Wilson, UC Chief Face Off on Affirmative Action Ban

Gov. Pete Wilson and University of California President Richard Atkinson were at a standoff Wednesday after a tense, 45-minute meeting over Atkinson’s decision to delay the university’s ban on affirmative action in admissions for one year.

An angry governor summoned Atkinson to the Capitol early Wednesday to express his strong opposition to the delay, which postpones the ban on race- and gender-based preferences so that it will first apply to applicants for the fall 1998 term.

Atkinson emerged “red-faced” from the meeting, a source said, but not before he told Wilson that he believes the new timetable is necessary to ensure that the ban, approved by the UC Board of Regents in July, can be implemented effectively.

Some regents were outraged by Atkinson’s decision and accused him of overstepping his authority and subverting the board’s policy, which is due to take effect Jan. 1, 1997.

“This is a diametric divergence of what [the policy] is trying to do,” said Regent Ward Connerly, who spearheaded the push to remove ethnic preferences from UC’s hiring, contracting and admissions processes.

Particularly galling, other regents said, was the fact that when they voted on UC’s affirmative action policies at a meeting last week--postponing indefinitely the consideration of a proposal to rescind the ban--Atkinson did not mention his plan for a one-year delay. That led some to accuse him this week of trying to sneak the plan past the university’s governing board.

“That’s insubordination,” said Regent Glenn Campbell. Atkinson, he said, erred by “acting as if the regents are unimportant. He’d better be careful or he may not have a job.”

But if the furor over affirmative action evolves into a referendum on Atkinson’s brief presidency, as some regents predict, the former UC San Diego chancellor appears ready to put up a tough fight.

Several regents--including some who have not endorsed Atkinson’s decision to delay the ban--reaffirmed their support for the president Wednesday, saying the nine-campus university needs him at the helm.

“He’s an excellent leader, highly credentialed [with] an excellent background and record,” said Regent Meredith Khachigian, who often sides with the governor on key votes and supports the elimination of race-based preferences.

Khachigian said that she had not yet decided whether Atkinson’s delay of the affirmative action ban was warranted and that she relayed her reservations to Atkinson in a brief conversation last week. Nevertheless, she said she would not support a call for Atkinson’s resignation.

“I would never take it that far,” she said. “I’m not in that camp at all.”

Atkinson was appointed by the regents last summer and could only be fired by a majority vote of the 26-member governing board, which includes Wilson and 18 regents appointed by him or previous governors.

Regent Roy Brophy, another key member of the board, said he believes Atkinson has strong support among regents.

Atkinson may have failed to adequately inform the governor of his plan to delay the ban, Brophy conceded. “But if the president says he needs more time to implement it properly, I support him unequivocally,” he said. “And I bet many of the regents who voted to ban preferences feel the same way.”

UC officials contend that the admissions process is so complicated and involves the collaboration of so many parts of the university that there is not sufficient time to impose the ban on preferences by the fall term of 1997, as previously agreed.

“A number of publications have to be rewritten and published,” said interim Provost Judson King. “And they get distributed to [high school] guidance counselors and applicants . . . in the January-March time frame of the year before--which is now, for fall of 1997.”

Applicants for the fall 1997 term must apply by the end of November 1996.

King said it is crucial to update the application and informational material because those documents are legally binding. “We’re held to what they say. The wording has legal importance,” he said.

But Regent Connerly said the university is stalling.

“The question of what [the regents’ policy] says is not a function of how much time [Atkinson] needs,” he said. “If we were to rely on that, they could drag it out to 2025.”

Connerly, who Tuesday had vowed to call a special board meeting if Atkinson did not back down, said Wednesday that he will wait until the general counsel of the regents issues a legal opinion on when exactly the regents’ policy takes effect.

The confusion has arisen in part because the policy’s effective date, Jan. 1, 1997, is not in sync with either the university’s fiscal year, which begins July 1, or its admissions cycle, which begins in November. It has been unclear, therefore, whether the policy should apply to students already accepted for admission but not enrolled when it becomes effective, or only those who apply after it is in place.

“I have requested a formal opinion--not on how much time it takes, but on what does the darn thing say,” Connerly said, adding that he will abide by the decision either way. But he confidently predicted that it “should clarify for the president what the official interpretation is.”

Atkinson spent the day in Sacramento in previously scheduled meetings with lawmakers. Smiling and looking relaxed, he waved off a reporter’s questions about his controversial decision, saying: “No comment today.”

But late Wednesday, the UC press office issued a statement in which Atkinson said his decision to delay was in the best interest of prospective UC students, their families and the university as a whole.

“The previous timetable increased the risk of mistakes as well as the prospect of untested and unfair evaluation of the qualifications of these young people applying for admission,” the statement read. “ . . . There simply are too many issues and too little time to finish the job in time for the 1997 admissions cycle.”

Despite Wilson’s reaction, others in the Capitol seemed to sympathize with Atkinson and suggested that the flap was much ado about nothing.

Republican Brooks Firestone of Los Olivos, the newly installed chairman of the Assembly Higher Education Committee, said he did not understand why the one-year delay was causing such a ruckus.

“This isn’t an all or nothing situation,” said Firestone, who was one of the legislators with whom Atkinson met Wednesday. “The policy is intact. They’re just talking about the details and the length of the transition period. . . . It’s a shame this squabble has been blown way out of proportion.”

Regent Bill Bagley characterized the spat as a “minor flurry” and expressed the hope that Connerly would not organize a special meeting of the board.

“That just exacerbates the scar on the body politic,” he said. “We’ve scarred ourselves enough.”

Times staff writer Jenifer Warren contributed to this report.