Properly Defining Our ‘Best and Brightest’ : UC board faces momentous vote on affirmative action

The University of California, long seen as perhaps the finest public university system in the nation, must not surrender its reputation when it votes Thursday on affirmative action. It must preserve a policy that, properly applied, is a key way of promoting excellence. Under the current system, UC has top-notch students. One reason is that UC administrators understand that leadership and achievement are not solely about grade point averages and SAT scores.

The UC regents must consider the presidential ambitions behind the well-practiced arguments of Gov. Pete Wilson; they must also consider the possible presidential political motives behind the appearance of the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who plans to attend the Thursday meeting and has indicated he may engage in civil disobedience aimed at any move against affirmative action. Of course, Jackson has every right to be heard, as does Wilson, who is a regent. But both have the potential of creating far more heat than light in dealing with an intensely emotional issue.

A QUESTION OF MISSION: At the center of the dispute is a question: What is the mission of the UC system? If the regents agree it is to educate the leaders of the future, they must support policies that indeed promote education of a wide cross section of students.

Also central is the matter of fairness, which inarguably is complicated. The regents must honestly address tensions between the students, ongoing racial barriers, why affirmative action policies still exist and what benefits they have bestowed on society. One thing is clear amid the complexity: Reducing the system’s commitment to diversity still would not ensure a place for all qualified students in an increasingly competitive environment.

Ward Connerly, an African American regent who initiated the UC debate, is correct in his view that the system’s campuses should be reserved “for the academically worthy.” That worth, however, should be determined by the totality of the student. Scores do matter. Grades do matter. But other things matter too. A constructive discussion Thursday will address the definition of merit . In the spirit of Socratic debate, let the regents enlighten the discussion.

Narrow criteria cannot serve to ferret out the “jewels” from poor families and tough circumstances--the capable students who made Bs rather than A’s in high school because they held jobs and shouldered adult responsibilities. And let the debate take on an American taboo: class. Is the son of a black doctor, because of his economic status, suddenly immune from discrimination and thus on par with the son of a white doctor? The answer, we predict, would provide food for thought for those who think class alone is determinative. Yes, it’s complicated--just like life.

RACE BUT ONE FACTOR: Race or ethnicity must never be a dominant factor in college admissions, but it should be considered along with community service, poverty and other indicators that present a fuller picture of the candidate.

The influence of Thursday’s vote will not stop at the boundaries of UC campuses. Affirmative action has become a nationwide debate. President Clinton, after reviewing federal policies, is expected to articulate his stance on this issue today.

The regents face a weighty decision, one that will profoundly affect the educational future of California. UC is not reserved for the children of privilege or power, nor is it reserved for the children of minorities or the disadvantaged. It is for California’s “best and brightest,” as broadly defined. This week, let the regents articulate a vision of how to attract, accept and serve the best and the brightest, in all their many forms, shapes and colors.