Efforts to reform the admissions process, coupled with outreach
efforts, have proven insufficient in the university’s
attempts to ensure a diverse student body, in the view of
University of California President Richard Atkinson.
As the Supreme Court deliberates over the University of
Michigan’s use of race in its admissions, Atkinson, a
longtime supporter of affirmative action, described California as a
“˜cautionary tale’ of what can happen when admissions
officials are not allowed to consider race.
In an op-ed piece appearing in the Washington Post on April 20,
Atkinson, who plans to retire in October, wrote if the UC cannot
consider race in admissions, the student body may not reflect the
state’s diversity.
Atkinson assumed the UC’s top post in 1995, shortly after
the UC Board of Regents passed SP-1 and SP-2, prohibiting the
consideration of race in university admissions, hiring, and
contracting.
Much of Atkinson’s presidency has been marked by efforts
to maintain diversity at the UC by amping up outreach programs and
reframing admissions policies, most notably by instituting a
comprehensive review policy that gives more weight to personal
experiences relative to academic standards.
The regents rescinded SP-1 and SP-2 in 2001, but in 1996, the
passage of Proposition 209 made it unconstitutional for any state
agency to consider race or ethnicity.
Atkinson wrote that since the UC eliminated the consideration of
race in admissions, proportions of underrepresented students have
dropped at UCLA and UC Berkeley.
Additionally, he wrote, a gap is widening between the
percentages of underrepresented students in California high schools
and those at the UC.
UC Regent Ward Connerly, who backed both SP-1 and Proposition
209, said he agreed with Atkinson’s math ““ that adding
race into the admissions equation would equal greater diversity
““ though he disagrees with the UC president that public
agencies should consider race.
“Nothing beats giving people more points … but the
larger question is, “˜is that right?,'” Connerly
said.
A better choice for the university, Connerly said, is to persist
with its outreach programs.
“I think the university is perfectly within its rights,
morally and otherwise to engage in outreach,” he said.
Atkinson’s column echoes the findings of a UC report,
released in March, on systemwide admissions that “in a highly
selective institution, implementing policies that are race-neutral
leads to a substantial decline in the proportion of entering
students who are African American, American Indian, or
Latino.”
Data contained in the report also shows that in 2002, all UC
campuses had larger percentages of underrepresented students
admitted than in 1998, the year race-neutral admissions went into
effect.
However, these percentages are smaller than admissions rates for
underrepresented students on all UC campuses in 1995, when the
regents passed SP-1.
Student regent Dexter Ligot-Gordon, who has often pointed to
outreach as a personal priority, said he agreed with Atkinson that
the ban on affirmative action has hindered the UC’s endeavors
to admit a diverse student body.
The UC’s efforts are even harder to achieve now,
Ligot-Gordon added, since outreach programs are shrinking, with
future budget cuts proposed as the university wrestles with the
state budget crisis.
“These programs, which are in effect aimed at increasing
diversity, are being eliminated,” he said.
Strained resources, he added, mean the university can only set
very limited goals.
“We’re not in a position where we’re trying to
solve the problem, we’re in a position where we’re
trying to prevent the situation from becoming worse,”
Ligot-Gordon said.