The Preferences of the Powerful : How can some UC regents oppose minority help yet help friends?

When a majority of the University of California Board of Regents voted at the behest of Gov. Pete Wilson to end consideration of race and gender in hiring, contracting and admissions last year, the primary justification given by those regents supporting the action was a need to restore “equality” and “fairness” to what they contended was a broken and biased system. Now a Times investigation has revealed that some regents, in what appears to be a selective application of those principles, were promoting their own special brand of affirmative action despite their vote to do away with another.

Regents Leo Kolligian, Clair Burgener and Frank Clark all cast votes against affirmative action last July. Yet according to documents obtained by The Times, these same individuals were part of a cadre of officials--including Gov. Wilson, other regents and state political figures--that collectively made hundreds of requests to secure spots for friends and family members at UCLA.

In some cases, the benefited individuals deserved--and got--a second look. However, there were clearly others who fell far short of UCLA academic standards. In one instance, regent Kolligian, one of those who claims to be in favor a “merit-based admissions policy,” helped secure a spot for a business associate’s son with a 3.29 grade point average and a 940 SAT score. Not exactly up to UCLA standards, but that didn’t stop the use of back-door, well-placed connections by a regent who publicly decried “preferences.” UC President Richard C. Atkinson rightly declared Monday that he would review the favoritism reports.

We’re not naive. People often use whatever power or influence is at their disposal to help friends or loved ones. This is nothing new. And there is no reason to suspect, despite questions about fairness and despite criticism, that it will end any time soon in an era of fierce competition. That’s precisely the point that some regents missed: The system, left to its own devices, gives advantages to certain people.

Affirmative action was designed to equalize the situation for the thousands of students, particularly minority students, who typically don’t have built-in advantages. It’s astounding that any regent wailing about the so-called unfairness of “preferences” based on race or gender could then turn around and unabashedly work behind the scenes to promote the preferences of power, position and who-you-know. The undeniable message from those regents: Preferences are fine--as long as they benefit people like me.

That’s no way to run a public university.