VOLUME 45, ISSUE 33
WWW.UCSDGUARDIAN.ORG
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2012
ADMISSIONS
UCSD to End TAG Program in Fall 2012
A.S. COUNCIL
Judicial Board Deems Election Bylaws Unconstitutional
By Nicole Chan Associate News Editor
California community college students are no longer guaranteed admission to UCSD. The UCSD Committee on Admissions voted Dec. 8, 2011 to eliminate the Transfer Admission Guarantee program due to limited spaces for a continued increasing number of applicants. “The number of transfer students applying to UCSD has increased every year, whereas the number of spots available for them has not,” Committee on Admissions undergraduate representative substitute Adam Powers said in an email. “Accepting every transfer guaranteed under TAG would bring the composition of UCSD’s enrolled population far outside the guidelines set by the state, which mandates a certain ratio of new to continuing students.” Students under TAG must complete UC math and English composition courses, and maintain a minimum 3.5 GPA. Students must transfer as juniors. Powers estimates that UCSD’s transfer admissions target for the 201112 academic year was 2,410 students. However, 3,602 TAG applications were submitted under the new 3.5 GPA requirement. Under the 2010-11 See Transfer, page 3
Rebekah Hwang/Guardian
By Nicole Chan Associate News Editor
M
embers of the Judicial Board have claimed that the Election Appeals Board — created after the 2011 student elections — violates the A.S. Constitution. Council created the Election Appeals Board in Spring Quarter 2011. In the election process, individuals or slates can file grievances, which are first heard by the Election Committee. If the plaintiff disagrees with the Election Committee’s ruling, she can bring the case to the Judicial Board. The job of the Appeals Board is to look at cases in the event that the plaintiff challenges the Judicial Board’s decision. According to Judicial Board Chair Polina Tsvetikova, the Appeals Board (Section 5.5) violates Article VII, Section 1 of the A.S. Constitution. Under the new section, Section 5.5 in Title IX 2011-12 of the Constitution, individuals can appeal the sanctions or decisions set by the Judicial Board. If at least three members of the Appeals
Board, which is compromised of members from each college council, decides to hear the case, the Board can overturn the original ruling. Under the addition, the Appeals Board retains sole jurisdiction over determining whether the Judicial Board acted with bias. According to a presentation at the Feb. 15 A.S. Council meeting, “[Section 5.5] impedes the Judicial Board’s ability to make decisions in a manner conducive to the efficient well-organized election that the bylaws envision, and will ultimately bog down the appeal’s process even more than they were in last year’s elections cycle.” According to the presentation, filing a complaint under the new bylaws can take more than three days, since the complaint must go through as many as three tiers of appeals: the Election Committee, the J-Board and then the Appeals Board. “In case someone would like to appeal [the Judicial] Board’s decision, based on very ambiguous criteria ‘acting inappropriately,’ ‘evidence of partiality,’ as outlined in Section 5.5, the [Election Appeals Board] comes into place,” Tsvetikova said in an email.
According to Tsvetikova, the Election Appeals Board interferes with the Judicial Board’s duties. “The Constitution states that the judiciary authority is vested in [Judicial] Board in regards to all cases and controversies that may arise, which includes cases during the elections period,” Tsvetikova said. “Creating the [Election Appeals Board] for the election period vests the final judiciary authority not in [Judicial] Board, which isn’t what the Constitution states.” The A.S. Constitution, dated April 16, 2009, states that the Judicial Board retains judicial authority in all cases and controversies that are brought up in regard to the Constitution, rules of ASUCSD or any of its subordinate bodies. The Judicial Board suggested removing the Election Appeals Board entirely and add a fourth section under Article VII in the Constitution. The proposed legislation would clarify that the Judicial Board has the authority to make the final decision, unless detailed evidence proving impartiality is presented. “This would therefore allow [Judicial] See bylaws, page 3
put a ring on it
DIVERSITY
Court to Rule on Affirmative Action Ban By zev Hurwitz Associate News Editor A lawsuit filed in Federal Court this month aims to end a statewide ban on affirmative action and increase the number of minority students in public colleges. On Feb. 13, three members of the 9th Circuit Appellate Court heard arguments from affirmative action proponents who hoped to end the ban to increase diversity at top UC campuses. The lawsuit — Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action vs. American Civil Rights Institute — was originally formed in 2010 by 46 minority students and the CDAA. It aims to overturn Proposition 209, which voters passed in 1996 and bans affirmative action. Proposition 209 prevents state-run schools and organizations from considering gender, race or ethnicity in contracting or admission decisions. The constitutional amendment was
upheld in an initial appeal in 1997. A California judge dismissed the case in a lower court in 2010. The San Francisco Examiner reported that George B. Washington, a plaintiff attorney and proponent for affirmative action, cited racial bias as the background for Proposition 209. “It’s a special law, directed only at blacks and Latinos,” Washington said. Many supporters of affirmative action turned out for the Feb. 13 opening remarks at the federal courthouse in San Francisco. A teacher at an Oakland high school told ABC News that the affirmative action ban limited potential in higher education for non-white students. “This is a historic moment,” Tania Kappner told ABC News. “The opportunity to win affirmative action back for California and get the colleges to look more like our state, we need that,” In an effort to boost diversity, UC
sSPOKEN
“
FORECAST
Any time you can get four national qualifying marks in a season opener, it’s a good day.”
TUESday H 70 L 46
WEDNEsday H 73 L 50
officials adopted holistic review last year, which includes the mandatory assessment of an applicant’s entire application before a decision can be reached. Considerations on race in admissions are already allowed when viewed as part of the whole application. In February 2011, the UC Office of the President released a statement stating that while diversity was an aim of holistic review, it could not be the most important factor in utilizing holistic review. “Holistic review is not a silver bullet for climate and diversity problems, and is cautious about characterizing its individualized recommendation or the 2012 freshman admissions reform policy it authored as attempts to increase diversity,” the UCOP statement said. “Diversity may be one outcome, but it is not the defining motivation.” A statement on the UCSD’s Vice Chancellor for Equity, Diversity & Inclusion’s
NIGHT WATCH
TUESday
WEDNESday
Anthony Salerno UCSD Track and Field Head Coach
THURsday H 69 L 51
FRIday
H 69 L 49
THURSDAY
FRIday
See Lawsuit, page 3
Kyle Szeto/Guardian
UCSD alum Grace Towers sings at Bitchy Bingo Feb. 17.
GAS PER GALLON
SURF REPORT TUESDAy Height: 2-2.5 ft. Wind: 6-11 mph Water Temp: 58 F
WEDNESDAY Height: 1.5-2 ft. Wind: 3-11 mph Water Temp: 58 F
THURSday Height: 1.5-2.5 ft. Wind: 1-7 mph Water Temp: 58 F
FRIDay Height: 2 ft. Wind: 3-9 mph Water Temp: 58 F
LOw
$3.85
76, El Cajon 898 Broadway & N Mollison Ave HIGH
$4.49
Shell, Del Mar 3015 Del Mar Heights Rd near I-5
INSIDE Birdland..................................2 Lights and Sirens....................3 Field Notes.............................4 Letter to the Editor.................5 In Focus..................................6 Sudoku...................................9 Sports...................................12