EDITORIAL: The Opinion of The Union Affirmative action establishes education equity

Affirmative action is a policy that aims to address the historical and ongoing effects of racial discrimination by increasing the representation of marginalized groups in education. The policy can include setting quotas, offering special scholarships, and providing preparation programs.

On Oct. 31, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) heard cases arguing that affirmative action programs in college admissions were unconstitutional, specifically at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Harvard University. We, The Union, believe that affirmative action must not be deemed unconstitutional, as doing so would diminish the progress made for equality in the last four decades.

Affirmative action levels the playing field for marginalized groups who have traditionally faced barriers to education. For African Americans, the lasting legacy of slavery, redlining policies, and legal segregation in the Jim Crow South persist in higher education. Hispanics were treated as scapegoats for the Great Depression, segregated into “Mexican Schools,” and deported by the masses during the Mexican Repatriation. Socioeconomic status leads many Hispanics straight to the blue-collar work after high school, perpetuating a generational lack of higher education. In the past, quotas have been used to set aside a fixed number of spaces in universities for racial minorities, but they were deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS in 1978. In the lawsuit, Harvard was accused of setting racial quotas under the guise of using a “personal rating” system that judges subjective character traits such as “courage,” “leadership,” and “likability.” According to UC Berkeley economist David Card, Asians receive consistently lower personal scores than any other ethnic group, effectively capping the number of Asian admissions and leading some to believe that Harvard is discriminating against Asians to satisfy a quota.

On Nov. 3, 2020, 57% of Californians voted against Proposition 16, which aimed to repeal Proposition 209 — the 1996 law that made affirmative action illegal in California public universities. Some critics of affirmative action argue that it is reverse discrimination and that it unfairly favors African Americans and Hispanics, over Asian Americans. They believe that people should be admitted to schools based solely on merit and that affirmative action undermines equal opportunity.

The current UC system is 100% merit-based as a result of Prop. 209. According to the Best Colleges website, UCLA is 34% Asian and 6% Black; UC Berkeley is 40% Asian and 4% Black. The universities have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on outreach and resource programs to recruit more underrepresented and underserved minority students. The disparity reinforces the fact that racial diversity in education requires affirmative action.

Because of the high percentage Asians make of higher education student bodies, many opponents refer to them as the model minority. The myth is a common generalization that falsely portrays Asian Americans as more hard-working, diligent, and therefore more deserving than other races.In actuality, this stereotype not only shovels the ethnic diver - sity of Asian Americans into a monolith, but also excuses politicians from addressing the real issue at hand: racial disparity in education. Asian Americans are used as proof that putting emphasis on education can “undo” the effects of discrimination and raise a minority up to high socioeconomic status, but such claims rely on false stereotypes of “Asian excellence” that are deliberately manufactured by immigration laws.

In 1965, the Hart-Cellar Act created two “preferences” for immigration — family and skill. Immigrants with family already living in the U.S. or those with professional skills in areas such as engineering were allowed entrance. A majority of the Asian immigrants were wealthier and more educated than the other minorities in the country, leading to a skewed perception of the race as a whole. Having “tiger parents” is not a plausible explanation for the racial gap in academic success. Having money is, as merit is not always subjective, but is often determined by nepotism and socioeconomic status. Being financially flexible allows families to invest more into their child, whether that is extra tutoring or participating in an extracurricular activity. According to Statista, Black and Hispanic people have a poverty rate of 19.5% and 17.1%, respectively, while Asians and Whites are 9.3% and 8.1% respectively.

Affirmative action should not be repealed, for its constitutionality is justified by its promotion and progress toward a more diverse and inclusive society. We, The Union, believe it remains a necessary and effective means of addressing the ongoing effects of discrimination in the classroom.

EDITORIAL: The Opinion of The Union

Recognizing that access to menstrual products like pads and tampons is a “basic human right,” California passed Assembly Bill (AB) 367, the Menstrual Equity For All Act of 2021, which requires all California public high schools to regularly stock free menstrual products in all girls restrooms, all gender-neutral restrooms, and at least one boys restroom, beginning in the 2022-23 school year.

MHS has installed menstrual product dispensers in all girls restrooms to meet these requirements but has failed to keep them consistently stocked in certain restrooms, possibly violating AB 367. In particular, the dispensers for the girls restrooms in the lower L building and between the F and G buildings were empty of both pads and tampons when The Union checked multiple times over the course of a week.

The Union has also observed that there are no menstrual product dispensers installed in any of the boys restrooms for transgender students or others who may menstruate, which is another possible violation of AB 367.

Since the bill guarantees that the state will reimburse school districts for state-mandated costs like purchasing menstrual products as per the California Constitution, there is no real justification for not adequately stocking and restocking hygiene products in restrooms.

An unclear schedule for when restrooms are open exacerbates this issue of accessing menstrual products and must also be addressed. Both L building restrooms are usually closed by lunch and the other restrooms on campus are often unpredictably closed because of hazards like vandalism or flooding. As a result, students who can not find menstrual products in a particular restroom must walk across campus — while potentially suffering from menstrual leakage — in search of products, unsure of whether the next restroom they go to will be stocked or even open.

AB 367 also states that restrooms must have a notice in a “prominent and conspicuous location” to notify students that they contain free menstrual products, and yet, even the stocked restrooms at MHS do not contain such notices. We urge the school to add them, as it is just as important to notify

By State Law

students of these products as it is to provide them.

There are alarming consequences for lack of convenient access to menstrual products, including emotional strain, risk of infection through using unsafe alternatives, and absenteeism. A study by the Thinx and PERIOD orgaizations found that 84% of teens have missed class time or know someone who has because they did not have access to menstrual products, an issue that many MHS students may be facing as well.

Last year, The Union wrote an editorial commending the school for taking initiative by adding and stocking menstrual product dispensers in all girls restrooms before it was state-mandated. Unfortunately, those same dispensers are now sometimes empty or inaccessible when restrooms are closed. We can no longer claim that students can reliably access menstrual products at MHS, especially when the school has failed to meet the AB 367 requirements. Thus, we urge the school to fulfill its duty by more diligently complying with state law and providing students with convenient and equal access to menstrual products.

Those who would like to advertise in The Union can contact the Ad Manager at milpitashightheunion@ gmail.com. Ads are available in full page, half page, quarter page, and business card sizes. Inserts are also accepted. Upon request, The Union staff will customize and design your advertisement.

Staff

Riya Vyas • E ditor -in -C hi E f

Anannya Bhuskat • News Editor

Stephen Huang • Asst. News Editor

Satvika Iyer • Op-Ed Editor Deeksha Venkateswaran • Asst. Op-Ed Editor

Tiffany Lieu • Features Editor

Savan Bollu • Asst. Features Editor

Sidhant Burela • Sports Editor

Erick Johnson• A sst. Sports Editor

Zaynah Turabi • Lifestyle Editor

Albert Fung • Asst. Lifestyle Editor

David Rendon • Entertainment Editor Varun Ravuri • Asst. Entertainment Editor

Sanvi Durbha • Spread Editor

Ruby Bui • Asst. Spread Editor

Angelina Barnes • Copy Editor

Sanvi Parvatikar • Web Editor

Adrian Pamintuan • Photo Editor

Kevin Ting • Business/Ad Manager

Sanjit Roy Journalism Advisor

WANT TO REPRESENT THE STUDENTS?