Regents compromise on new admissions policy
End of affirmative action to begin spring 1998 for
undergrads
By Michael Howerton
Daily Bruin Staff
In a vote that passed as quietly as the clamor leading up to it
was deafening, the UC Board of Regents voted unanimously to
implement new admissions policies beginning fall 1997 for graduate
students and spring 1998 for undergraduates.
The board approved the same implementation schedule for which UC
president Richard Atkinson recently came under heavy fire from some
regents, including Gov. Pete Wilson. The controversy revealed wide
divisions and hostilities in board politics.
The meeting was anticipated as a fierce power struggle over the
control of policy implementation, but fizzled into a day of
accord.
In a closed door meeting held before the board meeting, Wilson,
Regent Chairman Clair Burgener, Regent Ward Connerly and Atkinson
discussed the implementation schedule for two hours before emerging
to quickly pass the resolution.
Wilson’s presence at the meeting brought increased expectations
that the board would firmly stand by their original demand to
eliminate the use of affirmative action in the UC system by
January.
Atkinson had said that more time is needed to implement the new
policies. He released a statement two weeks ago stating that the
new admission procedures couldn’t be ready until fall 1998 for
undergraduates, but in the face of intense opposition, offered the
compromise of fall 1997 for graduate students and spring 1998 for
undergraduates.
The only retractor to the implementation proposal was Student
Regent Ed Gomez who had opposed the proposal in the committee vote.
However, when the issue was then put to a full board vote at
lightening speed, Gomez failed to register an objection, apparently
unaware that the vote was taking place.
Gomez has been an outspoken advocate for affirmative action and
constant critic of his fellow regents’ July decision to strike any
race or gender based preferences from admissions. He said that he
would write a letter to get his vote changed on the record as being
opposed to the measure.
Although he was absent from the room during the actual vote,
Wilson made no statements against Atkinson’s time line for the
policies. Wilson came to the meeting "to reaffirm opposition to
affirmative action," said Sean Walsh, the governor’s press
secretary.
"The governor believed the ’97 date was the most appropriate,
but the governor wants the policies to be implemented in the
smoothest and most effective way," Walsh continued. "The regents
voted in the most expedient way possible. This is about letting the
regents set policy for the university."
Connerly, who originally proposed the measures eliminating
affirmative action from university admissions and hiring
procedures, indicated that the easy passage of Atkinson’s
compromise was an attempt to mend the rifts created by the
animosity of recent weeks.
Even though he was opposed to Atkinson’s delay, Connerly said he
decided to support it "in the spirit of cooperation and to bring
some peace to the university. I don’t think we needed more time
(for implementation), but this comes at a time when the board is
trying to reach out and respect the views of the entire university.
It’s important to try to heal the divisions in the university."
The discord that has plagued the last few regents’ meetings has
mired the board in infighting and has damaged the board’s
relationships with its campuses, said Regent Roy Brophy, who was
hopeful that the accord reached at this meeting was a sign that
those troubles could be resolved.
"We all sat there like human beings for a change," Brophy said,
marvelling at the change of atmosphere at Thursday’s meeting.
"Maybe we are all tired of the infighting. I certainly am.
"We’ve been in gridlock for seven months now," he said,
accepting the compromise as probably the only solution. "It’s the
‘best of the worst’ compromise."
He indicated that the long struggle that the board has engaged
in has also damaged its relationship with the university
faculty.
"We need to get the faculty back on board," Brophy said. "We are
sitting there breaking all our bonds with the faculty and that’s
the worst thing we could have done. It’s a self-motivated form of
suicide."
However, signs that this could only be a brief cease-fire
appeared when Connerly indicated that new policies may deny
outreach programs and financial aid policies to persons based on
race and gender.
"If we believe that decisions are being made on basis of race,
which has been demonstrated without doubt, then it is morally wrong
and it is our obligation to take action," Connerly said.
However, the California Civil Rights Initiative, which would end
all affirmative action policies in California, now has enough votes
to qualify for the November ballot, said Connerly. If passed, the
initiative would probably supercede any decisions the board made on
this issue, he added.Comments to webmaster@db.asucla.ucla.edu