Favoritism in UCLA Admissions

* The March 21 front-page headlines poignantly remind us of the sad state of education in the U.S. and California. “UCLA Eased Entry Rules for the Rich, Well-Connected” reminds all of us “little people” that other people’s money and political power can take public education away from our own college-age children. It reminds us of the limited meaning of “public” in “public education.”

Just two columns over is “House Votes to OK Bans on Illegal Immigrant Schooling.” Now the “public” in “public education” excludes young children--children marked illegal by a nation of immigrants. Finally, some good news, somewhat: “Probe Finds No Bias in Admissions at Berkeley” leads us through a costly investigation to disprove allegations that UC Berkeley “discriminated against white students applying for entrance as undergraduates.”

How can only 20 years of affirmative action, in a nation that has systematically excluded groups of people from fully participating in the “democracy,” be so effective as to suddenly and completely reverse 200 years of racist policies? Can we, as a nation, start understanding that education is a right and not a privilege?

MARIA NOTARANGELO

San Bernardino

* How naive of me to think that a strong academic record, competitive test scores and a rich variety of extracurricular activities would ensure a spot in UC. At least the UC regents have set me straight. When it comes time for my kids to apply to UC, it’ll be time to pony up some cash. I’d better start saving.

MATT GERSUK

Riverside

* Gasp! Shock! Horror! UC has been giving special consideration to potential students with money or connections. What a shocking revelation!

Imagine, deserving students with no connections and the wrong color have been allowed in, thus denying space to the well-connected. Quelle domage!

Thank heavens for Gov. Pete Wilson who rightly put a stop to this nonsense called “equal opportunity.” One might think this is a democracy.

JUNE CHASE

Los Angeles

* Please give the UC admissions issue a rest. The Times’ coverage of the issue attempts to turn this into a scandalous affair, when it really shouldn’t be.

Is anybody really surprised that the UC system may bend the rules a little bit for applicants who have the right connections? Is there any difference between the treatment that well-connected applicants receive and the way the rules are bent for applicants who show the ability to play a sport well? I contend that there is no difference and that the whole issue is, for lack of a better term, a tempest in a teapot.

Furthermore, are you suggesting that The Times has never once shown a small amount of preferential treatment in the handling of an applicant who may be a relative of a current employee? Let’s face it, preferential treatment happens all the time, and the UC system is no different from any other public institution.

SEAN CONNER

Santa Monica

* A question: What does it tell us about the times in which we live and the individuals involved, when “supplemental factors such as income, disabilities, special talents and ethnicity” are considered in admission to UC, yet the regents, administrators and the governor target only the latter for redress?

J. S. KLEINSASSER

Bakersfield

* Thank you for your coverage of favoritism at UCLA. Your vigilance is our only hope that this country will not slip into Third World status where public officials see nothing wrong in running state institutions like their own family farms.

N.M. SENOZAN

Long Beach