Thursday, January 30, 1997
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION:
Democratic legislators urge regents to reconsider graduate
admissions planBy Brooke Olson
Daily Bruin Staff
For the second time this month, the UC Board of Regents’ ban on
affirmative action was challenged  this time by state
Democratic legislators.
In a written request, 57 lawmakers urged the University of
California to postpone its ban on affirmative action in graduate
admissions until U.S. Labor Department officials can decide if the
change of policy violates federal law.
The request comes two weeks after civil rights lawyers filed a
complaint with the U.S. Labor Department, seeking to tie graduate
school admissions to the university’s obligation as a federal
contractor to follow equal opportunity hiring rules.
"We strongly believe that the university, as a recipient of over
$1.3 billion from the federal government, must seriously
re-evaluate the decision to move forward with a policy that may
violate federal laws," the letter said.
Under the regents’ July 1995 rulings SP1 and SP2, ethnic and
gender preferences would end in graduate admissions with the
incoming Fall 1997 class.
With much of the admission process for the class already under
way, UC administrators contend that it is too late to reverse the
policy.
"Each of the UC schools and departments that admit graduate
students do so independently of each other," said UC spokesman
Terry Colvin. "This is not a central process and many of the
departments have already made admissions decisions," he added.
Many of the UCLA graduate schools began admitting students for
Fall Quarter 1997 last December.
But some legislators believe that it is not too late for the
university to reverse its admissions policy.
"It is possible for the university to turn on a dime when it
wants to, particularly if they are paying attention to the jeopardy
of federal contract dollars," said Assembly Speaker Pro Tem Sheila
Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) in an interview with the Los Angeles
Times.
The UC system receives $1.3 billion per year in federal grants
and contracts. Like all federal contractors, it is obliged to
maintain goals and timetables for hiring women and minorities.
Two weeks ago, lawyers from both the National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Mexican-American
Legal Defense and Education Fund filed a complaint with Labor
Department officials claiming that graduate students are also
university employees.
"There’s a strong connection between hiring and the admissions
process in general," the complaint said. "In some departments
they’re virtually indistinguishable."
Without a diverse student body, employers will be unable to
obtain a diverse work force, the plaintiffs claimed.
But the university maintains that there is no such connection.
James Holst, the university’s general counsel, said that in his
extensive reviews of federal regulations, graduate students are not
covered by affirmative action job rules.
Colvin re-emphasized Holst’s findings, noting that "the federal
government has upheld the university position that graduate
students are not employees and therefore the university does not
have to comply with federal affirmative action when making graduate
student admissions decisions."
Labor Department attorneys are now scrutinizing the civil rights
groups’ complaint to determine if it warrants a full investigation,
a department spokesman told the Times.
Despite the labor department’s delay, the lawmakers’ letter
urged UC President Richard C. Atkinson to postpone the affirmative
action ban until next year if there is "any chance" of a ruling
that could threaten UC’s lucrative federal contracts.
"As a distinguished taxpayer-supported institution, the
University of California has an obligation to encourage diversity
and to train adequate numbers of professionals from all sectors of
society," the legislators wrote.
Although Atkinson has not yet responded to the letter, UC
attorney Susan Thomas said several weeks ago that the officials
believe the new graduate admissions policy does not run afoul of
any federal rules.
The legislators’ letter cannot legally force the administrators
to reverse the ban, but university officials have indicated they
will carefully consider the legislators’ position.
"It makes a persuasive argument  especially coming from
the group that provides funds to the university," Colvin said.