Peter Schrag, personally my favorite SacBee columnist, has some good news on higher education in the state, particularly in respect to the “other” university system – CSU.

The belief [that there is an underrepresentation of blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans in higher education] is at least partially correct, but it conceals a positive set of facts that demand a lot more attention and rarely get it. Of all of CSU’s 400,000 students, nearly 30 percent are first-generation college students, meaning neither of their parents went to college. On campuses such as CSU Dominguez Hills and Los Angeles State, it’s probably more than 60 percent. And it’s almost certainly higher in the community colleges. That deserves cheers as much as it does apologies or dire warnings.(SacBee 6/21/06)

This is an accomplishment, no matter how you slice it.  Black enrollment in state colleges is approaching the same rate as high school enrollment.  Latinos are lagging behind their high school enrollment, but there is evidence that this too is changing.  However, diversity at the big UC research institutions is still lagging behind.  Schrag isn’t necessarily pointing fingers, at either the institutions or Prop 209.

Berkeley historian David Hollinger provides insight in an article in the forthcoming July/August issue of California Monthly, Berkeley’s alumni magazine. Where there’s institutional blame for underrepresentation of minorities, he says, it largely belongs elsewhere — to the schools, to the legacy of Jim Crow, to poverty and national policy generally.

He also asks a familiar question: If affirmative action, now banned by Proposition 209, were so crucial to minority progress, how did Asians, historically victims of intense discrimination, come to dominate Berkeley’s enrollment? Never beneficiaries of affirmative action, Asians composed 48 percent of the class that entered Berkeley last fall — a number far out of proportion to their numbers in the general population.

Which raises another issue that becomes more obvious every day in the new California: Immigration from Latin America and Asia and high rates of intermarriage blur the old black-white dichotomies almost beyond recognition.

Race has become a more subtle concept.  What is not subtle is the effect of poverty on educational attainment.  The mitigation of these effects is accomplished by state and federal programs such as school lunches, Head Start, (Prop 82 would have fit really well in this list, wouldn’t it).  The problem isn’t necessarily the universities, but rather the fact that applications to the universities are tilted in one way or another.  We need to work harder to encourage development at younger ages so that students come into high school and college in a better postion to succeed.

(Go vote for Phil! – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Phil Angelides is up for an online vote on who should receive a PAC donation of $5,000.  Go vote at the Progressive Patriots Fund:

Senator Russ Feingold’s Progressive Patriots Fund wants your help identifying a candidate for Governor to support in this year’s elections. The candidate chosen by the grassroots as a Progressive Patriot will receive a $5000 contribution from the Progressive Patriots Fund. These candidates were selected by you through the candidate suggestion form, and we hope to do more of these events in the future.

So, the special election proposition that did the best from last year will be back.  Yup, Prop 73 is back with a vengeance. 

The parental notification measure is almost identical to last November’s Proposition 73, which was rejected by voters, 53 percent “no” to 47 percent “yes.” Despite the loss, it did better than any of the seven other measures on the special election ballot.

The measure requires that the parent or guardian of an unmarried and unemancipated woman younger than 18 receive 48 hours notice before an abortion can be performed, but allows a judge to waive the notification if it is in the best interest of the woman.

The only differences between the new initiative and Prop. 73 were made to resolve complaints of opponents, said Albin Rhomberg, a spokesman for Life on the Ballot, which sponsored both initiatives.

The new measure eliminates Prop. 73’s description of abortion as the killing of “a child conceived, but not yet born” and requires that newly required statistical information on the number of notification waivers requested, refused or granted be reported on a county-by-county basis, rather than judge-by-judge, as the original measure called for.

While backers of the initiative hope the changes will bring more support to the parental notification plan, the timing of the new measure also will help, they believe.

“The results of the special election showed a very skewed turnout of the electorate,” with a poor turnout in the state’s more conservative areas, Rhomberg said. “The general election should provide a more representative turnout.” (SF Chronicle 6/21/06)

Will there be increased turnout given the gubenatorial election help or hurt this measure?  I’m leaning towards a minimal effect, but it could be enough to tip the scales.  Prop 73 was a bad idea last November, and it still is. It’s a dangerous and unnecessary program.  But one thing is for sure, the battle over this proposition will be a pricey one.