SAN FRANCISCO “”mdash; Regent Ward Connerly suggested an external
audit of comprehensive review at the meeting of the University of
California Board of Regents last week before the release of an
internal evaluation performed by the system-wide Academic
Senate.
Connerly believes an outside review is needed to ensure the
one-year-old admissions policy is administered fairly and is in
accordance with the state constitution.
Comprehensive review, approved by the regents last year, gives
more weight to life experiences and personal achievements relative
to academic achievement in undergraduate admissions. The policy
also ended the two-tier system of admissions, under which 50-75
percent of incoming freshmen were admitted by academic merit
alone.
Connerly’s proposal, which was discussed without any
action being taken, met sharp criticism from UC President Richard
Atkinson and Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, a regent by virtue of his
office, who argued that an external review was both impossible and
unnecessary.
Currently, the Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools, a
committee of the Academic Senate, is conducting its own audit of
comprehensive review. The audit is expected to be released by the
November regents meeting.
Connerly, who voted for comprehensive review, worries that in
the absence of an outside audit, people will consider the
admissions process unfair.
“There will still be skeptics … if we can’t assure
people that our process is a fair one,” he said.
The university can be sued if admissions officials break the law
by using racial preferences, Connerly said after the meeting.
California voters passed the Connerly-backed Proposition 209 in
1996, eliminating the consideration of race in all state hiring and
admissions policies.
Connerly is also concerned that comprehensive review could allow
applicants to embellish life experiences.
Gayle Binion, chair of the Academic Senate, said after the
meeting that the board should wait until the BOARS report is
released before deciding to seek a second opinion.
Until the faculty report is released, the questions that need to
be asked won’t be apparent, she said.
Connerly’s ideas were challenged at the table by
Bustamante, who said they warranted no more than an
“interesting discussion” to be finished “fairly
quickly.”
According to Bustamante, Connerly’s proposal suggested the
policy has been mismanaged, though no available information
suggests any unlawful activity has occurred.
Atkinson also defended comprehensive review.
Atkinson believes the public has no reason to suspect any
impropriety in university admissions.
“I’ve seen no evidence … that there is any
unfairness in the comprehensive review process,” he said.
Atkinson categorically rejected deferring an evaluation of
comprehensive review to an outside agency.
“I can’t imagine how one could conceive of such a
study,” he said.
Some regents agreed with Connerly’s proposal.
Regent John Moores said an outside audit could increase the
transparency of UC admissions and improve the implementation of
comprehensive review itself.
Since the eight undergraduate campuses have their own, different
versions of the policy, an audit can compare each campus and find
out where it is most successful.
“What some of us hope is that comprehensive review … can
be made better,” he said.
The issue will likely resurface at the next meeting in November,
after the regents have a chance to look over the BOARS report.