UC Considering Resolution on Racial Diversity

Six years after the University of California became the first university system in the country to ban race-based affirmative action programs, UC regents are set to consider a mostly symbolic compromise that would remove the ban from admissions guidelines.

The proposed compromise unveiled Wednesday is unlikely to change current admissions or hiring policies, because a state initiative, Proposition 209, prohibits race-based affirmative action programs from being used in all public agencies in California.

But the compromise may head off a looming fight over the issue, and has provided a rare moment of conciliation on a subject that has divided the board for years.

The proposed resolution has won support from regents on both sides of the affirmative action debate. It will “put this issue behind us . . . remove the lightning rod, if you will,” said UC regent Ward Connerly, an affirmative action foe who joined forces with his opponents to support the resolution.

If passed, it would replace the university’s 1995 resolution banning the use of race or ethnicity in admissions decisions with a new one that reaffirms UC’s commitment to a student body “that encompasses the broad diversity of backgrounds characteristic of California.”

The new resolution also states that the university remains governed by the provisions of Proposition 209.

The regents’ compromise is significant partly because the original 1995 vote to ban racial preferences received nationwide attention, and “did a lot to advance the legitimacy of the [anti-affirmative action] cause,” said Harold Johnson, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, a supporter of Proposition 209.

The proposed resolution makes no attempt to reestablish racial preferences at UC. It calls for a faculty review, however, on a related question of concern to affirmative-action proponents: How much emphasis should UC place on academic performance alone as a criterion for admission?

Fewer Blacks, Latinos Applied After Ban

William T. Bagley, one of Connerly’s most vociferous opponents, supports the resolution because he believes it will make the university seem more welcoming to minorities.

In addition, he said, the resolution will help “to repair our reputation.”

The number of black and Latino applicants to UC dropped after the regents’ 1995 action went into effect, as did the percentage admitted. In 1998, the percentage of black applicants admitted dropped from 73% to 64%; the percentage of Latino students admitted dropped from 80% to 75%

Numbers of underrepresented minority applicants have crept back up since. But enrollment of black and Latino students at UC’s most prestigious schools, such UCLA and Berkeley, remains relatively low.

That is because many underrepresented minority students who are among the top 12.5% of high school students statewide deemed eligible for UC admission still are not quite high enough in the rankings to be admitted to the most selective campuses.

In a statement, the author of the compromise, Regent Judith L. Hopkinson, said it is time for regents to seek common ground. The board remains sharply divided, but its composition has shifted somewhat toward Democrats in recent years as appointees of Gov. Gray Davis, a Democrat, have replaced those of his Republican predecessors, Pete Wilson and George Deukmejian.

“It may surprise some people that Ward Connerly, Bill Bagley and I agree on the resolution,” Hopkinson wrote, adding that the three believe the compromise is in the university’s best interest.

However, students upset over UC’s admissions policy say they plan to stage yet another affirmative action protest at the regents’ meeting Wednesday in San Francisco, where the resolution is to be considered.

Gabriel Perez, a UCLA student with the California Statewide Affirmative Action Coalition, said his group wants the university to be more flexible in admission decisions. But he said the students may agree to the compromise if time limits are imposed on a faculty review of the matter.

The compromise, meanwhile, was applauded by Manuel Gomez, the new interim vice president for educational outreach, who said it highlights the university’s recent efforts to attract disadvantaged students.

“California is in a very different place today than it was six years ago,” he said. “We are now way ahead of the rest of the nation. The UC is far more deeply invested in . . . a profound strategy to address . . . the education inequality gap.”

However, Henry Augustine, director of African American scholastic programs at City College of San Francisco, remains skeptical.

Augustine, who counsels black students on transfer choices, said he encourages them to attend historically black colleges, not UC campuses.

The main reason, he said, is not UC affirmative action policies. It’s that UC campuses are too big and impersonal, he said, and disadvantaged black students tend to feel lost and isolated there. “Berkeley is a factory,” he said.