Friday, 5/16/97 Donor-bias admissions proposal deferred REGENTS
Accusations of undue influence denied, fall hearing a
possibility
By Brooke Olson Daily Bruin Senior Staff The sensitive issue of
VIP admissions proved too much for the UC Regents Thursday. A
committee of the board voted 8-3 to put off considering a proposal
that would forbid UC administrators from considering applicants’
links to wealthy donors in admissions decisions. The proposal was
stalled by Regent Sue Johnson who argued that more faculty input
was needed. Under Johnson’s "objection to consideration," the
committee was unable to even debate the proposal, which was
co-authored by Ward Connerly and student regent Jess Bravin. The
proposal faced a tough road from UC administrators who believe it
is sometimes necessary to take applicants’ financial contributions
into account when determining admissions. "This (proposal) was a
bad thing … it’d be harmful to the university," said Chancellor
Charles Young, insisting that although he supported VIP admissions,
none were offered for next fall. "It is not inappropriate to take
institutional needs into account when reviewing admissions
applicants," Young said. Arguing that they needed flexibility, UC
administrators noted that only a handful of admissions are at stake
each year. Several UC chancellors, including Young, also noted that
it is important for the Regents to have faith in the admissions
process. "We must have trust in the administrators and admissions
officers," said Berkeley Chancellor Chang-Lin Tien. "If you don’t
have confidence in the people, then remove them … but don’t try
to micromanage them." In private, administrators have long noted
that VIP admissions are a venal, not moral, sin. Supporters of the
proposal lambasted the regents and administrators for refusing to
consider what they believed was a simple ethics issue. "This issue
raised a very simple question – should money be used to influence
admissions?" Bravin asked. "Allowing this practice to go on
cheapens the constitution of our donors because it begs the
question of quid pro quo," he added. Other supporters noted that
they were disappointed by the underhandedness of the board. "I
thought it was a travesty,” said Lt. Gov. Gray Davis, also a
regent. "I thought it was the typical power play on the part of the
board." Afraid that the regents would try to sidestep the issue
completely, Davis insisted in the meeting that the Board revisit
the proposal. "(The regents) have a way of sending things out and
then it seems to disappear into this black hole," he said. After
the vote, Bravin and Connerly accused university administrators of
politicking the regents, noting that the proposal had broad support
just a few weeks ago. "Several regents switched their votes (in
that meeting)," Bravin said. "I guess they’d decided it was best
not to upset the status quo and do whatever the administration
wished the Board to do." University chancellors dismissed the
notion that they had pulled out all the stops to destroy the
proposal, noting that the Board does not always work in conjunction
with the administration. "The chancellors were united against the
proposal to end affirmative action but the Regents didn’t take our
opinion into consideration," said UC Riverside chancellor Raymond
Orbach. The issue will be brought to the table again by next fall,
Atkinson said, but some chancellors wished the issue had died
Thursday. "My preference is that it would’ve been voted down
(yesterday)," Young said, calling the proposal unnecessary and
harmful to the university. The UC came under fire last year after a
months-long Los Angeles Times investigation showed that top UC
administrators used their influence to get children and friends of
donors admitted to the universities. The Times documented hundreds
of requests made to UCLA alone through the back door during the
last 15 years by more than 80 former and current public officials,
including Gov. Pete Wilson, Young and several regents. Last year,
regents adopted a resolution allowing regents and elected officials
to send letters of recommendation, but encouraging them to remain
outside of the admissions decisions. That policy didn’t address
applicants with contributor connections, leading to the new
”policy barring development considerations from influencing
admissions decisions.” Despite concern from several regents,
chancellors noted that donor’s wishes would always be taken into
consideration. "If a person at a party asks me to take their child
or grandchild into consideration for admissions, I always write the
name down," Tien said. PATRICK LAM/Daily Bruin Student regent Jess
Bravin was one of two regents who drafted a proposal to stop VIP
admissions to the UC system. During Thursday’s meeting, the
proposal’s hearing was promptly deferred to a later meeting.
Previous Daily Bruin Story: ViewpointMay 19, 1996