Stop Favors, Quotas

For several weeks now, the media and public have been captivated by a story about famous and wealthy people getting special treatment in the state’s premier higher education system. While the public may enjoy watching these people and their friends on the “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous,” they don’t want them getting special favors from public institutions because of their money or fame. But that is not the whole story. This problem is far more complicated than it appears to be.

According to the news stories, Democrats and Republicans, federal, state and local government officials and spouses of elected officials have used or attempted to use their positions to help prospective students get into the University of California. It is alleged that even Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.), who has never lived in California, attempted to assist a student seeking admission to UCLA.

The Los Angeles Times erroneously reported and later editorialized that I attempted to use my position on the Board of Regents to help students I know. This inaccuracy prompted UC Berkeley Chancellor Chang-Lin Tien to write to The Times and set the record straight. I never asked for special treatment for any student and, in fact, never knew that a “special review” committee existed. I sent no letter to the chancellor and applied no pressure. I didn’t even inquire about the status of the applications in question.

I oppose preferences in public instruction, whether they are given on the basis of race, sex or special connections. But I believe it is important that the university not be stampeded into adopting policy changes that might do more harm than good.

The University of California is the third largest recipient of private donations in the nation. Every day, thousands of volunteers use their “connections” to help raise funds for UC. These private donations enable UC Berkeley and UCLA to compete effectively with private institutions like Stanford and Harvard.

All of us are proud of UC and the fact that it doesn’t take a back seat to any university. Sometimes we forget what it takes to compete. If we want UC to be competitive with private institutions, we may not have the luxury of being purists about special consideration. A million-dollar donation, something not uncommon at UC, can help a lot of lower-income students have access to this great university.

I believe we should not allow government to grant preferences to people who are well-connected, although I urge caution in how we address this. This problem should be addressed by the UC regents, Cal State Board of Trustees and campus administrators.

In addition to my position as a regent, I serve as the chairman of the California Civil Rights Initiative, the measure prohibiting discrimination and preferences, which will be on the Nov. 5 ballot. The initiative is simple and straightforward: “The state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

Government’s use of preferences as a way to discriminate against one group on behalf of another is just plain wrong. We can no longer ignore the consequences of government making employment, contracting and college admission decisions based on race, sex and ethnic origin. This government-sponsored discrimination is dividing our state and our nation along racial and gender lines, creating divisiveness in our population.

CCRl’s opponents are attempting to link the UC scandal with our antipreferences initiative. This is simply a political ploy designed to cause doubt among the two-thirds of California voters who support the measure.

Whether or not we solve the problem of “VIP connections,” the time to end racial preferences is indisputable. Approving CCRI will accomplish that objective.