One of the authors of the 1996 initiative banning affirmative
action in California’s public agencies says questions
surrounding University of California Berkeley’s admissions
practices are an example of why people should oppose Proposition
54. A confidential report circled among members of the UC Board of
Regents found that some students with low SAT scores were admitted
to Berkeley while other students with near-perfect scores were
turned away, according to a report published by The Los Angeles
Times. Some immediately wondered whether Berkeley is considering
race in admissions, in an era when affirmative action is not
allowed. Thomas Wood, who co-authored Proposition 209, contends
that if Proposition 54 passes, it would be impossible to sue state
institutions for using affirmative action because data about the
ethnic makeup of the university would be lost. “There is
certainly no way you could get it into court,” Wood said.
Proposition 54, which is up for a vote Tuesday, would ban most
state agencies from collecting data about an individual’s
race, ethnicity or national origin. UC Regent Ward Connerly, the
author of Proposition 54, disagrees with Wood. “I understand
Tom’s argument, but it is a weak one,” he said.
Connerly said it is impossible to determine that affirmative action
is being used, because it may be simply coincidental that students
admitted with lower test scores are racial or ethnic
minorities.
Lower scores earned admission The report obtained by the Times
revealed that nearly 400 students were admitted to UC Berkeley in
2002 with SAT scores between 600 and 1000 ““ well below the
1337 average for 2002 admits. Though the report did not include
racial data, Richard Black, UC Berkeley’s assistant vice
chancellor of admissions and enrollment, told the Times that a
“substantial portion” of these students were
underrepresented minorities. In 2002, UC Berkeley rejected 641
students with near-perfect scores, the report said. A 1600 is a
perfect score. Comprehensive review could also have played a role
in Berkeley’s admissions statistics, and the findings of the
confidential report have drawn into question whether the UC is
using comprehensive review properly. An admissions system the UC
adopted in 2002, comprehensive review allows admissions officers to
weigh factors other than test scores, such as personal achievements
and life challenges. Connerly said the UC is still capable of using
affirmative action under comprehensive review. When asked if the UC
is compromising academic quality to help attract more
underrepresented minorities, Connerly said, “If you recognize
we embarked on this whole enterprise of comprehensive review in
order to achieve a greater level of racial and ethnic diversity,
than you probably have a pretty good clue.” Connerly, who
voted to adopt comprehensive review, said he still supports it
“as long as it is administered fairly and with
integrity.” UC Berkeley has defended the admissions
statistics, saying that many of the students who were rejected
despite near-perfect SAT scores had applied with low GPAs. Some of
the students with lower SAT scores were admitted because they
“made the most of the opportunities that were available to
them,” Black said. On Saturday, the Berkeley administration
released a statement saying the Times’ interpretation of the
admissions statistics misrepresented admissions procedures. But
Connerly expressed concern that the university could be admitting a
higher quality student body. “I’m not sure at this
stage whether it is in violation of (Proposition) 209, but it is
flirting with the erosion of quality in the UC, and I suspect the
same sort of thing is happening elsewhere in the system,”
Connerly said. “The reality is we have a system now, in which
subjectivity has taken the place of objectivity,” he
said.
With reports from Daily Bruin wire services.