UCLA Chief Admits Possible Favoritism

While state lawmakers called for investigations into charges of favoritism in UCLA admissions, Chancellor Charles E. Young on Saturday acknowledged his staff may have “acted improperly” by showing preferences to applicants sponsored by UC regents and other public office holders.

Young’s admission followed a Times investigation that revealed several state politicians and regents prevailed on his administration to obtain admissions and housing favors for relatives, friends and the children of their business associates, sometimes ahead of better qualified students who were turned away from the highly competitive Westwood campus.

On Friday, Young downplayed the significance of such private political pressure, saying that his administration responded to requests for housing and parking but not for admissions. “Am I aware of times when people tried to pull strings and got somebody in? No,” he said.

But on Saturday, Young issued a clarification: “I believe that most of UCLA’s responses to requests for special attention from regents, elected officials and other prominent individuals have been proper.

“However, the L.A. Times has brought to light some isolated instances over the past 15 years where UCLA staff may have acted improperly,” his statement said. “I have directed those responsible for the processes involved to ensure that this does not happen in the future.”

The Times reported Saturday that several of the regents who obtained the favors had voted last July to roll back affirmative action preferences for women and minorities.

Confidential records showed that Regent Leo Kolligian of Fresno sought admissions and housing favors for the children of his partner in a commercial development. And four months before he voted to end race-based preferences last July, Kolligian leaned heavily on UCLA officials to overturn the rejection of a white daughter of a Fresno developer, although school administrators assessed her academic record as “poor.” His reason: The student came from an “underrepresented area” of the state.

Records also show that Regent Meredith Khachigian of San Clemente contacted the UCLA chancellor’s office after her daughter had been rejected for fall 1989, a decision that was subsequently reversed. And Regent Bill Bagley of San Francisco once tried to get a woman admitted to the UCLA graduate program in social work on behalf of a lawmaker who helped the university defeat a measure in the Legislature.

Reacting to those disclosures, two state lawmakers and a member of the UC Board of Regents called for separate probes of backdoor admission requests made to UCLA and other campuses of the university system.

Sen. Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica) said he will convene a hearing next month of his Select Committee on Higher Education to investigate whether “this corrupting practice of favoritism is a widespread pattern in admissions policy in general.

“I think there’s a hypocrisy problem that needs to be looked at,” said Hayden, whose district includes UCLA.

“This whole claim of [Gov. Pete] Wilson to seek a policy based absolutely on merit and nothing else has opened a door to a world of favoritism,” he said. “And it starts with whether the system of backslapping and favors that’s characteristic of politics has influenced the university admissions process. And I think it has.”

Assemblywoman Marguerite Archie-Hudson (D-Los Angeles) said that she, too, plans to seek an investigation by the Assembly Higher Education Committee of the private preference admissions.

“I’m very happy to see the cover pulled off . . . It shows a terrible level of hypocrisy and questions the integrity of the entire Board of Regents,” said Archie-Hudson, former chair of the higher education panel. She also suggested that the backdoor system for admissions extends beyond the Westwood campus to the entire UC system.

But Assemblyman Brooks Firestone (R-Los Olivos), the chairman of the Higher Education Committee, said the disclosures were “no big deal.”

“If someone feels they have been treated unfairly or overlooked and that their application has merit that the admissions department has not seen, I would certainly review that. That’s my job,” Firestone said, adding he would discuss the request for a hearing with Archie-Hudson.

Angered by the revelations, Regent Ralph Carmona called for a special inquiry by the university board, either at its next regularly scheduled session in May or at a special meeting.

He equated the private preferences granted at UCLA to affirmative action “for the rich and famous.”

“There clearly seems to be a double standard,” he said. “It’s downright hypocritical for those who oppose an affirmative action program that seeks to enhance the university’s diversity and then push for preferences based on power and privileges.”

But Regent Ward Connerly of Sacramento, who spearheaded the rollback of affirmative action admissions last year, said it is “totally wrong and inappropriate” to tie the revelations of back-room politics in admission to the controversial decision to end race- and gender-based preferences.

“This whole idea of giving some extra consideration to those recommended by prominent people is not a race-based issue, and I think we ought to discontinue it regardless of the ethnic and racial characteristics,” he said.

“In a public university, every citizen should have credibility in the admissions process, every citizen should have an assurance that when they submit an application, it is not going to be judged on the basis of their race . . . their gender, their national origin or who they happen to know,” Connerly said.

Sean Walsh, spokesman for Gov. Pete Wilson, said the state’s chief executive would not comment on specific cases.

Walsh said Wilson, who sits on the Board of Regents, “believes that the review process by the University of California should be conducted on the basis of merit. Recommendations are appropriate and welcomed by the university, but that should be the extent of an individual’s activities with regards to the admissions process.”

The Times investigation found that the governor made two casual requests, but neither of the applicants was admitted to UCLA.

Confidential records show that Hayden’s office made one request in 1986 for a student who was attempting to transfer to the UCLA medical school. It was undetermined whether the request was successful, and Hayden said on Saturday that he couldn’t recall anything about the case.

Times staff writer Virginia Ellis in Sacramento contributed to this story.