In a personal twist to a public debate, the chancellor of the
University of California, Berkeley, accused the chairman of the
Board of Regents of showing “open contempt for reasoned
discourse” about UC admissions procedures.
The comments appeared in a confidential letter obtained by The
Bruin and first reported in The Los Angeles Times on Friday. The
letter, addressed to Chairman John Moores and forwarded to other
regents, was written in regard to a report critiquing
Berkeley’s admissions procedures for 2002.
The report, commissioned by Moores, found Berkeley had turned
down some applicants with near-perfect SAT I scores and admitted
some applicants who had scores several hundred points below
perfect.
The report’s findings have sparked debate throughout
California about admissions policies at the nation’s most
prestigious public university system. Some contend that UC
admissions policies are too secretive and need to be more
transparent.
Berkeley officials have launched a concerted effort to defend
their admissions policies, an effort capped by Chancellor Robert
Berdahl’s letter to Moores.
In the letter, Berdahl soundly condemned Moores for public
comments he made criticizing Berkeley admissions, calling his
criticisms “extremely unfair” and “damaging to
the faculty, staff and students on the Berkeley campus.”
Berdahl also said Moores broke a promise not to forward his
report to all of the regents until its “flawed
assumptions” were corrected and to expand his report to
encompass other UC campuses.
Moores was unavailable for comment on Friday, but he told The
Times in the Oct. 17 article that “my concern always has been
and continues to be that the admissions policy of the University of
California be legal and fair.”
Berdahl specifically referenced comments Moores made in an
article in the San Francisco Chronicle on Oct. 10. In the article,
Moores was dismissive of a letter Berdahl wrote to UC President
Robert Dynes defending Berkeley admissions.
“This is under the blah, blah, blah category,”
Moores told the Chronicle.
Moores also told the Chronicle students admitted with low SAT
scores and low grade point averages “don’t have any
business going to Berkeley” and questioned whether race had
played a role in Berkeley’s decisions.
Under Proposition 209, public institutions ““ including the
UC ““ cannot consider race in hiring or admittance practices.
Berkeley officials have repeatedly denied that they consider race
in admissions.
Berdahl said Moores’ comments to the Chronicle “have
seriously damaged the trust that is necessary for successful
cooperation between you and the campus.”
The chancellor also disapproved of Moores’ remarks
regarding admitted students, students “who have overcome
substantial economic, social and educational disadvantages to come
to Berkeley,” he said in the letter.
“They deserve more than derision from the chair of the
Board of Regents,” he said.
According to Moores’ report, Berkeley admitted nearly 400
applicants with SAT scores between 600 and 1000 in 2002 ““ far
below the average score of 1337 for Berkeley’s 2002 admits
““ and turned away 641 applicants with near-perfect scores. A
1600 is a perfect score on the SAT.
Berdahl questioned Moores’ wisdom in releasing his report
to the public and said it had “done singular damage to the
Berkeley campus.”
“It has undermined confidence in the integrity of our
admissions process … at the very moment students are applying for
admission,” he said in the letter.
Berkeley has defended its admissions policies by saying its
admissions office weighs factors other than test scores when
considering applicants, such as personal achievement or life
challenges.
These practices are in accordance with the criteria of the
UC’s policy of comprehensive review, which was implemented in
2001.
Some regents, including Ward Connerly, have expressed misgivings
about how Berkeley is implementing comprehensive review and whether
the institution is using it to skirt around Proposition 209.
But other regents have questioned the value of Moores’
report, because they say it only looked at one part of the complex
world of university admissions.
“I would be concerned if a report like this said that the
SAT is all that mattered,” said student regent Matt Murray.
“That’s not what admissions should be.”
Regent Velma Montoya said she approved of Moores taking the
initiative to conduct an independent analysis, but also said she
would have preferred to see a more “robust” study that
took into account students’ attributes beyond their test
scores and looked at admissions practices at other UC campuses.
President Dynes has said he would commission a group to look at
admittance policies at all eight UC undergraduate campuses.
The fact the UC is a highly competitive and selective system may
also be an aspect of admissions Moores’ report did not take
into account.
“Any process that selects for admission only one-fourth of
those who apply is bound to be open to criticism, especially when
almost all of the applicants are highly qualified,” said UCLA
Chancellor Albert Carnesale. “There is no perfect
admissions process, nor is there one that would satisfy
everybody.”