Friday, May 17, 1996
Additional criteria, ensuring diversity discussed by Board
By Michael Howerton
Daily Bruin Staff
Although the new guidelines for admissions, which wipes out
affirmative action in the University of California, won’t be ready
until the end of this month, the Board of Regents engaged in their
first substantial open discussion yesterday of the problems
inherent in crafting the procedures.
The language of SP-1, the bill which prohibited the
consideration of race and gender in admissions, has posed a
challenge to the task force in drafting new procedures, since the
measure also asks that UC admissions reflect the diversity of the
state.
The guidelines drafted by the task force have already been
through two reviews from the regents and campus committees. The
final draft will be issued to the president’s office at the end of
the month for implementation, UC Provost Judson King told the board
at the meeting.
At the last regents meeting two months ago, the drafts were too
preliminary to discuss in depth.
Because revisions were being made, the regents agreed that they
didn’t need to approve the final draft and it should be forwarded
to the president’s office to expedite the implementation.
However, rancor emerged among the regents yesterday concerning
what kind of information about an applicant should be allowed. Some
began to question whether the regents would allow the policy to go
to the president before they had a chance to fight over it
first.
The board decided that discrimination should be reflected in a
student’s application, but disagreed as to which experiences should
be considered discrimination in a way that is pertinent to
admissions in the UC system.
Although SP-1 prohibits race as a determining factor in
admissions, it doesn’t preclude the consideration of personal
experiences of disadvantage which may have been due to race.
The bill’s ambiguity led many to demand a clarification of which
aspects of a student’s experiences should be made to represent them
as an applicant. One of the areas regents found amorphous was the
problem of documenting individual experience.
"Will a middle class black who has been subjected to racism be
included?" Regent Tom Sayles asked. "If a student has been
subjected to sexism, racism or ageism, why don’t we allow that to
be in the guidelines?"
Sayles explained that although personal discrimination often
affects individuals’ educational opportunities and attitudes,
documentation is seldom available to attest to that kind of
discrimination.
"We cannot close our eyes to people’s experience," Sayles
said.
However, Regent Ward Connerly, the author of SP-1, was troubled
by the comments of Sayles and others on the board, who seemed to be
advocating the use of some consideration of an applicant’s race in
admissions, albeit in a more limited and individual way than in the
past.
"We’ve headed down a path that would be a violation of SP-1 when
we look at race as a compensation for social ills," he said. "The
student has been discriminated by society, not by the
university."
Connerly, an outspoken critic of race-based admissions decisions
in the university and a supporter of the California Civil Rights
Initiative (CCRI), seeks to eliminate the consideration of race and
gender in decision in all state public institutions.
"I’m very uncomfortable saying ‘because you can document racism,
that will determine if you get in,’" Connerly said.
UC President Richard Atkinson cautioned that the new admissions
guidelines were still just a draft and these discussions over fine
points are just what the revision process is about.
"There is an ambiguity in these measures," Atkinson said. "We’re
at a stage where we’re just developing guidelines."
Atkinson said the elimination of affirmative action indicates a
move toward a more subjective admissions process and determining
how that is to be done is no easy task.
"It’s a very difficult task and no matter how we do it, it won’t
be satisfactory," he said. "We are moving into a world that is much
more complicated than the one of the past."
Arnold Leiman, faculty representative on the board, agreed that
the adoption of new policies reflect a changing attitude over how
students should be assessed.
"It’s a move away from numbers," he said. "It was once thought
that (consideration of applicants by numbers) would be fair, but
now we’re looking at the broader qualitative value (of applicants).
In my view, it’s becoming more fair."
As he has at every meeting since the bill was passed in July,
Student Regent Edward Gomez called a vote to reverse SP-1 and
reinstate affirmative action, and as happened at every meeting, his
proposal was postponed.
Regent Roy Brophy, although he is not a supporter of SP-1, said
that Gomez’s incessant proposals to repeal it are a waste of the
board’s time.
"The board has been held hostage by this issue," he said of
Gomez’s proposal. "We made a mistake when we voted (for SP-1), but
now we have CCRI coming up in November."
"UC’s reputation has been damaged by the beating and beating and
beating of an issue that will be decided on by the California
voters. I hope this monthly occurrence will stop and we can get on
with the work of the university."
The language of SP-1 … has posed a challenge to the task force
in drafting new procedures.