John Shattuck Chat: Connecting Students to the World; Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley

Page 3 of 4

Michael: The San Francisco Unified School District wants to reduce de facto segregation in schools by limiting a certain percentage of certain racial students in a school. I could not get into the school I wanted because there was too much competition within my racial group. I have been racially discriminated against.

Shattuck: Michael, I don't know the details of the S.F. school admissions policies but the U.S. law on affirmative action and anti-discrimination tries to balance the need to address discrimination that has occurred against particular racial groups with the need not to discriminate against individuals. This is the law that S.F. school district has to apply.

Tom: What do you think about the three judges of the Appeals Court Panel of California supporting anti-affirmative action Prop. 209? Do you think Prop. 209 is constitutional?

Shattuck: Tom, Prop. 209 is very broad and, as I understand it, it abolishes all elements of affirmative action so that past discrimination against a racial group cannot be taken into consideration. In my view this is prohibited by the constitution because our Supreme Court has ruled in the past that remedies against past discrimination of racial groups can include affirmative action. The case that you refer to will be decided by the Supreme Court later this year. How do you think Prop 209 will affect you if it holds up?

Tom: It gives me less chances of making it into a college that I want to go to, such as UC Berkeley.

Shattuck: Tom, why do you think Prop 209 was approved by the voters?

Tom: This is because 54% of California voters are rich and racist people.

Michael: Tom, how do you judge whether a person is racist or not?

Harry Kreisler: Genika, let's get your question.

Genika: What is your take on the effectiveness of affirmative action? Do you think we should keep it without any modifications?

Shattuck: Genika, affirmative action is an essential tool to deal with racial discrimination in our country. As President Clinton has said many times, we should always be prepared to sharpen the tool but we should not give it up. One of the great strengths of our country is its diversity, and we have spent a lot of time and effort through the civil rights movement and through our courts in fashioning remedies to protect diversity. Affirmative action is one of those remedies.

Kevin: Do you think that Proposition 187 was really necessary? Don't you think that the proposition was actually violating the concept of civil rights in the United States?

Shattuck: Kevin, my work in the U.S. government focuses on issues outside the U.S. Certainly I have a personal view on domestic civil rights issues, and discrimination against legal immigrants to our country, I believe, is contrary to our constitution and national interest. But work in this area is in another part of our government.

Next page: International Human Rights Issues

© Copyright 1997, Regents of the University of California