Skip to main content

Features

With equity—and diversity—for all?

Debate over an elite San Francisco school’s admissions policy encapsulates fraught conversations about a new buzzword

With equity—and diversity—for all?

(WildPixel/iStock)

The first day Joseph Huayllasco entered Lowell High School, an academically selective public high school in San Francisco, a Latina student spotted him in the swarm of mostly Asian and white faces. She grabbed him by the hand: “Hey, you speak Spanish?” When Huayllasco nodded, she barked, “Come with me,” and led him through the courtyard to a huddle of about a dozen other Latino students. 

That was 1988, and they were the only Latinos among the more than 2,000 students at Lowell. That was when Huayllasco, the son of Peruvian and Costa Rican immigrants, felt his first racial discomfort at Lowell. He’s now an entrepreneur with a nonprofit that teaches underprivileged kids how to code, but that discomfort hit him again when on Feb. 9 the San Francisco Board of Education decided to stop admitting students to Lowell based on academic performance, saying that’s “incompatible with diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Lowell will instead use the same lottery-based system as other public schools in the district: Any student who applies would have a shot at Lowell, whatever his academic level.

The discussion around Lowell’s admissions system is the tip of a hot national discussion on educational equity. Debates over whether to ax merit-based admissions or how to diversify gifted programs are raging in New York, Virginia, Texas, Massachusetts, and Ohio. Educational equity means helping all children receive what they need to develop their academic and social potential. But what that looks like on a granular level is messy. 

Some want to keep merit-based admissions, saying academic achievement shouldn’t be demonized. Many families, especially Asian students who make up the majority in such specialized schools, see these schools as their ticket out of poverty. But those who want to scrap merit-based admissions say the idea of “bad schools” and “good schools” shouldn’t exist, and selective schools such as Lowell exacerbate segregation and inequity. They complain that more than half of Lowell’s 2,900 students are Asian, 18 percent are white, 12 percent are Latino, and 2 percent are black. In comparison, the overall district is 33 percent Asian, 28 percent Latino, 15 percent white, and 6 percent black. San Francisco has one of the highest rates of private school enrollment in the nation, but the conversations about equity are primarily focusing on the city’s public schools.

The debate over Lowell reveals two fundamentally different views on “equity.” One side sees unequal results as a sign of inequity and believes government and society have a moral and intellectual mandate to eliminate it. The other side, while acknowledging problems, argues that human efforts cannot eradicate them and warns the unintended consequences would be worse than the solution. Such different views lead to completely different approaches: One side focuses more on ethnic diversity and inclusion, while the other focuses more on making sure the process treats everyone the same. What’s happening in San Francisco and at Lowell is significant because it indicates where liberalism is headed in education reform.

LOWELL HIGH SCHOOL is one of the nation’s top-rated public high schools for its academic rigor, the sort of crème-de-la-crème institution that parents name-drop at dinner parties. For more than a century, Lowell attracted top-scoring, high-achieving students from all across the San Francisco Unified School District. To get in, students had to take entrance tests and display near-perfect grades. 

Huayllasco assumed he got into Lowell because of his stellar test scores. But he felt hurt when his classmates found out he had the highest grade in a particularly challenging math class, and their jaws dropped: Were they shocked because he was Latino? 

He squirmed during the many times his Asian American friends complained about Lowell allotting spots for underrepresented students, saying that’s discriminatory against Asians. For several decades, Lowell’s student body has been majority Asian. His friends didn’t accuse him of getting into Lowell because of his skin color—but the implication was there, and he felt torn between empathizing with his friends but also quietly seething. 

“I felt embarrassed,” he recalled. “The way we talked about Latinos or African Americans was like, maybe they’re not good enough to come [to Lowell] and if we let them in, they’re not going to make it. It made one feel like you don’t belong.”

Many black and brown students still feel that way at Lowell. In January someone posted anti-black, anti-Semitic slurs and pornographic images on an online forum for Lowell students, prompting an uproar from students who said such racism isn’t out of the norm at Lowell. 

Photo by Craig Lee/Genesis

Joseph Huayllasco works at home in Antioch, Calif. (Photo by Craig Lee/Genesis)

Soon after, four school board commissioners and two student delegates drafted a resolution titled “In Response to Ongoing, Pervasive Systemic Racism at Lowell High School.” They wrote that Lowell’s merit-based admissions process “perpetuates segregation and exclusion” and that black and brown students “do not feel physically, emotionally or culturally safe and valued at Lowell.” Included in the resolution is a call for an “equity audit” that will create a plan to address racism at Lowell. The school board had already decided to use temporarily a lottery admissions system for Lowell last October, but the February vote made it permanent.

Two commissioners (out of seven) voted against the resolution. One of them, Jenny Lam, a second-generation Chinese American, pointed out recent anti-Asian attacks in the Bay Area and urged the board to consider other community voices as well. The other opposing commissioner, Kevine Boggess, who’s black, said he too experienced “anti-blackness and institutional racism” during his school days at San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD). But he wondered if focusing on Lowell’s admissions without broader community input would achieve equity across the district: “How do we make sure every student who wants access to a class that’s offered at Lowell … has access to that?”

Equity was also on Huayllasco’s mind as he observed other Lowell alumni discuss the board’s resolution on Facebook. He saw former classmates vehemently argue that the new admissions policy is anti-Asian, that it’ll “dumb down” academic standards at Lowell—and once again, he wrestled with that familiar inner conflict he felt at high school.

Huayllasco’s parents taught him diligence, personal responsibility, and fairness. He attributeshis great education at Lowell mostly to the social climate: Like grains of rice speed-steaming inside a pressure cooker, being around highly motivated, academically excelling classmates challenged him to study harder, reach higher. He credits Lowell for preparing him for the University of California, Berkeley, and for his Wall Street career—and he wants those same opportunities for others like him. 

But as he observed the impassioned chatter among Lowell alumni, Huayllasco also felt the familiar “Oh, I’ll prove you all wrong!” indignation that used to spring up when people questioned his place at Lowell. Many of his Latino friends didn’t get the quality education he did—not because they weren’t smart or didn’t work hard, but because their families didn’t have the knowledge and resources to blast open paths of opportunities as his did. What does equity look like for those kids?

“There’s no quick fix. This is a societal problem that’s been going on for a long time.”

EQUITY ADVOCATES say inequitable systems exist by design. Like other districts, San Francisco’s school district has a history of systemic racism that created disparities persisting to this day. The first public schools opened in 1851 were only for white children. California law prohibited nonwhite students from attending white public schools. Explicitly segregated schools, along with redlining maps, continued until the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court ruling that “separate education facilities are inherently unequal.” 

But segregation persisted for more than a decade longer in San Francisco (and many other cities). SFUSD tried a busing program to integrate schools, but black and lower-income families noticed it was mostly their kids being ferried across town, whereas middle-class white and Asian students found ways to attend schools within their own neighborhoods. Meanwhile, the white student population dropped by more than 30,000 between the mid-1960s to late 1970s as white families moved out. 

In 1978 the NAACP and a group of black parents sued the district and the state, accusing them of maintaining school segregation. In 1983 the NAACP and the district reached a court-approved settlement (called a consent decree) that set racial quotas in schools and called for increased resources for historically neglected schools. The consent decree was partly successful in desegregating many schools, but disparities in academic performance persisted. By the 1990s segregation had increased again as Latino and Asian populations burgeoned while the white population dipped.

In 1994 a group of Chinese American parents sued the district, upset that SFUSD assigned their children to schools outside their neighborhoods. They settled in court in 1999: SFUSD could no longer consider race or ethnicity in student assignments. The district then decided to use a lottery system to assign students to schools, focusing on race-neutral factors such as socioeconomic status, English proficiency, and test scores. The idea was that allowing more choice for families would break down class and racial barriers to high-demand schools. But segregation and inequities continued.

In 2011 the school board tweaked the lottery: Families ranked their choices of any school in the district. Again, the opposite happened: San Francisco’s schools are more racially segregated today than they were 30 years ago. The district didn’t factor in the numerous preexisting disparities between families. Parents working two to three jobs, low-income single parents, and those who don’t know how the system works fell behind parents who had the time, resources, and connections to go on multiple school tours and navigate the complicated application process. As a result, more upper- and middle-class children than poor children enrolled in desirable schools.

Jeff Chiu/AP

Lowell High School (Jeff Chiu/AP)

THE SOCIAL ENGINEERING hasn’t worked. For families who cannot afford private schools, Lowell offered a private school education at a public school price. And Lowell did try to diversify its student body. For years, the school reserved one-third of spots for underrepresented students who had lower test scores but met minimum academic standards. 

Francisco Lopez, a 71-year-old retired principal, said tinkering with Lowell’s admissions policy won’t make a dent in fixing the disparities among students: “There’s no quick fix. This is a societal problem that’s been going on for a long time.” The son of working-class immigrants (his father fled the Spanish Civil War as a refugee), Lopez graduated from Lowell in 1967 when many students were Jewish and the Chinese population was steadily growing. He loves Lowell: He can still sing the alma mater, he sent his daughter to Lowell, and he donates to its alumni association. 

Lopez also worked 27 years as a teacher and principal in preschools and elementary schools in SFUSD. Some kids entered his preschool reading at second-grade level, while others couldn’t tell letters apart. Lopez remembers thinking, “How can that be? That’s such a big gap!” By the time the kids entered high school, their academic trajectory was already set.

He also saw a resource gap. One preschool consisting predominantly of Mexican and Salvadoran immigrants needed a playground, so parents spent hours wrapping and selling tamales. They raised $900. In another elementary school with a Japanese immersion program, the mostly upper-middle-class Japanese parents raised $190,000 in one fundraiser. Lopez was principal of that elementary school, and he remembers how easy it was to find parents willing to volunteer. But in the other preschool, most parents worked two to three jobs as house-cleaners and gardeners. Meanwhile, students brought their trauma into the classroom: Lopez had foster children who moved from home to home, kids with severe disciplinary problems that disrupted the entire class, boys who died from gun shootings before they turned 18.

How does a school district close those gaps? “They want to hold schools responsible for all the problems of society. It’s the great American experiment: We’re trying to make all of us equal when we’re not created equal,” Lopez said, meaning people are born with different learning styles, family backgrounds, gifts, and personalities. 

WHEREAS LOPEZ believes some inequalities can’t be changed, the school board blames racism for perpetuating inequalities. Its measure of equity is racial and ethnic diversity, and Lowell’s previous admissions system, the board said, “excludes students of color.”

Much of that discussion focuses on negative experiences of black and brown students at Lowell. Helena Colindres, who graduated from Lowell in 2014, remembers one teacher using a racial slur and Asian students refusing to partner with black and brown students because they’ll “bring down their grades.”

Jessica Yu, a senior and president of the Student Body Council at Lowell, told me Lowell’s selectiveness “breeds an elitism that makes students think they’re so much better and smarter” and resent black and brown students, assuming they got in because of their skin color. She thinks worrying that diversifying the student body will bring down academic standards is “an incredibly classist and racist idea.” 

But another Lowell alumnus, a Chinese American, told me he and his classmates simply worked hard to get into Lowell and felt like they “earned it”: “If you don’t get an A, people will tease you. It’s not based on ethnic background or skin color.” He and those who agree with him ask different questions than the San Francisco school board is asking: Is a merit-based admissions system really inherently racist? Is racial diversity a measure of equity? What are the unintended consequences of changing schools’ admissions? 

Those are all questions Joseph Huayllasco ponders today. He knows his hard work and intelligence aren’t the only reasons he got into Lowell. He was 10 when his parents encouraged him to set his sights on Lowell, and his family moved into the San Francisco district so he could attend Lowell. 

But perhaps his success had to do with personality and personal choices: Huayllasco is competitive, and he wanted to go to Lowell because he thrived in that stressful environment, loved the challenge and competition. Can anyone, given the same privileges as he had, do what he did? 

Last year, Huayllasco instinctively signed an online petition opposing the school board’s decision to suspend Lowell’s merit-based admissions process. Today he’s not so sure: “I think I have too many questions in my mind. I feel that equity is important. But I’m just not sure if San Francisco is solving it the right way.”

Sophia Lee

Sophia Lee

Sophia is a senior reporter for WORLD Magazine. She is a World Journalism Institute and University of Southern California graduate. Sophia resides in Los Angeles, Calif., with her husband. Follow her on Twitter @SophiaLeeHyun.

Comments

You must be a WORLD Member and logged in to the website to comment.
  • Cyborg3's picture
    Cyborg3
    Posted: Fri, 03/12/2021 09:46 am

    We have too much wokeness where people are all concerned about equity where we are moving to a communist thinking that is counter to the Judeo-Christian thinking based on capitalism. Jesus said "you will always have the poor" for there will never be economic equity like many advocate today. Some people are given more talants just like it says in the parable of the talents in Matt. 25:14-34, so we should not expect economic equity like many woke people advocate today.

    What our Judeo-Christian capitalistic country promised was that all people should be able to complete. It doesn't matter your background, race, economic class etc., but you will be able to compete in this unequal world. The poorest students  could compete, and if they succeeded academically through merit, then they could compete with the most gifted at the best colleges and universities. A person could also compete in business and even the poorest or most uneducated, if successful, would then compete with the best in the marketplace. 

    There are some inequities but this should be expected. It is only fair that the community that pays the most taxes, should get the better schools for they paid for it.  Why should we expect absolute equality? Is this not communist thinking? In a capitalistic society, tempered by Christianity, there were societies and women's groups who would provide funding to reduce some inequalities such as differences in football uniforms, needed books for libraries, science equipment, musical instruments, etc. The people who benefited from this didn't believe they were entitled to these things but were grateful for the generosity of others. This was true in times past in America.
     

    This woke society today says "You are entitled!" so it has absolutely no gratitude and is angry if there is any inequity- which the Bible says there always will be. There is anger, ingratitude, envy, racial hatred and so many other sins in wokism! Rather than looking to the Bible, these people "have a form of godliness but deny the truth." They push homosexuality, transgenderism, abortion, and invent new ways of doing evil. They don't respect the governing authorities but attempt to steal their swords! 
     

    Did you notice how little I talked about race? American values are fundamentally not racist at heart, where some held racist views, but this really went against our founding documents (Declaration of Independence) where it states that "all men are created equal."  We had to fight the Civil War to get over this hypocrisy and had to deal with the upheaval of the 1960s, finally where we dealt with our sins and brought some resolution. There can never be perfect resolution, but "not judging a man by the color of their skin" was the goal, rather than seeking a woke interpretation that goes against the Christian view of equality.

    God views all men equal in spite of the many inequalities that exist in life: intelligence, social status, economic status, health, etc., yet when we stand before God we are all equal. This is the biblical meaning of equality, where the woke view attempts to rectify all inequalities, where the Bible never had in mind to do this. Even in heaven the rewards are not equal, where the woke view would find this sinful. 

  • DakotaLutheran
    Posted: Fri, 03/12/2021 11:39 am

    This is a well written article covering, as far as I can tell, all the bases. The same argument (as you briefly indicate) is going on with regard to my high school, Brooklyn Tech, and its associated merit-based high schools in NYC. When I went there in the early 60s, I felt that it was a fairly diverse population. There were many Asians, Jews, Italians, Irish, even a few Muslims were friends. If any groups were lacking, it was Hispanic and Blacks. 

    The argument that the Tech alumni association has always made is that the place to provide the opportunities required for the requisite achievement is in the lower grades. In the 50s in NYC, grade schools were divided into levels. The best students were gathered together into one class, with poorer students into other groups. I'm not certain that is the best system. OTOH, I have subbed in public schools recently and I see the effects of not doing anything like that. What happens is that the material is "dumbed-down" so that everyone can pretty much keep up with the content and pace. 

    I appreciate the desire to provide everyone the opportunity to excel. But we have to also decide what we think about excellence as an outcome. Excellence requires grooming and nuturing, and that requires inequitable resources and opportunities. No one in their right mind would treat rocky soil the same as fertile if they are interested in yield. Yield, however, is not the only concern. We love, or try to love, all our children. This necessarily means treating them not the same. This loving is also an aim that is good both for us and for our children. 

    There are, then, at least these two: outcomes and attitudes. Outcomes are not all equal, and some are valued more highly than others. Attitudes, allow me to argue, have more to do with the soul, the spirit. Outcomes are more visible and external. Attitudes more invisible and interior. We are both body and soul, visible and invisible. Both are important. 

    The student who attends Lowell and feels superior has not learned this lesson. He is superior by one measure. He has become a reductionist, reducing all to this one trait. This is, of course, easy in our materialist culture, where your income is the only measure that counts. It is possible that those who argue for a lottery are making the same mistake as well. It is likewise  possible that those families who orchestrate their children's academic performance so that they can attend Lowell and excel are making the same mistake.

    This harmony between outcome and character, between the exterior and interior, body and soul is not easy, but they are necessarily related. Perhaps we can take this debate, this discussion, as a reflection of the body politic, one also with both a soul and a body. 

  • Mark EP
    Posted: Fri, 03/19/2021 08:49 am

    Excellent article. There's an irony here that no one is addressing: Lowell High School is an exceptional school, while apparently other high schools are not. If we follow the "equity" line of thinking to its natural conclusion, Lowell High School's existence is a problem. Does Lowell attract the best teachers? That's bad--we must have a lottery system to assign teachers to schools randomly. (Will that demotivate teachers? We mustn't ask that question.) Does Lowell receive more donations from alumni than other schools? Again, bad. The donation money should be taken away from Lowell and assigned via lottery to other schools. (Will that mean alumni stop donating? Mustn't ask.)

    In the name of "equity," Lowell High School's success must be dismantled, since it must be based on some form of systemic racism, classism, or inequality. Probably best to shut the school down entirely.

  • AlanE
    Posted: Fri, 03/19/2021 04:10 pm

    Mark EP, thank you for a reply of readable length. And I think you touch on the critical question here. Why do we have schools for exceptional students (I'm not saying we shouldn't, just that this question isn't very well examined)? How do we manage schools for exceptional students so they lift a variety of students--perhaps especially to include those from groups who most need the help? How do we get different groups to value exceptionalism roughly equally rather than thinking they're left out because not many of their children make the cut? Those are all very difficult questions to answer, but you have to take a shot at them if you're going to have schools like Lowell and still strive for some measure of equity. My take? Both are laudable goals, but they have a tendency to work against each other.

  •  Xion's picture
    Xion
    Posted: Fri, 03/19/2021 09:33 pm

    Why do we accept the bogus moralism of racial equity (aka racism) or economic equity (aka envy) or sexual equality (dysphoria)? 

    It is not immoral to be color blind.  It is not immoral to hire the most qualified people regardless of ancestory.  It is not immoral to earn more or less than your neighbor.  It is not immoral to celebrate the differences between men and women or to treat marriage as different than so-called civil unions.

    So where is this faux moralism coming from and why does the world keep caving to every new moral mandate?  This new religion is a kind of counterfeit Christianity which pretends to be motivated by kindness, but all the morals are contrary to God's moral standards.  I guess that answers the question.

  • BF
    Posted: Sat, 03/20/2021 12:00 pm

    The left continually misses this basic premise... When everyone is special, no one is special. Except perhaps those in power. I suspect the left is aware of that. 

  • PB
    Posted: Thu, 04/01/2021 11:44 pm

    Great article.  I particularly found it interesting as I went to Lowell and was there at the same time as Mr. Huayllasco.  While Sophia Lee captures the big picture well, there were, and likely still are, many other nuances to Lowell.  Mark EP is correct to question the conditions of the other schools.  To answer his question, yes, there were some very good teachers.  There were also plenty of teachers that were there because of their senority who did not want to deal with the discipline problems of the other schools.  Lowell students were generally self motivated so required very little work.  It would also be wise to question the quality of the middle schools that prepare students (or do not prepare them) for high school.  While I was at Lowell, I had a faculty member suggest that I only made it into Lowell because the middle school I came from was not known for academics and the 4.0 GPA was easy to obtain.  That particular middle school also happened to be one of the newer alternative schools formed under the consent decree.  In this case it was not about race, but about academics.  I am sure I proved her right after graduating by taking 10 years to end up with a mere Associates degree.  It has been more than 30 years since I graduated from Lowell and I count it a blessing to have received a good high school education.  I also had a teacher there that encouraged my interest in the fire service where I am now.