UC Regents Set Preferences Ban for Spring 1998

After weeks of contentious debate that included a well-publicized clash between the University of California president and Gov. Pete Wilson, the UC Board of Regents on Thursday swiftly and quietly approved a new timetable for implementing a ban on race and gender preferences in admissions.

At their monthly meeting in San Francisco, the regents by unanimous voice vote decided to eliminate preferences in undergraduate admissions beginning with students applying for entry to the spring 1998 term. There was little discussion, and the vote came so quickly that the governor, who made a special appearance at the meeting to underscore the board’s policymaking authority, missed his chance to weigh in because he was in the restroom.

The meeting, perhaps the first in history to finish ahead of schedule, was so uncharacteristically calm that regents admitted that they were stunned.

“I’m as confused as everyone else is,” Regent Roy Brophy said. “We went in there and sat down like we had swallowed a handful of tranquilizers. . . . It’s like the Joe Louis fights. If you missed the first three seconds, the fight was over.”

But sources said the real action occurred before the meeting was gaveled to order, when Wilson met privately with UC President Richard Atkinson, Regent Ward Connerly and board Chairman Clair Burgener. Connerly, who had joined Wilson in requesting the meeting, described it as a “candid exchange” in which he and the governor made clear that they were not convinced that the UC administration needed more time to effectively implement the affirmative action ban in admissions.

Wilson and Connerly have maintained that the policy approved by the board in July was intended to take effect in the fall 1997 term. Last month, Atkinson announced that the university could not move that quickly and delayed the ban on preferences in admissions for a year, a decision that angered the governor.

Thursday’s proposal of spring 1998 was a compromise, and Connerly said he supported it only in an attempt to make peace, not because he believed that a delay was necessary.

“I was not doing it because I, as one person, was persuaded that he [Atkinson] needed more time. I don’t think he needed more time, and I told him that,” Connerly said.

During the closed-door meeting, the foursome also discussed whether UC’s outreach efforts and financial aid strategies will continue to be race-attentive, as in the past. Outreach programs, through counseling and instruction, seek to increase the number of minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged students who are eligible for admission to UC.

“Race should not be a part of it,” Connerly said later, adding that he preferred a socioeconomic model. “If you make the program inclusionary, on the basis of income, you’re going to reach a lot of those who deserve to be included.”

Connerly declined to describe the meeting’s tenor in detail. But when asked whether he and the governor feared that Atkinson might be trying to find a loophole that would allow race and gender preferences to continue, Connerly said, “In a word, yes.”

Connerly said he and Wilson are considering drafting a resolution to be brought to the board in March that would clearly ban preferences in outreach and financial aid. But Connerly said the so-called California civil rights initiative, a statewide affirmative action ban whose campaign he is running, will play a part in their decision.

“The passage of that initiative will probably render a lot of our deliberations at this board somewhat moot,” Connerly said, noting that backers of the measure have until next week to submit enough signatures to qualify it for the November ballot. If the initiative qualifies, he said, “we’ll have to weigh whether to bring this back to the board or let the voters decide.”

The governor declined to comment. But his spokesman, Sean Walsh, confirmed that Wilson “is not in favor of preference programs anywhere, and that extends to outreach programs.”

For his part, Atkinson described his meeting with the governor as “very friendly.” Asked about the outreach and financial aid discussion, he cited a legal opinion that he requested from the regents’ counsel.

“I’m very much in accord with the legal counsel . . . [who said] that at the level of outreach and financial aid we could continue to be race-attentive,” he said. But he acknowledged that, “obviously, that’s an issue that we need more clarification on from the regents.”

Thursday’s meeting came one day after UCLA Chancellor Charles E. Young announced his retirement, effective June 30, 1997, and a smiling Young attended the meeting briefly. As he had the day before, Young, 64, acknowledged that his tense relationship with the regents--while not the primary reason for his departure--played a role in his decision to bring his 27-year reign to an end.

“However you go about it, a relationship and a trust has to be reestablished between the regents and the administration--a relationship where the board concentrates more fully on major policy issues and the administration manages the university,” Young said.

“I’m not just blaming the regents. . . . When the communication processes don’t work, there are probably errors on both sides,” he said. But when asked if he would change anything in the relationship between the chancellors and the regents, he responded, “How long a list do you want?. . . . [The regents] are not as educated about the role of the board in the governance of an institution as they ought to be.”

Asked if he felt pushed into his decision, he said, “No. I don’t move back in response to pushes.”

Regent Glenn Campbell, who finished his 28 years as a regent with Thursday’s meeting, has been a bitter critic of Young, and that fact prompted Regent Bill Bagley to inject a little humor into the meeting.

“Somebody asked me this morning, ‘Is there some unstated reason why Chuck Young is leaving?’ I told them with Glenn Campbell leaving, Chuck just couldn’t stand to stay around anymore,” Bagley said, prompting uproarious laughter from the crowd.

Later, Campbell, 72, responded gruffly, “That’s a good joke.”