CA: University of California regents affirm new admissions style

Sign On San Diego, AP ^ | 3-19-04 | Michelle Locke

[Alia]

SAN FRANCISCO - Tensions over the role of race in University of California admissions erupted as members of the governing Board of Regents sharply rebuked their own chairman for criticizing the way students are selected at the flagship Berkeley campus.

Voting 8-6, the board passed a resolution Thursday endorsing their admissions process and disavowing the views expressed by regents' Chairman John Moores in a Forbes magazine opinion piece.

The censure, a highly unusual move, came after a lengthy and occasionally passionate debate.

"This isn't right. This makes no sense," said Regent Ward Connerly, who opposed the resolution. "I don't think it's appropriate for us to use this kind of method to achieve our objective."

"What is happening to this body?" asked regent Peter Preuss, also voting "No." "We have the right to disagree."

But proponents said it was important to distance the board from Moores' article, which said UC's two-year-old system of taking socio-economic as well as academic factors into account is victimizing students.

"I don't like doing business this way, however ... I think we have got to clear the record," said Regent Joanne Kozberg.

"We at the university have a responsibility to ensure that all of our students feel welcome on campus," said Regent Odessa Johnson.

Moores called the action outrageous and saw "a delicious irony" in the fact that it revolved around Berkeley, home of the 1964 Free Speech Movement.

"This is nothing more than stopping the exercise of free speech."

The rift between Moores and UC officials emerged last fall when he released a report saying that under the new system, known as "comprehensive review," Berkeley had turned away more than 3,000 students with high SAT scores in 2002 while accepting nearly 400 students with low SAT scores. More than half of the lower scoring students were black or Hispanic, underrepresented minorities at UC, leading critics to question whether comprehensive review was allowing race and ethnicity to factor in admissions, contrary to state law.

UC officials said they were not considering race in admissions. They pointed out that SAT scores were de-emphasized as admissions criteria some years ago and also said many of the rejected students had withdrawn their applications, got lower preference because they were from out of state or had applied to highly competitive majors.

A follow-up analysis by UC found that the admit rate for black and Hispanic students has dropped sharply systemwide since the old affirmative action admissions were dropped in 1998.

However, the report found that blacks and Hispanics were being admitted at higher rates than expected at Berkeley and, to a lesser degree, at UCLA. UC officials said it was too early to say if that meant race was being considered, noting the discrepancy could be due to hard-to-quantify factors such as leadership or overcoming hardship. Officials are now investigating to see what is behind those numbers.

Moores pointed Thursday to the new analysis as validation and also charged that UC administrators failed to present an earlier study showing a greater discrepancy in admissions.

UC officials contested that characterization, saying the earlier report was a work in progress that led to the analysis presented last week.

Discussion of the Moores' rebuke took up so much time that another race-related issue, a proposal by Connerly to give applicants the option of identifying themselves as multiracial or multiethnic was postponed until May.

[Alia]

Target, disrupt, spin, divert. Target, disrupt, spin, divert -- By Any Means Possible. John Moores was the target.

[CasearianDaoist]

As a Berkeley Graduate of the 70s I can tell you that as a university Berkeley has gone down hill. This is in part due to the admissions policy including throwing out SAT scores. When there is wide disparity between HS academic programs and rampant grade inflation there needs to be some means to qualify students. The UC system no longer sees its role as a top level university system It sees itself as a force for social engineering. If it keeps this up in a few decades UCB will be like any other state university. The same thing is happening to Ann Arbor. It is sad for these sort of institutions were unique to America: World class Universities on a par with the Ivy League or the Oxfords and Cambridges of the world. When it is gone they will have a hard time getting it back, of course the faculty will be so dumbed down that it may take them awhile to notice.

[heleny]

There are supposed to be 26 UC Regents: 18 appointed to 12-year terms, 1 student appointed to 1 or 2 year terms, and 7 ex-officio members.

From the list of 24 UC Regents on their website, nine were appointed by Gray Davis, and seven were appointed by Pete Wilson. Perhaps there are two new vacancies.

Among the members in elected office, Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, and Supt. Public Instruction Jack O'Connell are left-wing Democrats.
Robert C. Dynes may be a Democrat, too, since he was appointed UC President by Davis. (Davis viewed it as a favor last year and was upset at Dynes' Republican father-in-law Mr. Hellman for not contributing to Davis' anti-recall campaign.)
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is Republican.

If 8+6=14 voted on the resolution, then 10 abstained or were absent.

[Alia]

"We had to destroy the village in order to save it" -- comes to mine reading your post. This is, in fact, what the Dem/Lib educrats are doing here in CA.

[Alia]

Thank you for the solid data. Yours in small type describes oh-so-well, Dem politiking in CA.

[MrB]

What's the point of letting underqualified students into a university where they are likely to fail?

They should go to the university that matches their abilities so that they can get good grades and a diploma instead of flunking out.

[Alia]

I agree with you. Outside of the obvious arguments (money, power, etc.) the only type of logic I can determine as coming out of educrats promoting preferential affirmative action is that they are lying, and wish to promote even further lies inside the minds and hearts of their students. The obvious arguments look far better on paper and in newsprint.

[calcowgirl]

It's disgusting to see who's running the UC.

Gray Davis sure didn't help by appointing Sherry Lansing (head of Paramount), Haim Saban (FOX-Children, and Mr. Mighty Morphin Power Rangers) and Richard Blum (Dianne Feinsteins husband).

I would assume you can put all of these in the Democrat column, as well.

[ApplegateRanch]

was a par with ... the Oxfords and Cambridges of the world.

UC still is on a par with those schools, from what I can deduce from what I've read in the Brit news about them. I don't know which part of that is the greater pity.

Used to be, any California HS graduate with a 3.5 was guaranteed admission to the UC system. Then came Affirmative Action.