved on August 22, 2009, from
http://www.cpec.ca.gov/CollegeGuide/InfoForStudents.asp
Campus explains holistic review admissions process. (2008, September 5). Retrieved
February 7, 2009, from UCLA Today-Faculty and Staff News Web site:
http://www.today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/080905_holistic-admissions_reed.aspx
Cerych, Ladislav. (1998). The Policy Perspective. In K. Kemper, M. Mollis, & W. G.
Tierney, Comparative Education. Association for the Study of Higher
Education (ASHE) Reader (pp. 294-308). Needham Heights, MA: Simon and
Schuster.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, P.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (1964). U.S. National Archives and
Records Administration. Washington, DC. Retrieved on August 23, 2009, from
http://arcweb.archives.gov/arc/action/ShowFullRecordLinked?tab=showFullDe
scriptionTabs/digital&%24submitId=1&%24showFullDescriptionTabs.selected
PaneId=scope&%24resultsDetailPageModel.pageSize=1&%24resultsDetailPag
eModel.search=true&%24partitionIndex=0&%24searchId=2&%24highlight=fa
lse&%24digiSummaryPageModel.targetModel=true&%24digiDetailPageMode
l.currentPage=0&%24digiDetailPageModel.resultPageModel=true&%24sort=R
ELEVANCE_ASC&%24resultsDetailPageModel.currentPage=0

Coleman, A. L., Palmer, S. R., & Richards, F. S. (2005). Federal law and recruitment,
outreach, and retention: A framework for evaluating diversity-related
programs. Retrieved February 7, 2009, from The College Board Web site:
http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/diversitycollaborative/05diversi
ty-fedlaw-framework.pdf

146

Conrad, C.A., & Sharpe, R.V. (1996). The impact of the California Civil Rights
Initiative (CCRI) on university and professional school admission and the
implications for the California economy. Review of Black Political Economy,
25 (1), 13-55.
Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Exec. Order No. 10925, 26 F.R. 1977 (1961).

Exec. Order No. 11246, 3 C.F.R. 339 (1964-1965).
Fayol, H. (1916). General Principles in Management. In J.M. Shafritz & J.S. Ott.
(Eds.), Classics of Organization Theory (pp. 48-60). Belmont: Wadsworth
Group/Thomson Learning.
Fenske, R.H. (1989). Evolution of the student services profession. In Delworth, U.,
Hanson, G.R. (Eds.). Student services: A handbook for the profession (pp. 25-
26). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Fenske, R.H. (1989). Historical foundations of student services. In Delworth, U.,
Hanson, G.R. (Eds,). Student services: A handbook for the profession (pp. 5-
24). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Florida. (n.d.). States. Retrieved September 8, 2007, from American Civil Rights
Institute Web site: http://www.acri.org/legislation.html
Follett, M.P. (1926). The Giving of Orders. In J.M. Shafritz & J.S. Ott. (Eds.), Classics
of Organization Theory (pp. 152-157). Belmont: Wadsworth Group/Thomson
Learning.
Garrison-Wade, D.F. & Lewis, C.W. (2004). Affirmative action: History and analysis.
Journal of College Admission, 184, 23-6.
Green, D.O. (2004). Justice and diversity: Michigan’s response to Gratz, Grutter, and
the affirmative action debate. Urban Education, 39(4), 374-393.
Greenberg, M. (1997). The GI Bill: The law that changed America. New York: Lickle.
Gulick, L. (1937). Notes on the Theory of Organization. In J.M. Shafritz & J.S. Ott.

147

(Eds.), Classics of Organization Theory (pp. 79-87). Belmont: Wadsworth
Group/Thomson Learning.
Hayward, B. (1998). State budget invests in UC access and outreach. (1998).
Retrieved September 7, 2007, from University of California Web site:
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/9508

Heimovics, R.D., Herman, R.D., & Jurkiewicz Coughlin, C.L. (1993). Executive
leadership and resource dependence in nonprofit organizations: A case analysis.
Public Administration Review, 53(5), 419-447.
Holzer, H.J., & Neumark, D. (2006). Affirmative action: What do we know? In D.J.
Besharov (Ed.), Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25 (2), 463-490.
Initiative 200. (1998). 1998 Election: State ballot measures - Complete text of
Initiative 200. Retrieved on June 15, 2009 from Washington Secretary of State
Website: http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/1998/i200_text.aspx
Jacques, E. (1990). In Praise of Hierarchy. In J.M. Shafritz & J.S. Ott. (Eds.), Classics
of Organization Theory (pp. 234-241). Belmont: Wadsworth Group/Thomson
Learning.
Kanter, R.M. (1979). Power Failure in Management Circuits. In J.M. Shafritz & J.S.
Ott. (Eds.), Classics of Organization Theory (pp. 343-352). Belmont:
Wadsworth Group/Thomson Learning.
Karabel, J. (1999). The rise and fall of affirmative action at the University of
California. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, (25), 109.
K. Kemper, M. Mollis, & W. G. Tierney. (1998). Comparative Education. Association
for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE) Reader (pp. 294-308). Needham
Heights, MA: Simon and Schuster.

Kezar, A. (2003). Achieving student success: Strategies for creating partnerships
between academic and student affairs. NASPA Journal, 41(1), 1-22.
Kezar, A. (2003). Student affairs administrators: Building collaborations with student
and academic affairs for institutional improvement. American Association for
Higher Education Retrieved April 4, 2006 from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?a
ccno=ED482218
Knock, G.H. (1985). Development of student services in higher education. In Barr,
Keating, & Associates. Developing Student Services Programs: Systematic

148

Approaches for Practitioners. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Komives, S.R., Woodard, D.B., & Associates. (1996). Student services: A handbook
for the profession. (3rd ed.).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Lane, F.S. (1978). Government in higher education. Proceedings of the Academy of
Political Science, 33 (2), 136-145.
Lovell, C.D., & Kosten, L.A. (2000). Skills, knowledge, and personal traits necessary
for success as a student affairs administrator: A meta-analysis of thirty years of
research. NASPA Journal, 37(4), 553-572.
Maine Public Universities (n.d.). Admissions and Recruiting. Retrieved June 7, 2008
from Maine Public Universities website:
http://www.maine.edu/system/mainestreet/sstp_admin.php

Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17(2), 13-19.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education
(2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Meyer, J.W. & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as
myth and ceremony. In J.M. Shafritz & J.S. Ott. (Eds.), Classics of
Organization Theory (pp. 505-520). Belmont: Wadsworth Group/Thomson
Learning.

Mintzberg, H. (1983). The power game and the players. In J.M. Shafritz & J.S. Ott.
(Eds.), Classics of Organization Theory (pp. 353-360). Belmont: Wadsworth
Group/Thomson Learning.
Moreno, P.B. (2003). The history of affirmative action law and its relation to college
admission. The Journal of College Admission, 179.
Nobbe, J., & Manning, S. (1997). Issues for women in student affairs with children.
NASPA Journal, 34(2), 101-111.
Nuss, E.M. (1996). The development of student affairs. Student services: A handbook
for the profession, 22-24. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Orfield, G. & Miller, E. (1998). Chilling admissions: The affirmative action crisis and
the search for alternatives. Cambridge: Harvard Educational Publishing Group.
Orfield, G., & Kurlaender, M. (2001). Diversity challenged: Evidence on the impact of

149

affirmative action. Cambridge: Harvard Education Publishing Group.
outreach. (2009). In Postsecondary Education Commission. Retrieved on February 3,
2009, from http://www.cpec.ca.gov/SecondPages/Glossary.asp?ListType=12
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publication.

Pfeffer, J. (1981). Understanding the Role of Power in Decision Making. In J.M.
Shafritz & J.S. Ott. (Eds.), Classics of Organization Theory (pp. 304-318).
Belmont: Wadsworth Group/Thomson Learning.
Proposed Ballot Summary. (n.d.). Initiative 200: Proposed Washington State Civil
Rights Initiative. Retrieved March 12, 2006, from Washington Secretary of
State Web site: http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/1998/i200_text.aspx
Proposition 209 Language. (2006). American Civil Rights Institute. Retrieved on
February 2, 2009 from http://www.acri.org/prop209language.html
Pusser, B. (2004). Burning down the house: Politics, governance, and affirmative
action at the University of California. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Rapp, J.L. (1997). Staff diversity: The need for enhancing minority participation in
student affairs. College Student Affairs Journal, 16(2), 73-84.
Regents of the University of California. (2001). California notes: A Q&A with UC
Berkeley Admissions Director Pamela Burnett. Retrieved on May 29, 2009
from Regents of the University of California website:
http://www.ucop.edu/pathways/ucnotes/sep01/directions.html
Regents of the University of California. (2001). Current Policies: Policy on future
admissions, employment and contracting resolution rescinding SP-1 and SP-2.
Retrieved October 7, 2008, from
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/policies/6031.html

Regents of the University of California. (2006). About the Regents. Retrieved August
10, 2006, from
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/about.html

Resolution SP-1 (1995). In Affirmative Action Diversity Project Website. Retrieved

150

August 23, 2009 from http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/SP-1.html

Roethlisberger, F.J. (1941). The Hawthorne Experiments. In J.M. Shafritz & J.S. Ott.
(Eds.), Classics of Organization Theory (pp. 158-166). Belmont: Wadsworth
Group/Thomson Learning.
Rudenstine, N. L. (2001). Student diversity and higher learning. In G. Orfield (Ed.),
Diversity challenged: Evidence on the impact of affirmative action (pp. 31-48).
Cambridge: Harvard Education.

Schein, E.H. (1993). Defining Organizational Culture. In J.M. Shafritz & J.S. Ott.
(Eds.), Classics of Organization Theory (pp. 369-376). Belmont: Wadsworth
Group/Thomson Learning.
Schuh, J.H. (2002). Lessons from leaders. NASPA Journal 39(3), p.204-219.
Secretary Spellings Announces New Commission on the Future of Higher Education.
(2005, September 19). Retrieved August 10, 2007, from U.S. Department of
Education Web site:
http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2005/09/09192005.html
Shafritz, J. M. & Ott J. S. (2001). Classics of organization theory (5th ed.). Belmont:
Thomson Wadsworth.
Shafritz, J. M., Ott, J. S., Jang, Y. S. (2005). Classics of Organization Theory. (6th ed.)
Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.
Simmons, Ron. (1982). Affirmative action: Conflict and change in higher education
after Bakke. Cambridge: Schenkman Pub. Co.
Smith, A. (1776). On the Division of Labour. In J.M. Shafritz & J.S. Ott. (Eds.),
Classics of Organization Theory (pp. 37-41). Belmont: Wadsworth
Group/Thomson Learning.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research (2
nd
ed). Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publication.
Suzuki, B. H. (2002). Revisiting the model minority stereotype: Implications for
student affairs practice and higher education. In M. K. McEwen, C. M.
Kodama, A. N. Alvarez, S. Lee, & C. T. H. Liang (eds.). Working with Asian
American college students (pp. 21-32). New Directions for Student Services, no

151

97. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Thompson, M.D. (2000). Gender, leadership orientation, and effectiveness: Testing the
theoretical modes of Bolman & Deal and Quinn. Sex Roles, 42(11/12).
Tierney, W.G. (1996). Affirmative action in California: Looking back, looking forward
in public academe. The Journal of Negro Education, 65(2), 122-132.
Tierney, W.G. (1997). The parameters of affirmative action: Equity and excellence in
the academy. Review of Educational Research, 67(2), 165-196.
Trice, H.M. & Beyer, J.M. (1993). Changing organizational cultures. In J.M. Shafritz
& J.S. Ott. (Eds.), Classics of Organization Theory (pp. 414-422). Belmont:
Wadsworth Group/Thomson Learning.

UCLA Today-Faculty and Staff News . (2008). Campus explains holistic review
admissions process. (2008, September 5). Retrieved February 7, 2009, from
UCLA Today-Faculty and Staff News Web site:
http://www.today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/080905_holistic-admissions_reed.aspx

United States Department of Justice. (2000). Title IX of the Education Amendments of
1972. Retrieved on February 3, 2009, from United States Department of Justice
website http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/coord/titleixstat.php.
University of California. (1997). UC newsroom: Regents approve UC partnership plan
with public schools. Retrieved July 15, 2006 from University of California
website http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/20606

University of California. (2001). UC Newsroom: Regents approve comprehensive
review in UC freshman admissions. Retrieved February 7, 2009, from
University of California website:
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/19822

University of California. (2003). UC Campuses. Retrieved July 15, 2007 from
University of California website:
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/campuses/welcome.html
University of California Office of the President. (1997). Regent’s briefing. Retrieved
February 6, 2007 from University of California Office of the President website:
http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/commserv/regjul97.html
University of California Office of the President. (2001). California notes: University of
California Regents rescind ban on affirmative action. Retrieved April 15, 2007

152

from University of California Office of the President website:
http://www.ucop.edu/pathways/ucnotes/may01/afirmaction.htm
University of California Office of the President. (2001). Regent’s Meeting May 16:
Regents rescind SP-1and SP-2, affirm diversity commitment. Retrieved
September 2, 2008 from University of California Office of the President
website: http://www.ucop.edu/news/access/qasp12.htm
University of California Office of the President. (2007). Educational Relations
Department: The California Master Plan for Higher Education in Perspective.
Retrieved October 8, 2008, from University of California Web site:
http://www.ucop.edu/acadinit/mastplan/mpperspective.htm

University of California Office of the President. (2009). Students/Workforce Data:
Preliminary data. Retrieved May 10, 2006, from University of California
Office of the President Web site: http://www.ucop.edu/news/studstaff.html

United States Department of Treasury (1998). The United States Mint: Coins and
Medals. Retrieved August 23, 2009 from The United States Department of
website:
http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/50sq_program/index.cfm?flash=yes&ac
tion=schedule

U.S. Department of Education. (2005). The handbook for campus crime reporting.
Retrieved on August 22, 2009 from website U.S. Department of Education:
http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/handbook.pdf

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. (n.d.) Educators and Students:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. Retrieved on June 15, 2009 from The U.S. National Archives and
Records Administration website:
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-rights-act/index.html

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. (n.d.) The Charters of Freedom:
Constitution of the United States Amendments 11-27. Retrieved on September
2, 2009 from The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration website:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-
27.html#14
Wallace, A. (1996). Affirmative action ban still divides UC. Los Angeles Times. July
21, 1996 p.1 [Online version] Retrieved July 7, 2006, from Proquest database:
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=16434219&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId=523
9&RQT=309&VName=PQD

153

Wallace, A. (1996, October 2). Less diversity seen as UC preferences end; Education:
UCLA, Berkeley campuses say numbers of underrepresented minorities could
drop 50% to 70%. In The Los Angeles Times, p. A1. Retrieved July 7, 2006,
from Proquest database:
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=16637448&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId=467
6&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Weber, M. (1922). Bureaucracy. In J.M. Shafritz & J.S. Ott. (Eds.), Classics of
Organization Theory (pp. 73-78). Belmont: Wadsworth Group/Thomson
Learning.
Yin, R. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods (1st ed.). Beverly Hills: Sage
Publishing.
Yin, R. (1989a). Case study research: Design and methods (Rev. ed.). Beverly Hills:
Sage Publishing.

Yin, R.K. (1981). The case study crisis: Some answers. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 26(1), 58-65.
Zumeta, W. (1998). Public university accountability to the state in the late twentieth
century: Time for rethinking? Policy Studies Review, 15(8).

154

APPENDIX A

TEXT OF RESOLUTION SP-1

WHEREAS, Governor Pete Wilson, on June 1, 1995, issued Executive Order W- 124-95
to "End Preferential Treatment and to Promote Individual Opportunity Based on Merit";
and

WHEREAS, paragraph seven of that order requests the University of California to "take
all necessary action to comply with the intent and the requirements of this executive
order"; and

WHEREAS, in January 1995, the University initiated a review of its policies and
practices, the results of which support many of the findings and conclusions of Governor
Wilson; and

WHEREAS, the University of California Board of Regents believes that it is in the best
interest of the University to take relevant actions to develop and support programs which
will have the effect of increasing the eligibility rate of groups which are
"underrepresented" in the University's pool of applicants as compared to their
percentages in California's graduting high school classes and to which reference is made
in Section 4;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The Chairman of the Board, with consultation of the President, shall appoint a
task force representative of the business community, students, the University, other
segments of education, and organizations currently engaged in academic "outreach." The
responsibility of this group shall be to develop proposals for new directions and increased
funding for the Board of Regents to increase the eligibility rate of those currently
identified in Section 4. The final report of this task force shall be presented to the Board
of Regents within six months after its creation.

Section 2. Effective January 1, 1997, the University of California shall not use race,
religion, sex, color ethnicity, or national origin as criteria for admission to the University
or to any program of study.

Section 3. Effective January 1, 1997, the University of California shall not use race,
religion, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin as criteria for "admissions in exception"
to UC-eligibility requirements.

Section 4. The President shall confer with the Academic Senate of the University of
California to develop supplemental criteria for consideration by the Board of Regents

155

which shall be consistent with Section 2. In developing such criteria, which shall provide
reasonable assurances that the applicant will successfully complete his or her course of
study, consideration shall be given to individuals who, despite having suffered
disadvantage economically or in terms of their social environment (such as an abusive or
otherwise dysfunctional home or a neighborhood of unwholesome or antisocial
influences), have nonetheless demonstrated sufficient character and determination in
overcoming obstacles to warrant confidence that the applicant can pursue a course of
study to successful completion, provided that any student admitted under this section
must be academically eligible for admission.

Section 5. Effective January 1, 1997, not less than fifty (50) percent and not more than
seventy-five (75) percent of any entering class on any campus shall be admitted solely on
the basis of academic achievement.

Section 6. Nothing in Section 2 shall prohibit any action which is strictly necessary to
establish or maintain eligibility for any federal or state program, where ineligibility
would result in a loss of federal or state funds to the University.

Section 7. Nothing in Section 2 shall prohibit the University from taking appropriate
action to remedy specific, documented cases of discrimination by the University,
provided that such actions are expressly and specifically approved by the Board of
Regents or taken pursuant to a final order of a court or administrative agency of
competent jurisdiction. Nothing in this section shall interfere with the customary
practices of the University with regard to the settlement of claims against the University
related to discrimination.

Section 8. The President of the University shall periodically report to the Board of
Regents detailing progress to implement the provisions of this resolution.

Section 9. Believing California's diversity to be an asset, we adopt this statement:
Because individual members of all of California's diverse races have the intelligence and
capacity to succeed at the University of California, this policy will achieve a UC
population that reflects this state's diversity through the preparation and empowerment of
all students in this state to succeed rather than through a system of artificial preferences.

Source: The Affirmative Action and Diversity Project, UCSB

156

APPENDIX B
Proposition 209 Language
Following is the text of the California Civil Rights Initiative/Proposition 209 which
appeared before California voters on the November 1996 ballot. The proposition passed
on November 5, 1996 by 54% of California voters.
Authored by Glynn Custred and Tom Wood
(a) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant 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.
(b) This section shall apply only to action taken after the section's effective date.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications
based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public
employment, public education, or public contracting.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent
decree which is in force as of the effective date of this section.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken
to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would
result in a loss of federal funds to the state.
(f) For the purposes of this section, "state" shall include, but not necessarily be limited to,
the state itself, any city, county, city and county, public university system, including the
University of California, community college district, school district, special district, or
any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the state.
(g) The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of
the injured party's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available
for violations of then-existing California antidiscrimination law.
(h) This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be
in conflict with federal law or the United State Constitution, the section shall be
implemented to the maximum extent that federal law and the United States Constitution
permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this
section.

Source: American Civil Rights Institute, http://www.acri.org/prop209language.html

157

APPENDIX C
Table 7: DATES OF U.S. STATEHOOD
10

1 Delaware December 7, 1787
2 Pennsylvania December 12, 1787
3 New Jersey December 18, 1787
4 Georgia January 2, 1788
5 Connecticut January 9, 1788
6 Massachusetts February 6, 1788
7 Maryland April 28, 1788
8 South Carolina May 23, 1788
9 New Hampshire June 21, 1788
10 Virginia June 25, 1788
11 New York July 26, 1788
12 North Carolina November 21, 1789
13 Rhode Island May 29, 1790
14 Vermont March 4, 1791
15 Kentucky June 1, 1792
16 Tennessee June 1, 1796
17 Ohio March 1, 1803
18 Louisiana April 30, 1812
19 Indiana December 11, 1816
20 Mississippi December 10, 1817
21 Illinois December 3, 1818
22 Alabama December 14, 1819
23 Maine March 15, 1820
24 Missouri August 10, 1821
25 Arkansas June 15, 1836
26 Michigan January 26, 1837
27 Florida March 3, 1845
28 Texas December 29, 1845
29 Iowa December 28, 1846

10
Source: The United States Department of Treasury

158

Table 7, Continued

30 Wisconsin May 29, 1848
31 California September 9, 1850
32 Minnesota May 11, 1858
33 Oregon February 14, 1859
34 Kansas January 29, 1861
35 West Virginia June 20, 1863
36 Nevada October 31, 1864
37 Nebraska March 1, 1867
38 Colorado August 1, 1876
39 North Dakota November 2, 1889
40 South Dakota November 2, 1889
41 Montana November 8, 1889
42 Washington November 11, 1889
43 Idaho July 3, 1890
44 Wyoming July 10, 1890
45 Utah January 4, 1896
46 Oklahoma November 16, 1907
47 New Mexico January 6, 1912
48 Arizona February 14, 1912
49 Alaska January 3, 1959
50 Hawaii August 21, 1959

159

APPENDIX D

LETTER OF INVITATION TO PROSPECTIVE PARTICIPANTS

Dear Participant:

I am a doctoral candidate in education with an emphasis in Higher Education
Administration at the University of Southern California. I am involved in a study that
examines the impact of Proposition 209 on Student Affairs Administrators at several
institutions within the University of California system.

As part of my research, I am interviewing willing participants who are and were
employed with the University of California at XXXXX during the period starting in 1995
through 2003 and were employed in the area of Student Affairs.

You were identified by XXXX, as a potential candidate for this study. The interview will
last approximately one hour either in person or via telephone. In addition, a one-page
questionnaire needs to be completed by each participant and should take approximately 5
minutes to complete.

The Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to explore and examine the experiences of Student Affairs
Administrators employed in units affected by Proposition 209. This study will add to the
lack of literature regarding policy effects on organizations by illuminating the events and
circumstances surrounding Proposition 209. This examination will allow researchers and
educators to better understand the impact of changes to race sensitive policies will have
on the field of Student Affairs, which lead to better understanding of the events and
circumstances faced by the institution.

All information for this study will be kept confidential with anonymous descriptors
designated for each participant.

If you would be interested in participating in this study please contact me at (XXX)XXX
– XXXX. Your input will be greatly valued and you will become part of a study that will
benefit Student Affairs administrators at postsecondary institutions within the United
States.

Sincerely,

Joyce Perez
Ed.D. Candidate, Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

160

APPENDIX E

Table 8: PARTICIPANT CONTACT INFORMATION SHEET

Name:
Position Title:
Institution:
Address:

Telephone:
E-mail:
Position during 1995-2000:
Length of time in current position:
Test Tape Recorder:
Date of Interview:
Time of Interview:
Place of Interview:

161

APPENDIX F

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

What challenges did you experience with implementing Proposition 209?
Structural
Describe how did these challenges affect the work of student affairs.
How did these challenges affect institutional goals? Were there new goals? Why?
What types of strategies were employed to resolve the problems? Examples.
How did it change the way you do your job? Why did it change?
Human Resources
What effect did Proposition 209 have on student affairs staff? On you? Why?
What concerns or problems developed among student affairs professionals? Why?
Describe the work environment for staff.
What was done to address staff concerns? How did leaders respond. Examples.
Political
What groups were affected? What issues were important to them? Why?
What problems were unexpected?
What types of strategies were employed to manage the problems presented by these
groups? Why?
How did these problems affect your work?
Symbolic
How was Proposition 209 perceived? By Whom? Why? Positive or Negative.
Why was it important to address these issues?

162

APPENDIX G

DATA ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS

Please read all of the instructions before beginning.

Enclosed

Electronic copies of the transcribed interviews.

Research Objective:

Determine the impact of Proposition 209, a “race-neutral” policy on the professional
experiences of student affairs administrators based on the types of challenges experienced
and coping strategies utilized by student affairs administrators.

Coding/Data Analysis Instructions

Read each transcribed interview carefully.
Highlight key words and enter comments by using the comment feature of the MS Word
program.

If you need instructions on how to activate this feature, please contact me.
There are two steps involved in the coding of this information.

1) Frames Coding and Analysis

Read through each transcribed interview and highlight sections that resemble
activities/events/circumstances related to Bolman and Deal’s four frames.

The frames include structural, human resource, political, and symbolic.
Below is a summary of the key themes associated with each frame.

• Structural – organization of work, goals, job roles, rules, policies,
procedures, meetings, role coordination, networks
• Human Resources – personnel issues, skills, development, human needs
• Political – conflict, limited resources, bargaining, negotiation, interest
groups, power
• Symbolic – Meaning, symbols, rituals, culture, ceremonies, stories, heroes,
myths, ritual, beliefs

163

2) Themes Coding and Analysis

In this step, you will need to look at the data more closely as you will need to find
recurring themes related to the research objective.

There are two main factors that will answer the research question for this study:

a. Challenges
b. Coping Strategies

Based on these two factors, review the interview data and determine themes that
fall within these two factors.

3) If you have any questions, please contact me.

4) Be sure to save your coded interviews files.

5) Email completed files.

164

APPENDIX H

UC Office of the President Memo – Budget Cuts

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, January 10, 2002
University of California Office of the President
Media Contact:
Brad Hayward
(510) 987-9195
Brad.Hayward@ucop.edu
Governor's budget plan makes targeted cuts at UC but funds enrollment growth,
keeps student fees level

Gov. Gray Davis released a 2002-03 state budget proposal today (Jan. 10) that, while
making targeted cuts at the University of California to help address the state's budget
shortfall, would still fund an expected 7,100 new students, keep student fees level,
provide merit increases for faculty and staff, and accelerate several facilities projects to
spur economic growth.
The budget plan expresses the governor's support for a series of three education bond
measures on the 2002, 2004 and 2006 ballots that would provide needed facilities funding
for UC. The budget proposal also would accelerate funding for the UC-based California
Institutes for Science and Innovation, providing the final two years of funding in the
current year by using lease-revenue bonds.
The governor's budget was crafted amid an economic downturn that has left the state with
an estimated $12 billion budget shortfall.
"We appreciate the governor's effort to maintain support for higher education during such
difficult economic times," said UC President Richard C. Atkinson. "This budget plan
would maintain access to UC for all qualified students, continue the state's investment in
university research as a catalyst for economic growth, and allow us to provide a very
modest salary boost to our hard-working faculty and staff."
Under the governor's proposal, UC's state-funded budget would total $3.4 billion in 2002-
03, roughly the same as the original budget for the 2001-02 fiscal year. The governor's
plan would make mid-year reductions totaling $41 million in the 2001-02 UC budget and
then provide a $50 million increase for the 2002-03 fiscal year above the revised 2001-02
level.

165

While the budget proposal does not fully fund the Partnership Agreement between UC
and the Davis administration - an agreement that sets out funding expectations for the
state and performance expectations for the university - the administration indicated that it
"expects to resume its commitment to the funding elements of the Partnership once the
state's fiscal situation improves."
The governor proposed several mid-year cuts for 2001-02 that would be made permanent,
including $25 million of the $75 million the state provided to UC this year to cover
increased energy costs; $6 million of the $57 million provided for the UC-led California
Professional Development Institutes for K-12 teachers; and $4.8 million of the $32
million provided to UC to help expand K-12 schools' access to the next-generation
Internet2. In addition, the proposal calls for a reduction of $5 million in one-time funds
for clinical teaching support for UC hospitals, neuropsychiatric institutes and dental
clinics.
For the 2002-03 fiscal year that begins July 1, meanwhile, the governor proposed funding
for enrollment growth of 7,100 full-time-equivalent students, a 4.3 percent increase over
the budgeted amount for 2001-02. The budget also provides funding to implement state-
supported summer instruction at UC Davis; the program is already in place at UC
Berkeley, UCLA and UC Santa Barbara as a means of accommodating student
enrollment growth.
The budget proposes that mandatory systemwide student fees stay level, making 2002-03
the eighth consecutive year without a systemwide fee increase at UC. However, unlike
previous budgets, the plan does not provide state funding to cover the university's loss of
the additional fee revenue it needs to maintain support for existing programs.
The proposal would provide funding for an average merit increase of approximately 1.5
percent for eligible faculty and staff; final salary increases are subject to collective
bargaining requirements where applicable. UC did not, however, receive funding it
sought for an additional 2 percent increase for faculty and staff and a further 2 percent
increase for employees in positions where compensation levels lag the market.
"Our faculty and staff are the heart of the university, and competitive compensation for
them remains a high priority for UC," Atkinson said. "We will continue to seek additional
salary funds as the state's finances allow."
The governor's budget provides funds to cover a 6.7 percent increase in the university's
costs of providing health insurance to its employees; UC had estimated that a 10 percent
increase would be necessary. The budget also provides $4 million for faculty start-up
funds at UC Merced, the new campus planned for the San Joaquin Valley.
Budget cuts the governor proposed in 2002-03 to help balance the state's budget include a
$4 million reduction for the California Subject Matter Projects, which provide

166

professional development for K-12 teachers; a $4.2 million reduction for the university's
outreach programs to K-12 schools; and a $17 million elimination of "bonus" funding for
financial aid that the state had allowed UC to keep when student fees were reduced in the
late 1990s. (UC students still would receive more than $500 million per year in
scholarships, grants and fellowships from all sources, however.)
The plan also does not provide increases the university had sought, consistent with the
Partnership, for improvements in undergraduate education, building maintenance,
instructional technology and library materials.
The governor's budget does, however, contain good news for the university's capital
program. First, it proposes to accelerate seven construction projects at UC as part of the
governor's statewide economic stimulus package. The projects, totaling $279 million, are
for programs in engineering, the sciences and veterinary medicine at UC Davis, UC
Irvine, UC Riverside, UC San Diego, UC Santa Barbara and UC Santa Cruz; the package
also includes infrastructure development at UC Merced. The projects have been approved
by the Legislature and were expected to be funded for construction in 2002-03; the
governor's proposal moves them up to the current 2001-02 year using lease-revenue
bonds.
In addition, the governor's capital budget accelerates funding for the four California
Institutes for Science and Innovation, which will be located at UC campuses and will
pursue cutting-edge scientific research in fields that are important to the future of the
California economy. The final increment of $218.5 million in funding for the institutes
was to be provided over the next two years, but the governor proposes to provide it in the
current year - a move that would help address the state's General Fund shortfall by
shifting the financing for the institutes from state General Funds to lease-revenue bonds
that would be paid off over time.
Also, the governor is proposing $82.6 million for UC's regular capital improvement
program, contingent on legislative and voter passage of a new general-obligation bond
measure, along with $26.7 million in lease-revenue financing for construction of a
classroom and office building at the new UC Merced campus.
The governor's budget proposal next will be considered by the Legislature. Final action
on the state budget generally occurs by early summer.

Source: Office of the President News Room
http://www.ucop.edu/news/archives/2002/jan10art2.htm

167

APPENDIX I

Figure 3: LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE – ROLE OF STATE

168

Figure 3, Continued

Source: Legislative Analyst’s Office Higher Education
http://www.lao.ca.gov/sections/higher_ed/FAQs/Higher_Education_Issue_07.pdf

Abstract (if available)

Abstract In November 1996, California voters approved the passage of Proposition 209, the first “race-neutral” law affecting public California higher education institutions. The purpose of this research is to understand the impact of “race-neutral” law on student affairs organizations and gain insights into the effective leadership approaches used within such organizations when they are challenged by external laws. A qualitative case-study approach, within the framework of Bolman and Deal’s organizational frames, was used to examine the impact of Proposition 209 on student affairs administrators and staff at the six University of California campuses. This research found direct consequences and indirect influences resulting from the passage of “race-neutral” legislation and unexpected external fiscal issues, which resulted in an overall negative experience for student affairs professionals. This study determined that effective student affairs leaders made use of a multi-frames approach in assessing organizational problems and in the development of organizational solutions. Campus leaders utilized several strategies to respond to the challenges presented by the policy, including strategic planning, adopting new strategies, and developing collaborative relationships with campus stakeholders.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The impact of parental involvement on student achievement

PDF

A study of student affairs administration professional preparation in Chinese higher education

PDF

Leadership strategies, skills, and professional approaches utilized by effective senior-level student affairs administrators at urban universities

PDF

Increasing minority enrollment at the University of California post Proposition 209: UCLA's Center for Community College Partnerships

PDF

Negotiating racial conflict: the leadership role of the dean of students

PDF

Frontline workers serving students: a study on the well-being of student affairs professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

The impact of learning communities on the retention and social integration of African American students at a highly selective private four-year institution

PDF

The influences of student organizational type on the leadership development of African American students at predominantly white institutions: a case study

PDF

The sources of impact in college on gay male student identity: the current student perspective

PDF

What is the impact of same-race alumni mentoring on the career development of African American students attending predominantly White Universities?

PDF

The impact of a TRIO upward bound program on the academic achievement of African-American male students

PDF

Exploring the undergraduate Latina/o experience: a case study of academically successful students at a research institution

PDF

Impact of required parental involvement on African American male students and families: a qualitative study of the USC-NAI program

PDF

Assessing the impact of diversity courses on student-faculty interactions, critical thinking and social engagement

PDF

The work-life balance pursuit: challenges, supports, and strategies of successful women senior student affairs officers

PDF

K-12 standards-based reform implementation: site-level shared roles of leadership: a case study

PDF

The impact of programs, practices, and strategies on student academic performance: a case study

PDF

A grounded theory study on the academic and athletic success of female student-athletes at a private, research, Division I university

PDF

Creating a community of practice: serving student veterans in higher education

PDF

Reform strategies used by system leaders in education to impact student achievement: a case study

Asset Metadata

Creator Perez, Joyce P. (author)

Core Title Proposition 209: a case study on the impact of race-based legislation on student affairs at the University of California

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 11/11/2009

Defense Date 03/26/2009

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Administration,Higher education,Law,leadership,legislation,OAI-PMH Harvest,policy,Proposition 209,student affairs,University of California

Place Name California (states)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Jackson, Michael L. (committee chair), Hoffman, John (committee member), Jun, Alexander (committee member)

Creator Email jpperez@usc.edu,jpperez1@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2727

Unique identifier UC1184711

Identifier etd-Perez-2754 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-272985 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2727 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Perez-2754.pdf

Dmrecord 272985

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Perez, Joyce P.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu