Regents Seek Favors in UCLA Admissions

Re “Some Regents Seek UCLA Admissions Priority for Friends,” March 16: Kudos to The Times for revealing the utter hypocrisy of the UC regents and the governor in their attempts to bring down affirmative action! It turns out that giving a group of students an extra edge in the admission process is not “preferential treatment” after all, so long as the edge goes to the well-heeled and well-connected.

Perhaps the people of our state will finally rise up and protest the injustice that Gov. Pete Wilson and his political cronies are engineering in our educational system.

JOHN J. HETTS

Los Angeles

* While it comes as no surprise it is, nevertheless, dismaying that in the debate of the UC regents’ action on affirmative action no one has discussed the largest “preference” program in academia. The children of alumni are always given “special” consideration and when political influence might enhance a particular applicant’s chances, of course those with that influence will bring it to bear. What has been overlooked is more significant.

I was the recipient of preferential treatment when I enrolled in a state university 34 years ago. I was an athlete who was recruited because I had athletic talent and given “special consideration” since my application was “anemic.” And I am not unusual. Athletics is the largest preferential program in existence.

Rather than looking at affirmative action programs that recruit otherwise academically promising candidates, the focus should be on that one program that reaches out to those who may not be academically promising, but who simply have athletic talent. While the graduation rate of affirmative action recruitment programs is pretty good, the graduation rate of athletic programs is pretty poor. What really counts in determining whether a program should be maintained or eliminated is its effectiveness in graduating students.

ROBERT B. HARRIS

Lancaster

* Your March 19 editorial misses the point. The practice of political back-scratching and giving special privileges in UC admissions to the children of the rich, famous and politically connected is wrong in a publicly supported university no matter what position a particular regent takes on affirmative action.

It is the institutional practice of giving UC admission favors to the rich and famous that must end. It is no less hypocritical for regents to support race-based affirmative action and still reserve a “back- door” admissions practice for their friends than it is to oppose race-based affirmative action and still keep privileges for the rich and famous. Both positions are wrong.

GINA F. BRANDT

Los Angeles

* Hypocritical regents, who use their influence to get their relatives and friends into UC schools while, at the same time, denying special consideration to minority applicants, are merely practicing a form of affirmative action that has long been considered a divine right by country club Republicans.

VICTOR SILVA

Hermosa Beach

* I seriously question the judgment of regents who lobby UCLA officials for the admission of friends and relatives. Why push for a place where undergraduate education consists of sitting in a huge lecture hall and the professor can only be seen through binoculars? Maybe it’s the association with the superb men’s basketball team.

DAVID SADAVA

Pasadena