His Tenure’s at the Finish Line, but for Connerly, Race Goes On

Even at his final meeting as a member of the University of California’s Board of Regents, Ward Connerly was doing what he had done through much of his 12-year tenure there: focusing on the contentious issue of race.

And, as he noted, no doubt making many on the board -- and in the wider public -- more than a little uneasy.

“I sense some discomfort among my colleagues and in the audience as we talk about things in terms of black and white,” Connerly said near the end of a debate he instigated this week on the merits of affirmative action in U.S. law schools. “That’s understandable. But it’s vitally important.”

Never mind that UC, because of campaigns he helped lead, cannot consider race in its admissions to law schools or anywhere else.

Almost from the beginning of his term, the Sacramento land use consultant has been stirring things up on the often otherwise sedate UC governing board. Eloquent and frequently combative, he broke into the national spotlight in 1995 by pushing the university to dismantle its affirmative action programs in admissions and employment.

In 1996, he helped lead the successful campaign for Proposition 209, which ended racial and gender preferences in the state’s government and universities. He later helped pass a similar measure in Washington state and is now engaged in another such campaign in Michigan.

A man of mixed race, Connerly became a hero to some as the most public face -- and outspoken voice -- of the movement against race-based preferences.

But his strong views also earned him the unflagging hostility of advocacy groups and others who branded him an “Uncle Tom” and accused him of trying to resegregate the prestigious public university system.

In recent months, as his term drew to a close, small groups of students staged angry demonstrations, trying to ensure that he was not reappointed. Connerly, 65, who underwent treatment last year for prostate cancer, said he did not want a second term.

Even some who praise his integrity, including fellow Regent Judith Hopkinson, say his actions have done harm.

“The elimination of affirmative action has resulted in UC not providing opportunities for minorities that are desperately important to the state and to these individuals, and that’s certainly done damage,” said Hopkinson, who has sparred with Connerly on some topics and worked with him on others.

“On issues of admissions and affirmative action, I am in total disagreement with his positions,” she added. “But I think he’s a highly ethical person who believes deeply what he believes, and I respect him for that.”

Connerly, who attended his final public session as a regent Thursday and received a standing ovation at its end, said in an interview that he had no regrets.

“I gave it my best,” he said. “On each issue, I made my decision, argued it as forcefully as I could, and I wasn’t afraid to lose.”

But he said he was ready, even eager, to step down.

“I’m tired,” he said. “You reach a point where you begin to burn out, and I’m there.”

Connerly was appointed to the board by Gov. Pete Wilson, a fellow Republican, in 1993. Within months of his arrival, the new regent made waves with a letter to fellow members of the board, saying they were too often a rubber stamp for the UC administration.

But it was in 1994 -- after Connerly met with a white couple who said several UC medical schools rejected their son even though he was more qualified than other applicants -- that the regent’s focus turned squarely to affirmative action.

In July 1995, after an emotionally charged, 13-hour session marked by a bomb threat and protests led by the Rev. Jesse Jackson, the regents approved two Connerly-written resolutions to ban the consideration of race and gender in the university’s admissions and employment. The UC president, all nine campus leaders and many faculty leaders opposed the votes.

Foes have speculated that Connerly joined the Board of Regents poised to take on race-based admissions at the request of Wilson, who later used the idea of repealing affirmative action as a theme of his short-lived presidential campaign.

Connerly denies that. It was not until he began to investigate the issue in 1994, he says, that he became convinced that UC admissions were unfair to many applicants and were “a lawsuit just ready and waiting to happen.”

Admissions of black and Latino students, considered underrepresented because their UC numbers are not proportionate to their levels statewide, plummeted after the ban went into effect. (In 2001, the regents sought to move past the racial debate by rescinding the ban, but the change was mainly symbolic since Proposition 209 still prohibits affirmative action in all state agencies.)

In recent years, the percentage of black and Latino students admitted has slowly risen systemwide to edge slightly past pre-ban levels, partly as a result of broader admissions criteria.

Current policy, while not taking race into account, allows consideration of personal factors -- including struggles to overcome poverty or other hardship -- alongside academic achievements. The university also boosted outreach programs to students from low-income households.

However, at the two most competitive campuses, UC Berkeley and UCLA, the figures have yet to rebound to the levels that existed under affirmative action, especially for African American students. The drop was steepest at UC Berkeley, where blacks represent 2.5% of California high school seniors admitted for fall 2004, down from 3.7% in 2003.

Connerly says he is not responsible. “The numbers were skewed in the first place,” he said. “These kids were not prepared to compete at the university on their own merits. So don’t blame me for the consequences.”

Many do, nonetheless. Yet critics and admirers alike say his influence is undisputed.

“He has an outsize legacy, and while I think much of its direction is unfortunate, his impact in and beyond California continues to be enormous,” said Christopher Edley, dean of UC Berkeley’s law school, Boalt Hall, who has often debated Connerly on affirmative action. “And he is willing to frame the disagreement clearly, rather than disguising or suppressing the issues, and that is much to his credit.”

Connerly is a principled hero to some, including John McWhorter, a former UC Berkeley linguistics professor and now a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute.

“Ward took an H-bomb approach to the racial preference problem, no doubt, but that was the only way that any change could be made,” said McWhorter, who is black and often writes about race. “The people who were in charge of that policy were so deeply committed to it, and so deeply committed to keeping the real nature of the program out of the public eye that ... you couldn’t have mended it.”

At times, Connerly has surprised both friends and critics. He frequently sided with students in their efforts to fight dramatic increases in the cost of attending the university. In 1997, he went against many Republican allies, including Wilson, by supporting the successful extension of health benefits to domestic partners of UC employees.

But in recent years, as the board’s composition has shifted to include more Democrats, Connerly’s victories have been fewer.

In 2003, he failed to win the board’s endorsement for Proposition 54, a statewide ballot measure he sponsored to stop public agencies from collecting and using most racial data. The proposition failed at the polls.

And in the defeat he called his greatest disappointment, the board in November turned down his proposal for UC to add a “multiracial” check box to its undergraduate student application.

Connerly, who is of black, white and American Indian ancestry and whose wife is white, made a highly personal appeal for the measure, saying it would help move the university toward a colorblind future. But his was the only vote in favor.

Next week, he said, he will undergo knee replacement surgery. Then he is looking forward to a more relaxed pace, as well as more time for the consulting business he runs with his wife.

But he made it clear that he would remain vigilant on the issue that first brought him to public attention. In a gracious final statement to his board colleagues, he also issued a warning.

With his departure, Connerly predicted, “There will now be great temptation here to relax on the issue of race. For God’s sake, don’t do it.”

*

Times staff writer Stuart Silverstein contributed to this report.