DeRonde v. University of California Regents Appendix to Brief Amicus Curiae

    IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

GLEN DeRONDE,
Plaintiff, Respondent, 

v.
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY 
OF CALIFORNIA, et al..

Defendants, Appellants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

3 Civil 116732

On Appeal From The Judgment Of The Court 
Of Appeal Of The State Of California In 
And For The Third Appellate District

APPENDIX
TO

BRIEF OF THE NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL 
FUND, INC., AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF 
DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS, THE REGENTS 
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

JACK GREENBERG
V JAMES M. NABRIT, III

NAPOLEON B. WILLIAMS, JR.
10 Columbus Circle 
Suite 2030
New York, New York 10019 
Telephone: (212) 586-9397

JOHN H. ERICKSON ALICE M. BEASLEY 
HENRY S. HEWITT ERICKSON, BEASLEY & HEWITT 

12 Geary Street
San Francisco, CA. 94108 
Telephone: (415) 781-3040

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae



APPENDIX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

HISTORY OF DE JURE SEGREGATION IN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EDUCATION
1. Elementary and Secondary Public School

Segregation...................................... la
2. California's Postsecondary Effort to Overcome 

the Effects of Racial Segregation at Lower
Levels of Public Education ......................  14a

i



TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases:

Adams v. Richardson, 480 F.2d 1159 (D.C.
Cir. 1 973) .................................  2a,9a

Anderson v. Matthews, 174 Ca. 537, 163
P. 902 ( 1 91 7) ..............................  6a

,Brice v. Landis, 314 F. Supp. 94 (N.D. Cal.
1969) ......................................  2a

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483
( 1 954) .....................................  4a,7a

Brown v. Weinberger, 417 F. Supp. 1215
(D. .D.C. 1 976) ............................... 2a

Carlin v. San Jose Unified School District,
___ Ca. App. Supp. 3d __, ___ Cal.
Rptr. ___ (Super. Ct. bounty of San
Diego, No. 303800, filed March 9,
1977) ......................................  3a

Crawford v. Board of Education, 17 Cal. 3d 
280, 130 Cal. Rptr. 724, 551
P. 2d 28 ( 1 976) .............................  3a

Diana v. State Board of Education, N.D.
Cal. Civ. Act. No. C-70-37, Rep.,
stipulation dated June 18, 1 973 ............  3a

Gaston County v. United States, 395
U.S. 285 ( 1 969) ............................  9a

Guey Heung Lee v. Johnson, 404 U.S. 1215
(1971) .....................................  2a,4a,

5a, 7a, 8a
Jackson v. Pasadena City School District, 59 

Cal.2d 876, 31 Cal. Rptr. 606, 382
P. 2d 878 ( 1 963) (en banc) ..................  3a

Johnson v. San Francisco Unified SchoolDistrict, 339 F. Supp. 1315 (N.D. Cal.
1971), app. for stay denied, Guey Heung 
Lee v. Johnson, 404 U.S. 1215 (1917) 
vacated and remanded, 500 F.2d 349
(9th Cir. 1 974) ............................ 2a

Page

- ii -



Page

Kelsey v. Weinberger, 498 F.2d 701 (D.C. Cir.1 974) ......................................  2a
Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189

( 1 973) .....................................  6a,7a
Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 ( 1 974) .............  2a
Lopez v. Seccombe, 71 Supp. 769 (S.D. Cal.

1944) ......................................  8a
Mendez v. Westminster School District, 64 F. Supp.

544 (C.D. Cal. 1946), affirmed, 161 F.2d744 (9th Cir. 1 947) (en banc) ..............  7a
NAACP v. San Bernardino City Unified School 

District, 17 Cal. 3d 311, 130 Cal.
Rptr. 744, 551 P.2d 98 ( 1 976) ..............  3a

Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 1 12 ( 1 970) .........  10a
Oyama v. California, 332 U.S. 633 ( 1 948) ........  8a
P. v. Riles, 343 F. Supp. 1306 (N.D. Cal.

1972), affirmed, 502 F.2d 963 (9th
Cir. 1 9T4TT.T:.............................  2a

Pena v. Superior Court, 50 Cal. App. 3d 694,
123 Cal. Rptr. 500 (Ct. App. 1 975) .........  3a
/

People v. San Diego Unified School District,
19 Cal. App. 3d 252, 96 Cal. Rptr.
658 (Ct. App. 1971), cert, denied, 405
U.S. 1 01 6 ( 1 972) ...........................  2a,3a

Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal. 2d 711, 198 P.2d
17 ( 1 948) ..................................  8a

Piper v. Big Pine School Dist., 193 Cal.
664, 226 P. 926 ( 1 924) .....................  6a

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1 896) .........  5a
Romeo v. Weakley, 226 F.2d 399 (9th Cir. 1955) ... 8a
San Francisco Unified School District v.Johnson, 3 Cal.3d 937, 92 Cal. Rptr.

309, 479 P.2d 669 (1971) (en banc)
cert, denied, 401 U.S. 1012 (1971) .........  3a

- iii -



Page
Santa Barbara School District v. Superior Court,

13 Cal. 3d 315, 118 Cal. Rptr. 637, 530
P. 2d 605 ( 1 975) (en banc) ..................  4a

Soria v. Oxnard School District Board of
Trustees, 386 F. Supp. 539 (C.D. Cal. 1974), 
on remand from 488 F.2d 577 (9th Cir.
1 973 ) .......".................. ............. 2a

Spangler v. Pasadena City Board of Education,
311 F. Supp. 501 (C.D. Cal. 1 970) ..........  2a,6a

Takahaski v. Fish and Game Commission, 334
U.S. 410 ( 1 948) ............................  8a

Tape v. Hurley, 66 Cal. 473, 6 P. 129 (1885) .... 6a
Ward v. Flood, 49 Cal. 36 ( 1 874) ................  5a
Wysinger v. Crookshank, 82 Cal. 588, 23 P. 54

( 1 890) .....................................  5a
Yick Wo. v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 ( 1 886) ........  8a

Statutes:
State Statutes
General School Law of California § 1662
at 14 ( 1 880) ...............................  5a
1860 Cal. Stats., c. 329, § 8 ............... 5a
1863 Cal. Stats., c. 159, §68 ............... 5a
1885 Cal. Stats., c. 117, § 1 662 ...........  5a
1983 Cal. Stats., c. 193, §1 662 ............. 6a
1921 Cal. Stats., c. 685, § 1 ............... 6a
1935 Cal. Stats., c. 488, §§ 1, 2 ..........  7a
1947 Cal. Stats., c. 737, § 1 ............... 7a
1959 Cal. Stats., Res. c. 1 6 0 .............. 10a
Assembly Concurrent Resolution Number

151, 1974 Cal. Stats., Res. c. 209 (1974) . 10a,16a

U.S. Statutes
20 U.S.C. § 1600 et seq. ( 1 972) .................  1a
42 U.S.C. § 2000d ( 1 964) ........................  1a

- i v -



Other Authorities

American Public Health Association, Minority 
Health Chartbook (1974) ...............

California Coordination Council For Higher 
Education, H. Kitano & D. Miller, An 
Assessment of Educational Opportunity 
Programs in California Higher Education (1970). 13a,17a,

California Coordinating Council For Higher
Education, K. Martyn, Increasing Opportuni­
ties In Higher Education For Disadvantaged 
Students (1966) ...........................

22 California Department of Justice, Opinions
of The Attorney General, Opinion 6735a (January 
23, 1930) 931-932 (1930) .....................

California Legislature, Assembly, A Master Plan 
For Higher Education in California, 1960- 
1975 (1960) ..............................

California Legislature, Assembly Permanent Sub- 
corn. On Postsecondary Education, Unequal Access 
to College (1975) ...........................

California Legislature, Joint Com. on Higher Ed­
ucation, K. Martyn, Increasing Opportunities 
For Disadvantaged Students, Preliminary Out­
line (1967) ....................... '.......

California Legislature, Joint Com. on Higher Ed­
ucation, The Challenges Of Achievement: A
Report on Public and Private Higher Education In California (1969)..........................  11a, 13a

California Legislature, Joint Com.On the Master 
Plan For Higher Education, Nairobi Research 
Inst., Blacks and Public Higher Education In 
California (1973) ............................

California Legislature, Joint Com. on the Master 
Plan For Higher Education, R. Lopez & D. Eons,
Chicanos and Public Higher Education in 
California (19 72) ..... ........*............ -

California Legislature Joint Com. on the Master 
Plan For Higher Education, R. Yoskioka, Asian- 
Americans and Public Higher Education in 
California (1973) ...........................

Page (s) 

20a

18a,19a

14a,17a 

7a 

10a 

17a,19a

13a,17a

14a,17a

18a

18a

15a,17a
v



(Page(s)
California Postsecondary Education Commission,

Equal Education Opportunity in California 
Postsecondary Education: Part 1 (1976) .........

California Postsecondary Education Commission, 
Planning For Postsecondary Education In 
California: A Five Year Update, 1977-1982
(1977) ........................................

California State Department of Education, Racial 
and Ethnic Survey of California Public 
Schools, Fall 1966 (1967), Fall 1968 (1969) 
and Fall 1970 (1971) ...........................

Center for National Policy Review, Justice Delayed, 
HEW and Northern School Desegregation (1974) ....

Center For National Policy Review, Trends In Black 
School Segregation, 1970-1974, Vol. 1 (1977) ....

Center For National Policy Review, Trends In
Hispanic Segregation, 1970-1974, Vol. II (1977)..

Darity, Crucial Health and Social Problems In The 
Black Community, Journal of Black Health 
Perspectives 1 (June/July 1974) ................

Davis, A Decade Of Policy Developments in Provid­
ing Health Care For Low Income Families In 
Haveman, R. Ed. A Decade of Federal Anti-Poverty 
Policy: Achievements, Failures And Lessons
(1976) .........................................

Governor's Commission On The Los Angeles Riots,
Violence In The City (1965) ....................

Iba, Niswander & Woodville, Relation of a Prenatal 
Care To Birth Weights, Major Malformations, and 
Newborn Deaths of American Indians, 88 Health 
Services Reports 697 (1973) ....................

I. Hendrick, The Education of Non-Whites in Cal­
ifornia, 1849-1970 (1977) ......................

D. Ressner Et A., Contrasts In Health Status, Volume I
Instant Death: An Analysis By Maternal Risk and
Health Care (1973) .............................

"Maternal and~CniTcr~Hea;itn—Service, U . S .-Department
of Health, Education and Welfare, Promoting The 
Health of Mothers and Children, Fiscal Year 
1972 ...........................................

17a,19a 

10a,11a

la, 8a

3a

la

la

21a

23a

8a

22a 

5a,6a,8a

22a

23a
vi



Page (s)
Mills, Each One Teaches One, J. Black Health 

Perspectives (Aug.-Sept. 1974
Montague, Prenational Influences (1962) .........
National Center For Health Statistics, Department 

Of Health, Education and Welfare, Monthly _
Vital Statistics Report, Summary Report Final 
Mortality Statistics (1973) ..................

National Foundation, Annual Report (1974) .......
Robertson, et al., Toward Changing the Medical 

Care System: Report Of An Experiment in
Haggarty, The Boundaries of Health Care, Re­
printed from Alpha Omega Honor Society, Pharos 
of Alsph Omega Alpha, Vo. 35..................

Rodgers, The Challenge of Primary Care, Daedalus 
82 (Winter 1977) .............................

B. Tunley, The American Health Scandal (1966) ....
U.S. Bureau Of The Census, Current Population Re- 

Ports, Series P-23, No. 46, The Social and 
Economic Status Of The Black Population In 
The United States, 1972 (1973) ...............

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics 
Of The United States, Colonial Times to 1970, 
Part I (1976) ................................

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970, Census of Popu­
lation, Series PC(2)-2A, State of Birth (1973).

U.S. Bureau Of The Census, Statistical Abstract 
Of The United States, 1976 ...................

U.S. Civil Rights Commission, Mexican-American
Education Study, Reports I-VI (1971-1974) ....

U.S. Comm. On Civil Rights, Fulfilling The Letter 
And Spirit Of The Law (1976) .................

U.S. Comm. On Civil Rights, 3 The Federal Civil 
Rights Enforcement Effort— 1974, To Ensure 
Equal Educational Opportunity (1975) .........

21a
22a

21a
22a

23a

23a
21a

4a

4a 

4a 

la,20a 

9a 

3a

la

vii



Page(s)
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,

Office For Civil Rights, Directory of Public 
Elementary and Secondary Schools In Selected 
Districts, Enrollment and Staff by Racial/
Ethnic Groups,Fall 1968 (1970), Fall 1970
(1972) and Fall 1972 (1974) .................  la, 4a

U.S. Public Health Service, U.S. Department of 
Health, Education And Welare, Selected Vital 
And Health Statistics In Poverty And Non- 
Poverty Areas of 19 Large Cities, United 
States, 1969-71 ............................. 22a

M. Weinberg, A Chance To Learn (19 77) ..........  5a, 7a
Weiner & Milton, Demographic Correlates of Low

Birth Weight 91 Am.J.Epidemio, 260 (Mar. 1970) 22a
C. Wollenberg, All Deliberate Speed, Segregation 

and Exclusion in California Schools, 1885-1975 (1976) .................................  5a, 6a, 7a

viii



APPENDIX

DE JURE SEGREGATION IN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EDUCATION

1. Elementary and Secondary Public School Seg­
regation

In 1972, three-quarters of California's
black elementary and secondary public school
pupils attended schools which were 50-100% black,
Chicaco, Asian or Indian; over 40% attended public

25/schools which were 95-100% minority,—  and 
numerous judicially noticeable decisions demon­
strate that official policies have caused, at the 
very least, a substantial measure of this condi­
tion. The following school districts have been 
found to have segregated minority school children

25/ BUREAU OF THE CENSUS' STATISTICAL ABSTRACT 
OF THE UNITED STATES, 1976, p. 133 (1975).

Statistical evidence on the extent of seg­
regation in California elementary and secondary 
education is available in U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 
HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, OFFICE FOR CIVIL 
RIGHTS, DIRECTORY OF PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY 
SCHOOLS IN SELECTED DISTRICTS, ENROLLMENT AND 
STAFF BY RACIAL/ETHNIC GROUPS, for FALL 1968 
(1970), FALL 1970 (1972), and FALL 1972 (1974).
See also biannual CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT 
OF EDUCATION, RACIAL AND ETHNIC SURVEY OF CALIFOR­
NIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, for FALL 1966 (1967), FALL 
1968 (1969) and FALL 1970 (1971); CENTER FOR 
NATIONAL POLICY REVIEW, TRENDS IN BLACK SCHOOL 
SEGREGATION, 1970-1974, Vol. I (1977) and TRENDS 
IN HISPANIC SEGREGATION, 1970-1974, Vol. II 
( 1 977) .



federal Constitution and/or in violation of
2 6/federal statutory civil rights guarantees:—— San

„ . 27/ . , 28/ 29/rranctsco,—  Los Angeles,—  Pasadena,—  San

in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the

26/ Pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act 
of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, and Title VII of the 
Emergency School Aid Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1600 
at. seq. , the Department of Health, Education and 
Welfare is given authority to terminate federal 
assistance in cases of, respectively, school seg­
regation generally and teacher assignment. HEW's 
enforcement role is discussed in, inter alia, 3 
U.S. COMM. ON CIVIL RIGHTS, THE FEDERAL CIVIL 
RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT EFFORT— 1974, To Ensure Equal 
Educational Opportunity 49-138 (1975). Recent 
litigation concerning HEW1s failure to fulfill its 
enforcement obligations includes Adams v, Richard­
son, 480 F. 2d 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1 9 7 3); Brown v. 
Weinberger, 417 F. Supp. 1215 (D.D.C. 1976); Kel­
sey v, Weinberger, 498 F.2d 701 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

27/ Johnson v. San Francisco Unified School 
District. 339 F. Supp. 1315 (N.D. Cal. 1971), apo. 
for stay denied, Guey Heung Lee v. Johnson, 404 
U.S. 1215 (1971), vacated and remanded, 500 
F • 2 d 349 (9th Cir. 1 974); P. v. Riles. 343 F.
Supp. 1306 (N.D. Cal. 1972), affirmed, 502 F .2d 
963 (9th Cir. 1974) (14th Amendment violation);
Lau v. Nichols. 414 U.S. 563 (1974) (Title VI 
violation found).

28/ See, Kelsey v. Weinberger, supra, 498 F.2d at 
704 n.19 (HEW determination of violation of. 
Emergency School Aid Act noted).

29_/ Spangler v. Pasadena City Board of Education, 
311 F. Supp. 501 (C.D. Cal. 1970) (14th Amendment 
violation).



Diegoj30/Oxnard ^ '  Pittsburg R i c h m o n d ^ D e l -  
an0' Fresno^—  Sweetwater,—  Watsonville (Pa- 
jaro Valley),— 7, Desert S a n d s B a k e r s  field ,— /

30/ People v. San Diego Unified School District, 
19 Cal. App. 3d 252, 96 Cal. Rptr. 653 (Ct. App. 
1971) (14th Amendment violation).

31/ Soria v, Oxnard School District Board of 
Trustees, 386 F. Supp. 539 (C.D. Cal. 1974), on 
remand from, 488 F .2d 577 (9th Cir. 1973).

32/ Brice v. Landis, 314 F. Supp. 94 (N.D. Cal. 
1969) (14th Amendment violation).

33/ See Kelsey v. Weinberger, supra, 498 F.2d 
at 704 n.19 (HEW determination of violation of 
Emergency School Aid Act noted).

34/ See , Brown v. Weinberqer, surra, 417 F. Supp
at 1224 ( violation of Title VI noticed by HEW) .

35/ See , Brown v. Weinberqer, supra, 417 F. Supp 
HEW) .at 1223 ( violation of Title VI noticed by

36/ See , Brown v. Weinberqer, supra, 417 F. Supp
at 1224 (violation of Title VI noticed by HEW) .

37/ Id.

38/ Id.

39. See, CENTER FOR NATIONAL POLICY REVIEW, 
JUSTICE DELAYED, HEW AND NORTHERN SCHOOL DESEGRE­
GATION 108 (1974) (violation of Title VI noticed 
by HEW).

3a



40/ 41/Berkeley,—  and Redwood City (Sequoia).—  In addi-
42/tion, school systems in Los Angelas,—  San Fran-

43/ 44/ 45/ 46/cisco,— San Diego,— San Jose,— Pasdena,—

40/ Id.; see also, U.S. COMM. ON CIVIL RIGHTS, 
FULFILLING THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF THE LAW 50-54 
(1976) (discussion of Berkeley's voluntary deseg­
regation effort).

41/ See, CENTER FOR NATIONAL POLICY REVIEW, 
JUSTICE DELAYED, HEW AND NORTHERN SCHOOL DESEGRE­
GATION 108 (1974) (violation of Title VI noticed 
by HEW) .

Also, the State Department of Education 
agreed to remedy disproportionate representation 
of Mexican-American children in classes for 
educable mental retarded classes by a consent 
decree in Diana v. State Board of Education, N.D. 
Cal. Civ. Act. No. C-70-37 REP, stipulation dated 
June 18, 1973.

42/ Crawford v. Board of Education, 17 Cal. 3d 
280, 130 Cal. Rptr. 724, 551 P.2d 28 (1976).

43/ See, San Francisco Unified School District v. 
Johnson, 3 Cal. 3d 937, 943, 92 Cal. Rptr. 309, 
311, 479 P.2d 669, 671 (1971) (en banc), cert. 
denied, 401 U.S. 1012 (1971).

44/ People ex rel. Lynch v. San Diego Unified 
School District, 19 Cal. App. 3d 252, 96 Cal.
Rptr. 658 (Ct. App. 1971), cert, denied, 405 U.S. 
1016 (1972).

45/ Carlin v. San Jose Unified School District,
_ Cal. App. Supp. 3d ___, ___ Cal. Rptr.

Super. Ct., County of San Diego, No. 303800, 
filed March 9, 1977).

46/ Jackson v. Pasadena City School District, 59

4a



Delano,— ^San 3ernardi.no,— '̂ and Santa Barbara— '/ 
have been found in violation of State school seg­
regation and racial imbalance prohibitions. While 
necessarily an estimate, it appears that fully 59% 
of black and 43% of all minority public school 
pupils in 1970 attended schools in districts that 
have been found in violation of federal or State 
laws prohibiting school segregation.— ^It also 
should be noted that a substantial proportion of

46/ cont'd.

Cal.2d 876, 31 Cal. Rptr. 606, 382 ?.2d 878 
(1963) (en banc).

47/ Pena v. Superior Court, 50 Cal. App. 3d 694, 
123 Cal. Rptr. 500 (Ct. App. 1975).

48/ NAACP v. San Bernardino City Unified School 
District, 17 Cal. 3d 311, 130 Cal. Rptr. 744, 551 
P.2d 48 (1976).

49/ See, Santa Barbara School District v. Supe­
rior Court, 13 Cal. 3d 315, 319, 118 Cal. Rptr. 
637, 642, 530 P.2d 605, 609-610 (1975) (en banc).

50/ Statistics derived from enrollment statistics 
by school district and projected universe statis­
tics for all California districts in O.S. DEPART­
MENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, OFFICE 
OF CIVIL RIGHTS, DIRECTORY OF PUBLIC ELEMENTARY 
AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN SELECTED DISTRICTS, 
ENROLLMENT AND STAFF BY RACIAL/ETHNIC GROUPS, FALL 
1970 (1972).

5a



California's black population received some part

Moreover, the recent school desegregation 
decisions indicate that California has not fully 
dismantled its historic separate school system, 
which has been characterized as a "classic case of

3oard of Education, 347 U.S. 483, relief ordered, 
349 U.S. 294," Guey Heung Lee v. Johnson, 404 U.S.
1215, 1215-1216 (1971) (Mr. Justice Douglas, Cir-

52/cult Justice).—  Soon after the first public

5_1_/ Fully 42% of California's black population 
was born in the South, see U.S. Bureau of the 
Census, 1970 Census of Population, Series,
PC ( 2) - 2A, State of Birth 55, 61 (1973); see also 
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population 
Reports, Series P-23, No. 46; The Social And 
Economic Status of the Black Population in the 
United States, 1972 at 12 (1973). Extraordinary 
black migration to California, principally from 
the South, during and after the Second World War, 
resulted in the black population multiplying 
by 11.3 times from 1940 to 1970, U.S. BUREAU OF THE 
SENSUS, HISTORICAL STATISTICS OF THE UNITED 
STATES, COLONIAL TIMES TO 1970, PART 1, 25 (1976). 
In the same period, the white population increased 
by only 2.7 times).

52/ In Guey Heung Lee, Mr. Justice Douglas denied 
a request by Americans of Chinese ancestry to stay 
a school desegregation plan for San Francisco, ob­
serving that, "[s]chools once segregated by State

of its schooling under
tions in the southern Status.—

condi-

[the] de jure segregation involved in Brown v,

6a



"colored school" was opened in in San Francisco 
for black children, California's education law was 
formally amended in I860— 7to permit separate
schools for the education of "Negroes, Mongolians• 5 A /and Indians,"—  The constitutionality of the pro­
vision subsequently was upheld, Ward v. Flood. 48
Cal' 365g)8?4) ’~ ^ but che statute was repealed 
in 1880 after the closing of separate black 
schools in California's largest cities for reason

5 2/ cone ' d .

action must be desegregated by State action, 
at least until' the force of the earlier segrega­
tion policy has been dissipated," id. at 1216.

The history of school segregation in Califor­
nia is reviewed in C. WOLLENBERG, ALL DELIBERATE 
SPEED, SEGREGATION AND EXCLUSION IN CALIFORNIA 
SCHOOLS, 1855-1975 (1976) and I. HENDRICK, THE 
EDUCATION OF NON-WHITES IN CALIFORNIA, 1849-1970 
(1977). Pertinenc sources and studies are 
cited. See also, M. WEINBERG, A CHANCE TO LEARN 
(1977).

13/ 1860 Cal. Stats., c. 329, § 8; see also,
1863 Cal. Stats., c. 159, § 68.

54/ See, WOLLENBERG, jnipra, at 10—14.

Ward v. Flood was later cited with approval 
in Pfessy v. Ferguson. 163 U.S. 537, 545 (1896).

5_6/ General School Law of California, 5 1 662 at 14 
(1880).



, 57/or economy.—  However, recalcitrant districts
continue to separate black school children,— ^and
systemic segregation continued into the 20th 

59/century. The most common means of segregation 
has been through manipulation of student atten­
dance zones, school site selection and neighbor­
hood school policy.——^Following unsuccessful 
efforts to exclude Ch inese,— /Japanese^-/and In­
dian children— ^from public education altogether, 
specific statutory authority was created for the 
establishment of separate schools for Chinese,

57/ See, C. WOLLENBERG, supra, at 24-26.

58/ See, Wvsinger v. Crookshank, 82 Cal. 588, 23 
P. 54 (1890)..

59/ See HENDRICK, suora, at 78-80, 98-100.

60/ See, id., at.100, 103-106; see e■q., Soanqler 
v. Pasadena City Board of Education, 311 F. Supp. 
501 (C.D. Cal. 1970). C_f. Keyes v. School Dis­
trict No. 1, 413 U.S. 189, 191-194 (1973).

61 / See, e.g. , Tape v. Hurley, 66 Cal. 473, 6 P. 
129 (1885). »i »*

82/ See, e.g. , Aoki v. Deane, discussed in WOL­
LENBERG, supra, at 48-68.

63/ See, e.g. , Anderson v. Mathews, 174 Cal. 537, 
163 P. 902 (1917); Piper v. Big Pine School Dist., 
193 Cal. 664, 226 P. 926 (1924).

8a



Japanese and Indian children.— The California 
Education Code provided:

"§ 8003. Schools for Indian children, and 
children of Chinese, Japanese, or Mongolian 
parentage: Establishment. The governing
board of any school district may establish 
separate schools for Indian children, ex­
cepting children of Indians who are wards 
of the United States Government and children 
of all other Indians who are descendants of 
the original American Indians of the United 
States, and for children of Chinese, Japan­
ese, or Mongolian parentage.

"S 8004. Admission of children into 
other schools. When separate schools are 
established for Indian children or children 
of Chinese, Japanese, or Mongolian parent­
age, the Indian children or children of 
Chinese, Japanese, or Mongolian parentage 
shall not be admitted into any other school."

These provisions were not repealed until 1 947,— / 
see Guey Heung Lee v. Johnson, supra, 404 U.S. 
1215.

The repeal of California school segregation 
statutes seven years before this Court's invali-

64 /

64/ 1885 Cal. Stats., c. 117, S 1662 (Chinese);
1893 Cal. Stats., c. 193, S 1662 (Indians); 1921 
Cal. Stats., c. 685, § 1 (Japanese). The 1893 
Indian provision was amended in 1935, see infra., 
at p. 18a, n.67. See generally WOLLENBERG, supra, 
at 28-107; HENDRICK, supra, at 11-59.

65/ 1947 Cal. Stats., c. 737, $ 1.

9a



dating decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 
suora, was precipitated by Mendez v. Westminster 
School District, 64 F. Supp. 544 (D.C Cal. 1946), 
affirmed, 161 F.2d 744 (9th Cir. 1947) (en banc), 
involving yet another racial minority. As was 
true of the southwestern states generally, see 
Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189, 
197-198 (1973), de jure public school segregation 
of Mexican-American school children was tolerated 
by the State. ^While California law did not 
expressly sanction separate schools, state admin­
istrative authorites construed the term "Indian" 
in the school segregation law to include Mexican- 
Americans.— ^Mendez v. Westminster School Dis-

— / See' HENDRICK, supra, at 60-70, 81-82, 89-92; 
WOLLENBERG, supra, at 109-118.

67/ California's Attorney General was of ,the view 
that, "the greater portion of the population of 
Mexico are Indians, and when such Indians migrate 
to the United States, they are subject to the laws 
applicable generally to other Indians." 22 
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OPINIONS OF THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL, Opinion 6735a (January 23, 1930) 
931-932 (1930). The legislature then amended the 
separate school law to exclude from coverage 
"children of Indians who are wards of the United 
States Government and children of all other 
Indians who are descendants of the original 
American Indians of the United States," 1935 Cal. 
Stats., c. 488, §§ 1, 2. As a result, most

10a



trict, supra, held that "the general and continu­
ous segregation in separate schools of the chil­
dren of Mexican ancestry from the rest of the 
elementary school population" in four Orange 
County districts was impermissible under the
Fourteenth Amendment. As was the case with the

6 8 /other racial minorities,— segregation of Mexican- 
American children in public schools was part and 
parcel of general state-imposed racially dis­
criminatory policies and practices.— ^

The 1940's and the 1950's witnessed an ac­
celerated rate of segregation as a result of rapid 
in-migration of minority groups and the actions of 
districts in drawing school attendance areas.— ^

67/ cont'd.

American Indians were excluded from coverage but 
Mexican-Americans included, see, HENDRICK, supra, 
at 87; WEINBERG, supra, at 166.

63/ See, e.g. , Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 
(1886); Oyama v. California, 332 U.S. 633 (1948); 
Takahashi v. Fish and Game Commission, 334 U.S.
410 (1948).

69/ See, e.g. , Lopez v, Seccombe, 71 F. Supp. 769 
(S.D. Cal. 1944) (exclusion from municipal park and 
swimming pool); Perez v. Sharp., 32 Cal. 2d 711,
198 P.2d 17 (1948) (miscegenation).

70/ See, HENDRICK, supra, at 104-106; c_f., Romero 
v. Weakley, 226 F.2d 399 (9th Cir. 1955).

11a



Thus, in the State Department of Education's first 
statewide survey of racial distribution in school 
districts in 1966, it was concluded that, "despite 
efforts to implement the policies of the State 
Board of Education and tha progress made by the 
Department of Education, the task of eliminating 
segregation and providing equal educational oppor­
tunities remains formidable. "— ^As the recent 
cases decided in the decade since demonstrate, 
supra, "the force of the earlier segregation 
police has [not] been dissipated," Guey Heunc Lee 
v. Johnson, supra, 347 U.S. at 1216.

Studies have documented some of the deleteri­
ous effects of this educational deprivation. See, 
e.q., GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION ON THE LOS ANGELES 
RIOTS, VIOLENCE IN THE CITY 49 et seq., (1965); 
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE, ASSEMBLY PERMANENT SUBCOM. 
ON POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, UNEQUAL ACCESS TO 
COLLEGE (1975). See generally U.S. CIVIL RIGHTS 
COMMISSION, MEXICAN AMERICAN EDUCATION STUDY, 
REPORTS I-VI (1971-1974) (comprehensive study of 
Mexican-American public school segregation in the

71/ CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 
RACIAL AND ETHNIC SURVEY OF CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC 
SCHOOLS, FALL 1966, iii (1967).

12a



southewestern states, including California). "A 
predicate for minority access to quality post­
graduate programs is a viable, coordinated ... 
higher education policy that takes into account the 
special problems of minority students."— It was

72/ Adams v. Richardson, 480 F. 2d 1159, 1165 
(D.C. Cir. 1973). In Adams, the D. C. Circuit 
analyzed the requirements of Title VI for State 
systems of higher education, and concluded that,

"The problem of intergrating higher 
educatin must be dealt with on a state-wide 
rather than a school-by-school basis.10/ Per­
haps the most serious problem in this area 
is the lack of state-wide planning to provide 
more and better trained minority group 
doctors, lawyers, engineers and other profes­
sionals. A predicate for minority access to 
quality post graduate programs is a viable, 
coordinated state-wide higher education 
policy that takes into account the special 
problems of minority students.

10/ It is important to note that we 
are not here discussing discriminatory 
admissions policies of indiviual institutions. 
... This controversy concerns the more 
complex problem of system-wide racial im­
balance. "

Id. at 1164-1165. In the next section, we show 
that the State of California has done precisely 
this, viz. formulated a state-wide higher educa­
tion policy that seeks to overcome discrimination 
at lower levels of public education.

13a



therefore appropriate for the University of 
California-Davis medical school in framing its 
admissions policies "to consider whether ... 
educational requirement[s] ha[ve] the 'effect of 
denying ... the right [to public higher education] 
on account of race or color' because the State or 
subdivision which seeks to impose the require­
ment [s] has maintained separate and inferior 
schools for its [minority] residents," Gaston 
County v. United States, 395 U.S. 285, 293 (1969). 
Oregon v.Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 1333 (1970).

2. California's Postsecondary Effort to Over­
come the Effects of Racial Segregation at 
Lower Levels of Public Education

The entire public higher education system of 
the State of California is under a duty imposed 
by state law to "[address] and overcomfe] ... 
ethnic ... underrepresentation in the makeup of 
the student bodies of institutions of public 
higher education,"— ^This deliberate State 
policy sanctions the race-conscious admissions 
program of the University of California-Davis

73/ California Assembly Concurrent Resolution 
No. 151, 1974 Cal. Stats., Res. c. 209.

14a



medical school.— ^
In 1960, Caliornia's Master Plan for Higher

Education stipulated that up to two percent
of the undergraduate body of the University of
California, the California State University and
Colleges, and the California Community Colleges be
admitted as exceptions to the general admission 

„ 75/requirements.—  Pursuant to this authority the 
University of California in 1964-65, and the State 
Colleges in 1 966-1 967—-^began to establish 
various undergraduate "Equal Opportunity Programs" 
to increase opportunities for "socio-economically 
disadvantaged" students——^through recruitment,

74/ See, e.g., CALIFORNIA POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION 
COMMISSION, PLANNING FOR POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION 
IN CALIFORNIA: A FIVE YEAR PLAN UPDATE 33,
n.—7( 1977) .

75/ CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE, ASSEMBLY, A MASTER 
PLAN FOR HIGHER EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA, 1960-1975 
p. 12 (1960). The Master Plan was approved by the 
State Board of Education and the Regents of the 
University of California December 18, 1959, ^d. at 
6. The Master Plan was formulated pursuant to 
authority conferred by the legislature, 1959 
Cal. Stats., Res. c. 160.

76/ The California Community Colleges instituted 
its program in 1969-1970, infra.

22/ "Initially, under the terms of the 1960
Master Plan, the number of authorized 
exceptions to the basic state college and 
University admissions rules were limited

15a



tutoring, financial aid, ate.— ' In order ..t0

7 7/ co nt ' d .
to the equivalent of 22 of the number of 
applicants expected to be admitted as 
freshmen and as transfer students. The 
figure of 2Z was recommended by the Master 
Plan Survey Team without any particular 
justification, except that it would provide 
some release from the basic rule in the case 
of athletes and others whom the state col­
leges and University might wish to admit.

"As the pressure to admit more disad­
vantaged students began to increase, the 
pressure to admit a greater number of excep­
tions also increased. A careful examination 
of the way the campuses were actually using 
the allotted 22 revealed, to no one’s sur­
prise, that it was being used primarily for 
athletes and others with special talents or 
attributes which the campuses wanted. For 
1966 it was found that among the freshmen 
admitted as exceptions by both segments, less 
than 2 of 10 could be termed disadvantaged. 
And the figure was less than 1 in 10 for 
those admitted to advanced standing. In the 
following year, 1967, as pressure continued 
to mount for the admission of disadvantaged 
students, these figures began to show some 
improvement, but the number of exceptions who 
were also disadvantaged remained well below 
5 02. "

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE, JOINT COM. ON HIGHER 
EDUCATION, THE CHALLENGE OF ACHIEVEMENT: A REPORT 
ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION IN CALIFOR­
NIA 77 (1969).

12/ CALIFORNIA POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION COMMIS-

16a



readjust some of the past practices which have 
contributed to the problems of 'minority and

78/ cont'd.

SION, PLANNING FOR POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION IN 
CALIFORNIA: A FIVE YEAR PLAN UPDATE, 1977-1982,
32-34 (1977) describes the affirmative action and 
related programs of the three branches of Califor­
nia's higher education system:

"University of California: In 1964, the
University of California established an 
Educational Opportunity Program (EOP) de­
signed to increase the enrollment of disad­
vantaged students at the undergraduate level. 
Supported by the University's own funds and 
those from federal financial aid programs, 
this program has grown from an enrollment of 
100 students and a budget of 5100,000 in 
1965, to an enrollment of over 8,000 students 
with a budget in excess of $17 million.

"Dissatisfied with the growth in minority 
enrollments, the University in 1975 initiated 
an expanded Student Affirmative Action 
program to supplement the activities of 
campus EOPs. ...

*  *  *

"The University also has initiated a 
variety of programs at the graduate and 
professional level to increase the enrollment 
of students from underrepresented groups. 
Generally, these programs include special 
recruitment efforts and academic support 
services. As a result, the enrollment of 
Black and Chicano students at the graduate 
level increased from 3 percent in 1978

17a



disadvantaged' populations" and "to attack one of 
the root causes of social inequality— the lack of

78/ cont'd.

to 10.7 percent in 1972. Since then, Chicano 
graduate enrollments have continued to 
increase but Black graduate enrollments have 
declined.

"Finally, the University is authorized to 
admit up to 4 percent of its entering stu­
dents under a special program which provides 
for the admission of students who demonstrate 
potential for success but do not fully meet 
the regular entrance requirements.

"California State Universitry and Col­
leges: Approximately $5.5 million in
State funds were allocated to the California 
State University and Colleges in 1974-75 for 
its Educational Opportunity Program, which 
served 13,585 students that year. For 1976— 
77, the State University projects that it 
will serve 19,439 students with a total of 
$10,182,138 in State appropriations ($6,129,- 
041 in grants and $4,053,097 in support 
services). EOP funds provide not only 
financial aid, but also a number of student 
support services such as personal and aca­
demic counseling. In addition, the State 
University is experimenting with alternative 
admissions standards on several campuses.
The State University system also is author­
ized to admit up to 4 percent of its entering 
freshmen class in exception to regular ad­
mission requirments, with a similar percent­
age for lower division transfer students....

18a



education. —  The systematic underrepresentation 
of minority groups at successive levels of Cali­
fornia public education was cited as the rationale

79/

78/ cont'd.

"California Community Colleges: Extended
Opportunity Programs and Services of the 
California Community Colleges reached ap­
proximately 37,000 students in 1974-75 with a 
State appropriation of $6.7 million.
For 1976-77, those funds were increased to 
$11.4 million. The EOPS program was the 
result of specific legislation (SB 164, 1969) 
which identified the unique purposes for 
allocating State funds in this area. The 
Community Colleges report that the State 
dollars are put at the disposal of students 
either through student support services 
(such as academic and personal counseling, 
tutoring, and financial aid counseling), or 
through direct grants and work/study pro­
grams . *

Compare CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE JOINT COM. OF 
HIGHER EDUCATION, THE CHALLENGE OF ACHIEVEMENT: A
REPORT ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION IN 
CALIFORNIA 65-80 (1969); CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 
JOINT COM. ON HIGHER EDUCATION, K. MARTYN, IN­
CREASING OPPORTUNITIES FOR DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS, 
PRELIMINARY OUTLINE (1967).

7_9/ CALIFORNIA COORDINATING COUNCIL FOR HIGHER 
EDUCATION, H. KITANO & D. MILLER, AN ASSESSMENT OF 
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAMS IN CALIFORNIA 
HIGHER EDUCATION 2 (1970).

19a



for the programs.— 'Reviewing the programs in 
1966, the California Coordinating Council on

80/ See, e.g. , California Legislature, Joint Com. 
on Higher Education, The Challenge of Achievement, 
supra, at 66 (Table 6.1):

RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION OF ENROLL­
MENT FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND 
PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION, FALL 1967

Chinese,
Level of Spanish Japanese, American
Enrollment Surname Negro Korean Indian

Elementary
Grades

(K—3) 14.4% 8.6% 2.1% .3%

High School
Grades (9-12) 11.6 7.0 2.1 .2

All Grades 
K-12

Junior 
Colleges

California 
State 
Colleges

University of *California— .7 .3 4.6 .2

13.7 8.2 2.1 .3

7.5 6.1 2.9 .1

2.9 2.9 1.9 .7

* Excludes Berkeley Campus.

20a



Higher Education— 'advised higher education 
bodies "to explore ways of expanding efforts to 
stimulate students from disadvantaged situations

81/

80/ cont'd.

Level of 
Enrollment

Other Other
Nonwhite White

Elementary
Grades

(K-8) .7% 73.9%

High School
Grades (9-12) .5 78.6

All Grades
K-12 .7 75.1

Junior
Colleges .8 32.6

California
.State
Colleges --  90. 1

University of ★California— --  93.7 *

* Excludes Berkeley Campus.

81/ The Council was renamed the California Post­
secondary Education Commission.

21a



to seek higher education"— and, as part of that 
directed that consideration be given to 

expanding the two percent exception by an addi­
tional two percent to accommodate disadvantaged 
students not otherwise eligible.— ^ Two years 
later, the Council recommended, and the University 
and State Colleges accepted an expansion of the 
programs by raising the ceiling to four per cent, 
with at least half the exceptions reserved for 
disadvantaged students.— '/ Criticism of the 
exception as unduly narrow, however, contin u e d ^

82/

§1/ CALIFORNIA COORRDINATING COUNCIL FOR HIGHER 
EDUCATION, K. MARTYN, INCREASING OPPORTUNITIES 
IN HIGHER EDUCATION FOR DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS, 
supra at 7 (1966).

83/ Id.

84/ See, CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE, JOINT COM. ON 
HIGHER EDUCATION, THE CHALLENGE OF ACHIEVEMENT:
A REPORT ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION 
IN CALIFORNIA, supra, 78.

85/ For instance, the Joint Committee on Higher 
Education's report, _i£. , criticized the four per­
cent ceiling as "arbitrary" and limiting, and 
suggested a ten per cent ceiling that would per­
mit "a real effort on the part of the two four- 
year segments to expand opportunities for dis­
advantaged students." The report also called 
for a general reappraisal of California higher 
education policies and stated that:

22a



After further s t u d y t h e  California Legisla­
ture enacted Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 
151 (1974) to provide, in pertinent part, that:

85/ cont'd.

"To many institutions, in the name of main­
taining standards, have excluded those who 
would benefit most from further education.
For these reasons we believe that current 
admissions policies among California's public 
institutions of higher education should be 
very carefully and thoroughly reexamined."

Id. at 80.

86/ "In the 1960 Master Plan for Higher
Education, California committed itself to 
provide a place in higher education to every 
high school graduate or eighteen-year-old 
able and motivated to benefit. Calfornia 
became the first state or society in the 
history of the world to make such a commit­
ment. We reaffirm this pledge.

* * *

"Our achievements in extending equal 
access have not met our promises. Though 
we have made considerable progress in the 
1060 s and 1970's, equality of opportunity ' 
in postsecondary education is still a goal 
rather than a reality. Economic and social 
conditions and early schooling must be 
significantly improved before equal opportun­
ity can be realized. But there is much that 
can be done by and through higher education."

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE, JOINT COM. ON THE MASTER 
PLAN FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, REPORT 33, 37 (1973).

23a



"WHEREAS, The Legislature recognizes 
that certain groups, as characterized 
by sex, ethnic, or economic background, are 
underrepresented in our institutions of 
public higher education as compared to the 
proportion of these groups among recent 
California high school graduates; and

"WHEREAS, It is the intent of the 
Legislatue that such underrepresentation be 
addressed and overcome by 1980; and

"WHEREAS, It is the intent of the 
Legislature that this underrepresentation 
be eliminated by providing additional student 
spaces rather than by rejecting any qualified 
student; and

"WHEREAS, It is the intent of the 
Legislature to commit the resourcs to imple­
ment this policy; and

"WHEREAS, It is the intent of the 
Legislature that institutions of public 
higher education shall consider the following 
methods for fulfilling this policy:

(a) Affirmative efforts to search
out and contact qualified students.

86/ cont'd.

The report recommended that, inter alia, "Each 
segment of California public higher education 
shall strive to approximate by 1980 the general 
ethnic, sexual and economic composition of the 
recent California high school graduates," at 38, 
and is the principle legislative history of 
Assembly Concurrent Resolution Wo. 151.

24a



(b) Experimentation to discover 
alternate means of evaluating student 
potential.

(c) Augmented student financial 
assistance programs.

(d) Improved counseling for disad­
vantaged students;

now, therefore, be it

"Resolved by the Assembly of the State 
of California, the Senate thereof concurring. 
That the Regents of the University of Cali­
fornia, the Trustees of the California State 
University of Colleges, and the Board of 
Governors of the California Community Col­
leges are hereby requested to prepare a plan 
that will provide for addressing and over­
coming, by 1980, ethnic, economic, and sexu­
al underrpresentation in the makeup of the 
student bodies of institutions of public 
higher education as compared to the general 
ethnic, economic, and sexual composition of 
recent California high school graduates ...”

"In adopting Assembly Concurrent Resolution 
151 (1974) the Legislature acknoledged that 
additional effort by colleges and universities is 
necessary to overcome underrepresentation of 
ethnic minorities and the poor," CALIFORNIA 
LEGISLATURE, ASSEMBLY PERMANENT SUBCOM. ON POST­
SECONDARY EDUCATION, UNEQUAL ACCESS TO COLLEGE 1 
(1975).

California's public higher education affir­
mative action effort has been predicated on

25a



the need to increase educational opportunities of 
persons disadvantaged by financial, geographic, 
academic and motivational barriers.— ^ The docu- 
cumented effect of such artificial barriers to ex­
clude many disadvantaged students, particularly 
minority students, from higher education in Cali­
fornia was the spur to affirmative action.— ^

Moreover, it is evident that individuals of 
low-income minority groups suffer from double dis-

87/ CALIFORNIA COORDINATING COUNCIL FOR HIGHER 
EDUCATION, H. KITANO & D. MILLER, AN ASSESSMENT 
OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAMS IN CALIFORNIA 
HIGHER EDUCATION, supra, at 9; CALIFORNIA LEGISLA­
TURE, JOINT COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION, K.
m a r t y n, Increasing opprtunities for disad-
VANTAED STUDENTS, PRELIMINATRY OUTLINE, supra; 
CALIFORNIA COORDINATING COUNCIL FOR HIGHER EDU­
CATION. K. MARTYN, INCREASING OPPRTUNITIES IN 
HIGHER EDUCATION FOR DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS, 
supra, at 10-11.

88/ See, e_;_£. , CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE, JOINT 
COM. ON HIGHER EDUCATION, K. MARTYN, INCREASING 
OPPORTUNITIES FOR DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS, PRELIMI­
NARY OUTLINE, supra, at 3-14; CALIFORNIA LEGISLA­
TURE, JOINT COM. ON HIGHER EDUCATION, THE CHAL­
LENGE OF ACHIEVEMENT: A REPORT ON PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA, supra, at 
66-67; CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE, ASSEMBLY PERMANENT 
SUBCOM. ON POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, UNEQUAL ACCESS 
TO COLLEGE, supra; CALIFORNIA POSTSECONDARY 
EDUCATION COMMISSION, EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY 
IN CALIFORNIA POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION: PART
I 406, Appendix B at B-1 —  B-11 (1976).

26a



crimination.— 'California's public higher 
education system has been characterized as "in­
herently racist because socioeconomic and cultural 
condidtions in the early experience of minority 
persons leave them unable to measure up to the

,,90/admissions standards of the four-year segements. —  
"... [0]ne of the most serious blocks to 

participation in higher education for minor­
ity students occurs in the secondary educa­
tional system. Students from [black and 
Mexican-American] minority groups tend to be
systematically underrepresented at each suc-

91 /cessive level of educational attainment."—

"The importance of the high school experience on 
the [minority] student's opportunity to attend 
college cannot be too heavily emphasized." 92/ Thus,

89/

89/ See, e.g., CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE, JOINT COM. 
ON THE MASTER PLAN FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, REPORT, 
supra, at 37-38.

90/ Id., at 47.

91/ CALIFORNIA COORDINATING COUNCIL FOR HIGHER 
EDUCATION, H. KITANO & D. MILLER, AN ASSESSMENT OF 
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAMS IN CALIFORNIA 
HIGHER EDUCATION, supra, at 3.

92/ CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE, JOINT COM. ON THE 
MASTER PLAN FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, R. LOPEZ S, D. 
ENOS, CHICANOS AND PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION IN 
CALIFORNIA 14 (1972). This report is one of a 
series that analyzes problems and available 
affirmative action efforts from the perspective of

27a



while the proportion of high school seniors 
eligible for entrance into the University of 
California and State University and Colleges (on 
the basis of grades and test scores) increases 
with family income for all students, the proportion 
of minority seniors is consistently lower.— ^The 
percentage of eligible minority race seniors who 
actually matriculate also is a fraction of the 
percentage of eligible white seniors.M/Such 
trends persist in the college and post-college

92/ cont'd.

various minority groups. See also, CALIFORNIA 
LEGISLATURE, JOINT COM. ON THE MASTER PLAN FOR 
HIGEHR EDUCATION, R. YOSKIOKA, ASIAN-AMERICANS AND 
PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA (1973); 
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE, JOINT COM. ON THE MASTER 
PLAN FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, NAIROIBI RESEARCH 
INST., BLACKS AND PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION IN 
CALIFORNIA (1973).

93/ CALIFORNIA COORDINATING COUNCIL FOR HIGHER 
EDUCATION, H. KITANO & D. MILLER, AN ASSESSMENT OF 
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAMS IN CALIFORNIA 
HIGHER EDUCATION, supra, at 4-5; CALIFORNIA 
LEGISLATURE, ASSEMBLY PERMANENT SUBCOM. ON 
POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, UNEQUAL ACCESS TO COL­
LEGE, supra, at 7 et seq. ; CALIFORNIA POST­
SECONDARY EDUCATION COMMISSION, EQUAL EDUCATIONAL 
OPPORTUNITY IN CALIFORNIA POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION: 
PART I, supra, at 5-6.

94/ Id.

28a



careers of minority students.—
In a comprehensive review of the State of 

California's higher education affirmative action 
programs, the California Postsecondary Commission 
concludes that more rather than less is required, 
EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPRTUNITY IN CALIFORNIA 
POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION: PART II (publication
pending).

95/

95/ CALIFORNIA COORDINATING COUNCIL FOR HIGHER 
EDUCATION, H. KITANO & D. MILLER, AN ASSESSMENT OF 
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAMS IN CALIFORNIA 
HIGHER EDUCATION, supra, at viii; authorities 
cited supr3 at p. 29a, n.92.

29a



'

»