The University of California Board of Regents voted 8-6 Thursday
to confirm its commitment to comprehensive review and censure
regents chairman John Moores for an editorial in which he lambasted
the university’s admissions practices.
Moores defended his comments as free speech. Several regents
came to Moores’ defense, but many of the regents said his
position as chairman made his comments damaging to the
university.
Moores’ criticisms in Forbes Magazine focused on the fact
that UC Berkeley admitted “359 students with combined SAT
scores of 1000 or less,” and that 231 of these were
underrepresented minorities. Moores said this indicates that
comprehensive review is being used as a covert way to skirt state
law and give students priority because of their race.
Proposition 209 prohibits the consideration of race and gender
in hiring and contracting for state employers and in admissions for
state universities. Moores also charged that comprehensive review
was being used to admit students who were not the most qualified,
and discriminated against Asian Americans.
“The largest single group that scored over 1400 and had
over a 4.0 (and were denied from UC Berkeley) were Asian
Americans,” Moores said. “A lot of people see this as a
victimless crime — because those are really smart kids who
probably went elsewhere — but I don’t,” he added.
Moores based his criticisms partially on two versions of a
report, released on March 4 by the Eligibility and Admissions Study
Group and the UC Office of the President.
The report showed that in 2003, admissions numbers among black
and Chicana/o students mirrored university projections more
consistently than in 1997, the year before consideration of race
was disallowed by Proposition 209.
Specifically, the report found that white and Asian students
were admitted at a slightly lower rate than projected, while black
and Chicana/o students were admitted at a slightly higher rate.
Bruce Darling, senior vice president of university affairs, said
the numbers for 2003 show the university’s “good faith
effort to comply with Proposition 209″ and that the UC would
continue to investigate if differences between projected and
admitted numbers shows bias or a problem with the model.
Moores’ repeated and outspoken criticisms of comprehensive
review led regents Judith Hopkinson, Monica Lozano and George
Marcus to draft a resolution to the committee on educational policy
to reaffirm the regents’ commitment to comprehensive
review.
They also sought to make the point that “the views in UC
admissions policies expressed by John Moores, as chairman” do
not represent the views of the Board of Regents, according to the
resolution.
Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, a regent by virtue of his position,
made a rare appearance at the meeting to introduce into record UC
Berkeley Chancellor Robert Berdahl’s response to Moores
editorial.
Berdahl’s response, also published in Forbes, called
Moores’ article an “inaccurate and damaging
assault” on Berkeley’s admissions policy. Several
regents, like Lozano, called Moores’ comments inappropriate
because his position as chairman of the board means people will
associate his opinion with the opinion of the regents.
“I think this is outrageous,” Moores said, adding
that he saw it as “delicious irony” that he should be
censured for criticizing UC Berkeley, a symbol of the free speech
movement.
Though some regents disagreed with his stance on comprehensive
review, several strongly supported Moores’ right to express
his opinion.
“I can’t believe this. We are contemplating
censoring a member of our board for an article that he wrote in a
magazine,” said Regent Ward Connerly.
“If we disagree, we can write our own article,” he
said.
Regent Velma Montoya agreed, noting that Moores’ article
was partially titled “On My Mind.”
“It was John Moores saying what was on his mind,”
Montoya said.
Regent Peter Preuss also took up Moores’ case.
“If we do something like this (we) would not be the type
of congenial board that I entered 10 years ago … we have the
right to disagree,” Preuss said, adding that the regents
should not pass a resolution before the investigation of
comprehensive review was completed.
But for some, like Regent Odessa Johnson, this was not
enough.
“We are told in the study group that the students with low
SATs and high GPAs are progressing well,” Johnson said,
adding that Moores’ comments could have made minority
students feel unworthy of attending Berkeley.
“Even though it grieves me to support this resolution, I
have to support the resolution,” she said.
The committee on educational policy voted 9-1 to send the
resolution to the full board.