Atkinson compromises on policy dates

Atkinson compromises on policy dates

Regents demand implementation of admissions ruling

By Michael Howerton

Daily Bruin Staff

The Board of Regents has summoned University of California
President Richard Atkinson to an emergency meeting on Wednesday
over his decision last week to delay any changes in undergraduate
admissions policy.

Despite the regents’ decision to end preferential admissions
policies effective January 1997, Atkinson issued a statement last
week advising that the policy, also known as SP-1, be first applied
to the incoming class of fall 1998.

The waves of discord unleashed by the announcement sent Atkinson
to the capital last Thursday to meet with a reportedly furious Gov.
Pete Wilson, who has been a central force behind the proposals to
end affirmative action in the university. Although the content of
their meeting was not disclosed, Atkinson reiterated that he would
not allow any change in the undergraduate admission policy until
the entering class of 1998.

However, Atkinson allowed the admissions policy for the graduate
and professional schools to change in accordance with the proposals
to effect the applicants for fall 1997.

Over the weekend, Atkinson appeared to back down further by
issuing an apology to the board, stating that he, "erred in not
adequately consulting with the regents." He acknowledged the
board’s right to set policy and offered a compromise: Since fewer
applicants apply for the spring quarter and most of those are
transfer students, Atkinson offered that the new policies take
effect for those people applying during spring 1997.

"After further analysis, I have concluded that the
implementation of SP-1 for undergraduates will be feasible
effective with the Spring quarter of the 1997-98 academic year," he
said in his letter to the regents.

The compromise of the Spring quarter should be seen as a peace
offering, said Regent Judith Levin, and that now Regent Ward
Connerly should meet him half-way. Connerly wrote the measure to
repeal affirmative action in university admissions and has
spearheaded the fierce reaction against Atkinson’s postponement of
the measure.

"Connerly needs to offer conciliation on his own side," Levin
said. "The date (for the implementation of the measures) was so
ambiguous to begin with that someone had to sit down to interpret
it and President Atkinson did that. If they had been constructed
better, there never would have been this problem."

Atkinson has made no secret of his opposition to the regents’
decision to eliminate affirmative action from the university’s
admission and hiring practices.

"I thought it was the wrong decision (in July) and I still think
it’s the wrong decision," Atkinson said at the last regents
meeting, "but the regents have decided."

Atkinson maintained that his original timeline was no change
from the program that the regents adopted in July.

Since the admissions procedures for undergraduates takes a year
and a half from notifying high schools, processing applications and
then admissions, the 1998 incoming class would be the first
effected, he reasoned.

"In my best judgment," Atkinson said in the original statement
last week explaining his decision, "insufficient time exists to
implement the many changes in the admissions criteria … before
the 1998 admissions cycle … There simply are too many issues and
too little time to finish the job in time for the 1997 admissions
cycle."

However, Atkinson said that since revising the graduate and
professional school admissions is a less complex and faster
process, they could be revised in accordance with the regents’
proposals for the incoming classes of fall 1997.

"The decentralized nature of the (graduate and professional
admissions) process means there are fewer complications than in the
case with admission at the undergraduate level," he said in his
revised statement Thursday.

Not only were many board members angered over Atkinson’s slower
timetable, but they were equally critical of the way he made his
decision.

"It’s not so much that he overstepped his bounds," said Regent
Stephen Nakashima, "but he overlooked that this is not subject to
(his decision), but (rather) the board’s decision. The way he went
about it caused this situation."

But other regents maintained that Atkinson acted well within his
role as president, which affords him authority over the
implementation of the regents’ decisions.

"The president is entitled to apply a date to how we do things,"
Levin said. "That he didn’t inform the regents was his only fault.
With the situation so fragile, greater sensitivity should have been
used on his part."

In light of Atkinson’s apology for his lack of consultation with
the regents, Levin said that the meeting should be canceled. But
she suspected the meeting will be used by affirmative action
opponents to try to bully Atkinson into renouncing his
position.

"This is just the governor’s way of letting people know he’s the
power," Levin said. "This is all a power play and I hate them using
the university for this."

If the regents continue acting in such a politically motivated
way, Levin warned that the consequences will be, "devastating, ugly
and disgusting. This is not the appropriate way to show trusteeship
of one of the finest institutions in the world."

She added that there is more support for the president than
against him among the board and she hoped to use the meeting to
spur a reaffirmation of the board’s confidence in Atkinson to heal
the atmosphere of ill-will that is festering over this issue.

Daily Bruin file photo

Richard Atkinson

Comments to [email protected]