VIPs Do Influence Some Admissions, UC Provost Says

University of California Provost C. Judson King, reporting Thursday to the UC Board of Regents about reports of a backdoor channel for some wealthy and well-connected applicants, acknowledged that current admission practices create a “dichotomy” that may punish students who follow the rules.

Applications to the university specifically discourage students, in writing, from sending letters of recommendation, King said. However, he said, if letters were sent, they were in fact taken into account. And he acknowledged that in a small percentage of cases, letters or inquiries from regents, legislators, high government and corporate figures and major donors made a crucial difference.

“Over the last five years, there were an average, university-wide, of about 215 such requests [from prominent individuals] per year on behalf of undergraduate applicants,” King said. Of those, he continued, “no more than about 12 applications per year have or may have received some positive consideration . . . [or] only 0.03% of the 40,000 admissions typically granted each fall.”

The daylong meeting was the first time the regents have gathered since a Times investigation documented that since 1980, more than 200 VIP applicants were admitted to UCLA after they had been initially rejected or coded for denial. Several regents complained that the public’s perception of wrongdoing in the wake of the Times stories was exaggerated, and a few announced that they would continue to recommend students because they believe it is their right.

“I’ve served 29 years in the four segments of public education in California, but I feel that the background I’ve received that way permits me to make a value judgment and write letters,” said Regent Roy Brophy. “And I intend to continue to write letters . . . unless they put it in the penal code.”

But others said they were concerned about the appearance of impropriety, particularly at UCLA and UC Berkeley, where admission is so competitive that thousands of students with 4.0 grade point averages are denied spots every year. Regent-designate Richard Russell, a nonvoting member of the board, said the issue was not simply whether regents can pen letters but whether they unduly influence who gets into UC.

“The question is, is it appropriate for me to go to [UC Berkeley] Chancellor [Chang-Lin] Tien and hand him an admissions packet?” Russell said, apparently referring to an occasion when Regent Ward Connerly gave Tien two applications at a regents’ meeting. “Is it appropriate for me to appeal on behalf of my children or the children of business associates or friends? That’s something that we as a board have to determine . . . especially in light of what this same board has done in the past year.”

Last July the regents voted to abolish race and gender preferences in the university’s admissions, contracting and hiring policies. After recent revelations that some regents themselves sought to exert influence on behalf of particular applicants, some have accused the board of publicly attacking preferences while privately trying to exploit them.

In an effort to address that perception, the board’s education policy committee Thursday adopted a vaguely worded resolution that cautioned against any attempts to “influence inappropriately” the outcome of individual admissions decisions and called upon regents to “take care to avoid the fact or appearance of self-dealing or special interest.”

The resolution mentioned regents and elected officials, but pointedly did not refer to the influence wielded by major donors to the university. Connerly, who sponsored the resolution, said he chose not to address that issue specifically, in part because he wanted to “preserve flexibility.”

“I think we need to be aware of the fact that we do have a number of development people who are out there every day that are trying to do their best to raise money for the university,” Connerly said. “It’s not that we’re trying to say, ‘Give those people special consideration.’ But we have to make sure that when our administrators respond to those special requests, that they’re able to say yes or no in whatever manner that they think is appropriate.”

Connerly’s comments were seconded by Lt. Gov. Gray Davis and UC President Richard C. Atkinson. Both said that in rare cases, UC administrators need to be able to admit students whose parents might contribute to the greater good of the university.

“I think in an institution this size, with the level of private giving that there is, there have to be some exceptions,” Atkinson said. While those admittees should never displace another student, he added, “there has to be some small degree of flexibility where the chancellor has the option to act on his or her own.”

Davis said that as long as the university was open about its policies, it made sense for a certain small number of discretionary slots to be used in this way.

“I would recommend that maybe half of 1% [of slots] be accorded to the chancellors for leadership purposes,” Davis said.

UCLA Chancellor Charles E. Young told the board that his campus’ academic senate recently passed a resolution saying that it is appropriate for admissions officials to take “institutional need” into account.

“Influence is not bad, as long as it is not undue influence,” Young said.

But Kris Kohler, a UC Santa Barbara student who spoke during the board’s public comment period, disagreed.

“At UC, do we have an underrepresentation of friends of regents or potentially large contributors or key members of [legislative] budget committees? I don’t think so,” Kohler said. “Some may justify it as a fund-raising tool, but it’s inexcusable.”

During the discussion, several regents complained that the public outcry during the past several weeks has unfairly cast them in a suspicious light.

“I find myself in the very difficult position that I am even afraid of calling [UC] because of the public impression,” said Regent Tirso del Junco, who said a close co-worker of his had recently been denied admission to UCLA “with a 4.0 grade point average and 1300 SAT scores. And I have had to tell that person that I cannot call UCLA because of the implication that something has gone wrong.”

The way some people are talking, said Regent S. Stephen Nakashima, it sounded as if being a regent’s child or a wealthy child would now count against an applicant.

“It seems it would be ridiculous for a child of mine to apply to UC Berkeley,” Nakashima said unhappily.

Student Regent Ed Gomez, who had proposed a much tougher resolution that would have prohibited regents from sending letters, e-mail or faxes on behalf of applicants, withdrew that plan after Connerly’s resolution passed.

“It was very obvious from the sentiment of the board that they believe they’re privileged, they will maintain that privilege and use it to the best of their abilities to [help] those people they believe to be privileged,” said Gomez, a graduate student at UC Riverside. “That’s the way it is.”

The provost’s report delivered Thursday was a summary of a longer report that will be completed next week. It also examined “admissions by exception,” under which chancellors have the authority to admit a limited number of students who do not meet UC’s minimum academic qualifications. According to King, over a period of five years fewer than 15 undergraduates were admitted in this category after an inquiry by a prominent individual.

King said various proposals are being considered to improve what he called the university’s already “appropriate procedures for handling and responding to inquiries.” Policies regarding letters of recommendation will be clarified, he said, and formal public guidelines will be issued to govern appeals of applicants who have been denied.

For his part, Board of Regents Chairman Clair Burgener said he would be pleased if the university asked regents to refrain from lobbying for applicants.

“I would be immensely relieved if they passed a rule that we couldn’t write any letters,” Burgener said. “I wouldn’t mind if we got out of the act.”