Last month, the University of California Board of Regents passed
a resolution censuring its chairman, John Moores, for his public
allegations that the university likely still uses race-based
preferences in admissions. In doing so, the board censured free
speech and suppressed knowledge of emerging problems in the UC
system.
The regents, news media and pundits were quick to use the news
as a catalyst to resurrect the affirmative action issue. The
editorial board of the Daily Bruin affirmed: “Moores is
continuing his unilateral attack on the university’s
comprehensive review admissions policy, now requesting an audit by
an outside firm. He’s obsessed with the fact a few students
from disadvantaged backgrounds may be getting into college with
lower-than-typical SAT scores.”
In general, the debate has centered on the validity of John
Moores’ take on affirmative action and its relationship to
current UC policies. Conservatives and liberals alike found renewed
interest in this age-old problem. For a time, my blinding passion
for politics blurred my vision, too. Partly because of the media
and partly because of our own predispositions, we decided to snub
the most vital questions of them all ““ questions about free
speech and the right to express dissent.
We frequently hear of the importance of “dissent”
and the “freedom to criticize.” We hear about the
shackling of our free speech and the hindering of our right to
disagree. The villain is almost always our president; the threat
mostly distant; the reasoning usually defective.
Yet in this instance, the UC regents reproached a man for his
personal opinions. Moores expressed these opinions in an article in
Forbes magazine. They were not intended to represent the official
opinion of the board ““ “I’m just one vote,”
he said. But Moores was censured for his political beliefs, and
nothing more.
Moores responded with a tempered e-mail to his fellow regents,
saying, “I believe that I’m free to speak my mind on
important matters and that, moreover, I have an obligation to be
heard when I have reason to believe that the public needs to know
about important UC matters.” Moores was just doing his job
““ and his right to speak freely is an important part of that
job.
Our cultural obsession with affirmative action made the real
issues hard to address.
According to Moores, the UC administration has hidden from the
regents and the public several secret reports that cast doubt on
the legality of its admissions process. Such action presents two
problems.
First, crucial information regarding relevant findings never
reach the regents. If the leaders of our system have no access to
studies and facts, then the fate of our university is signed in
black ink. Practical decisions cannot be made without practical
knowledge.
Second, the UC might be in violation of state law. Since the
passing of Proposition 209, the university has been compelled to
abolish race as a factor for admissions. Yet statistics show this
may not be the case. Certainly, there are statistics which show
many students get into top UCs with sub-par SAT scores. We must ask
why ““ and if race turns out to be the answer, there is a
problem for us to fix.
That race should be abolished in admissions is not a matter for
debate, but a demand of the law.
Moores also points out that news of over-enrollment in the UC
system reached the regents ages too late, and as a result,
appropriate measures could not be taken to accommodate the
population growth.
In his e-mail, Moores touched upon and demanded answers for
several pressing questions: Why did the regents strip him of his
right to speak freely? Why does the UC administration hide studies?
Is the university skirting around the state law? What should be
done about our dilemma?
But sly as the regents are, they have so far ignored these
issues. And as political as students are, we, too, fell into the
trap. We all instinctively jumped to the affirmative action debate.
In turn, the debate buried the broader, more essential elements of
free speech, law and university procedure, which Moores’ case
brings to light. It is time we realize this, and time for the
regents to address the real issues.
To the UC regents, I challenge you to reverse your resolution
and establish free speech once again. I challenge you to bridge the
gap between the UC administration and the regents. I challenge you
to investigate the university’s compliance with state
law.
Only when you have done this ““ after you have satisfied
these prerequisite demands ““ may you try to explain why two
students with the same GPA, SAT score and the same set of
extracurricular activities might have different chances of
admission at a UC school ““ and whether or not race also plays
a role.
Hovannisian is a first-year history and philosophy student.
E-mail him at ghovannisian@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.