UC Admissions Code of Ethics Is Proposed

State Sen. Tom Hayden proposed a code of ethics Thursday to destroy a “hidden subculture of favoritism” in California’s university system that has allowed the rich and politically connected to be given special consideration for admission to prestigious UCLA.

Hayden (D-Santa Monica), who chairs a select committee on higher education, said the code would prohibit elected and appointed officials from intervening on behalf of applicants to public universities.

The lack of such a code, he said, has enabled members of the Board of Regents and other officials over the years to “pull strings to gain admission for their favored applicants” to UCLA.

“It is a poisonous lesson in cynicism that this favoritism teaches our students,” he said. “The lesson is that society is rigged with two standards--one for the privileged and another for everyone else--[and] that you have to have pull and connections to get anywhere in life.”

Hayden said he discovered that there was no ethical code governing admissions after newspapers revealed the existence of a backdoor admissions system at UCLA that permitted preferential treatment for children of the well-to-do and well-connected.

The Times reported last week that several regents who voted to abolish affirmative action for minorities and women in admissions had privately tried to get relatives, friends and the children of business associates into UCLA. In many cases they were admitted to the university while thousands of more qualified students were denied.

UC President Richard Atkinson has called for an internal examination of admissions. UCLA Chancellor Charles E. Young has acknowledged that his staff may have “acted improperly” in isolated incidents but said the special attention paid to donors and other influential people does not mean unqualified students will be admitted.

Hayden said he was hopeful that the code of ethics would be adopted by the regents as well as the Legislature.

Reached at his home in San Diego, Board of Regents Chairman Clair Burgener said some form of ethical guidelines for the board might be “helpful” and acceptable to his colleagues.

Burgener, who voted against affirmative action, acknowledged that he writes about “four or five” letters of recommendation a year on behalf of students seeking admission to various campuses of the University of California.

The chairman said the letters were often requested by families or friends of the students whom he often did not know personally. He said he never asked for any special favors and merely testified to the good character of the applicants.

“I have never called the university on any case, and I think that is important,” he said. “To me [a telephone call on behalf of an applicant] would be undue pressure.”

Confidential records reviewed by The Times show that at least one of Burgener’s colleagues, Leo Kolligian, called the UCLA chancellor’s office last March to lobby for the admission of a student who had already been rejected because of a poor academic record. The denial was rescinded and she now attends the university.

The disclosures about the admissions process prompted another regent, Ralph Carmona, to write Atkinson on Wednesday urging that the board schedule a special meeting in April to “address in an open and positive way this unfortunate situation.”

“Our public privilege to serve this great university should never be used as an entitlement to provide personal access and preferences to wealthy relatives and business associates,” he wrote in a letter obtained by The Times.

Carmona, who voted to maintain affirmative action, also urged the board to consider adopting a code of ethics.

Hayden said that if his proposed code is implemented it would go far toward “curing the problem” of preferential treatment for the privileged and powerful. The code would:

* Require any university official to disclose communications received from regents, elected officials or major donors to the university. The disclosures would be filed in the office of the president and made available for public inspection.

* Prohibit public officials from communicating directly or indirectly with university officials on behalf of student applicants for admission. Routine letters of recommendation submitted in the normal admissions process would be permitted.

* State formally that the university system intends to maintain an admissions process that is “free from political influence and favoritism.”

Hayden said he has also initiated an investigation into the admissions process by the select committee and intends to hold hearings beginning April 22 on the favoritism issue.

Assemblywoman Marguerite Archie-Hudson (D-Los Angeles) said she believed that the hearings would reveal that favoritism is widespread throughout the UC system and not confined to UCLA.

“This is really to my mind the flip side of institutional racism,” she said, “where you have a group of unspoken practices, assumptions, agreements . . . based on the notion that children . . . of people who occupy power and privilege ought to automatically have an advantage.”

Hayden and Archie-Hudson said they disagreed with those who contend that the backdoor admissions system is a result of the failure of the Legislature to adequately finance universities. One regent has contended that universities have had to offer admission to the children of donors in order to encourage contributions, which are essential to their financial survival.

“This didn’t start just in 1991 when the Legislature cut funding of the university,” Hayden said. “This is an old custom. It’s been around when we funded the university lavishly and when we underfunded the university.”