Forum addresses UC’s ‘culture of favoritism’

Monday, April 22, 1996

Sen. Tom Hayden calls preferences an insult to taxpayersBy
Michael Howerton

Daily Bruin Staff

State Sen. Tom Hayden began his investigative hearing into the
issue of admissions favoritism at UCLA last Friday by dropping a
large pile of documents onto his table.

The documents chronicled the path of preference for the
well-connected, Hayden claimed, a road that drove home the
"poisonous lesson of cynicism that this favoritism teaches our
students."

Hayden, chair of the Senate Select Committee on Higher
Education, was joined by Sen. Quentin Kopp and Sen.Hilda Solis to
explore the problem of preferences specifically at UCLA.

While university officials acknowledged that there had
undoubtedly been past cases in which the recommendation of an
influential legislator, donor or regent had influenced the
admission of certain applicants, they denied that any students had
ever been admitted in exchange for gifts of promises.

"There are some magic words," Kopp said in response to the
university’s denials. "There are certain words that convey an extra
special demand ­ ‘important’ is one, ‘look into this’ is
another. ‘Look into this’ is a code, you folks know what ‘look into
this’ means, others such as ‘please’ underlined, ‘please let me
know the positive results on this.’"

As Kopp spoke, waving copies of admissions requests in the air,
his voice boomed in the small conference room.

"There is a language here. There is a culture ­ culture has
a language and these words impart a culture," he added.

The practice of granting preferences to those applicants with
powerful connections is an insult to the middle- and working-class
taxpayers of this state, Hayden charged. He threatened that if the
regents don’t draft a new policy eliminating the practice from the
university, he will push for legislation that would achieve that
goal.

UCLA officials issued a report last Thursday stating that the
number of students who have actually been admitted through powerful
connections have been small in number, making up less than one half
of 1 percent of all acceptances each year.

However, even though a small number are admitted, the university
maintained that it is sound policy to check up on requests made by
prominent individuals in order to make sure the individuals know
their voices have been heard.

"It is extremely important to respond to inquiries as a customer
service," Winston Doby, the vice chancellor for student affairs,
testified before the senators.

The status of all applicants to the university is always
recorded and processed through the admissions office. However, most
of the inquires that come from prominent individuals ­ deemed
important to the image and future of the campus ­ are also
tracked through the University Relations office "as a matter of
institutional importance," Doby said, who has been involved in UCLA
admissions for 25 years.

The additional tracking system through University Relations was
established in 1982 to accommodate the overwhelming number of
requests, John Kobara, associate vice chancellor of university
relations, told the panel. More often than not, the tracking
functioned as a way to locate individuals who made the
recommendation in order to notify them of the applicant’s
rejection, he said.

"The number (of applicants accepted through preferences) are
minuscule," Kobara said. "Is it a fundraising tool? No, it is not.
Do we need it to raise money? No, we do not."

Hayden interrupted Kobara, questioning the purpose of the
university’s tracking process, and claiming that there would be no
need for the extra tracking if it was not for the purpose of
currying favor to increase fundraising.

"We have to respond to the growing number of requests from
prominent individuals," Kobara repeated. "We believe we have an
obligation to respond to those individuals, even if more often than
not, we are being the bearer of bad news.

"Would fundraising go down (because of rejections)? No. But
would it go down if we are not responsive as a campus, if we don’t
provide good customer service, if we don’t respond and keep up
university relations," he added. "We need to be responsive to our
constituencies."

Of the 613 inquires made to UCLA by donors, regents, legislators
and other prominent individuals during the past five years, only
267 of the applications were accepted, Doby told the senators,
citing the report’s findings.

Many of these applicants would have been accepted on their own
merit alone, without the recommendation, he added.

"Over the past 15 years, only a dozen students have been
admitted who weren’t UC eligible," Doby said, "and there was only
one in the past five years."

Despite the university’s efforts to stress the infrequency of
this favoritism, critics charged that the inequity produced is
unreasonable in a public institution.

"I believe that the University of California and public higher
education in general, serve a very important and shining role as an
equalizer of the people in the state," Hayden said. "(Public higher
education) offsets the social and economic inequalities that exist.
Now we have a situation where revelations cast a shadow of doubt
over this promise."

Funds from the community have become more crucial for the
survival of public universities as the state budget for education
has shrunk in past years. Some charge that this economic condition
has precipitated a culture of favoritism in the UC system.

"With admissions very competitive and highly desirable, whether
(donors) give back in time or in dollars, their contributions have
made them highly valued members of the UCLA family," Alumni Regent
Judy Levin said.

"One can’t simply ignore an inquiry regarding admissions when it
comes from a regent, a legislator, a donor or a volunteer," she
added.

Levin asked the panel to wait until the May regents’ meeting
before charging forward on legislation that would affect the
university’s policies. In addition, she told the senators that she
found their investigation an intrusion, and said that the policy
change should instead come from within ­ specifically, through
the regents.

"I care very deeply about UCLA," Levin said. "I think sometimes
we may have to do what the rest of the world has to do. It’s like
finding that your idol has feet of clay. Or having the community
look at us at askance and say ‘Oh, you do things the way the rest
of the world does.’ Of course we do. We have to."

Unmoved by the universities arguments that preferences can be
granted in a minimal way for the benefit of the institution, Hayden
vowed to fight favoritism and warned that if the regents don’t act
soon, he will.

"Don’t you think we are going through an evolution of ethics
here and practices that have been practiced in kind of hidden ways
have suddenly been revealed and the world is reacting?" Hayden
asked university officials at the hearing. "The first thing that
the institution does is deny that the practice exists, that was the
first thing somebody said, then they disgorged all these
documents.

"At a certain point, public opinion changes, because the average
tax-payer doesn’t have connections, the university is downsizing,"
he added. "So the taxpayer gets unusually irate that somebody else
has an inside track, because they’ll do anything to get their kid
into UCLA."

Hayden has called for a second meeting on Monday in Sacramento
to address the "culture of favoritism" in the UC system ­ this
time, addressing problems at UC Berkeley and UC Davis.

SCOTT O/Daily Bruin

Sen. Tom Hayden (right) and Sen. Quentin Kopp discuss admissions
preferences with UCLA officials and faculty on Friday.