Regents to debate admissions policy

Wednesday, May 15, 1996

Gomez proposes to end regent’s written recommendationsBy Michael
Howerton

Daily Bruin Staff

Two months since their last meeting, the University of
California regents gather in San Francisco today, facing a full
agenda. And favoritism in admissions is expected to be the most
dynamic issue of debate.

Since it was revealed two months ago that prominent individuals
have tried, and in many cases succeeded, to secure admissions into
the University of California system for hundreds of applicants, UC
Provost Judson King has been preparing a review of all university
admissions practices and will present his findings to the regents
tomorrow.

Along with the presentation and discussion of these findings,
the regents will vote on whether to limit their avenues of
influence.

Student Regent Edward Gomez, who proposed a bill to prohibit
regents from writing recommendations for applicants, denounced the
practice as gratuitous power politics."It shows there is a power
play going on," he said. Regents should be prohibited from making
recommendations since it erodes the public’s trust in both the
admissions process and the regents of the university, he added.

Some regents are justifying their recommendations on the basis
of the academic merit of the applicant, but Gomez argued that
because the regents have never been educators, they are unable to
determine academic merit.

Also, some regents have said they can attest to an applicant’s
non-academic qualities, like community service, but again Gomez
said that someone else would undoubtedly be more qualified to
recommend such a student.

However, Clair Burgener, chair of the Board of Regents said he
opposes Gomez’s proposal on the basis that it seeks to tie only the
hands of regents and not other influential people who have made
admissions requests.

"Gomez has an item to prohibit regents from writing
recommendations, but leaves everyone else free (to do so)," he
said. "We need a university-wide policy here."

Burgener, who said he writes about three or four recommendations
a year for applicants, said that he would be relieved if he was not
allowed to write recommendations anymore. But he added that the
proscription of ending recommendations should be far more sweeping
than what Gomez proposes.

"I really take offense that someone should be precluded from
writing letters unless everybody is," Burgener said.

Although Gomez admitted that his proposal doesn’t address the
problem of other VIP’s trying to use their influence to gain
admissions, he said his proposal is a start ­ and it’s the
furthest extent to which the regents can address the problem.

"The only people we can govern is ourselves," Gomez said, adding
that policies restricting the influence of legislators and donors
must be created in their own forums.

"It’s not all that needs to be done," he said, "but (the passage
of Gomez’s proposal would) show that the regents have good faith
and that they uphold certain ethical principles. If they vote it
down, it shows that they don’t."

Student Regent Designate Jess Bravin, who will assume Gomez’s
position in July, said he agrees with the efforts of a number of
regents who seek to curtail the intervention of regents and others
who unduly use their influence in admissions.

"But these sorts of reforms, while welcome, do not address a
fundamental flaw in our admissions system," Bravin said in a letter
he sent to all the regents. "At present we conceal from applicants
the basis on which we judge them. I believe it is time for us to
adopt a ‘Truth in Admissions’ policy."

This policy, he proposed, would inform the rejected applicants
of the reasons why they were denied admission.

"Thus, informed rejected applicants could make more
knowledgeable decisions about their educational future," Bravin
explained, "as well as whether they have grounds to seek
reconsideration of their applications, under uniform appeal
procedures now being considered by the Office of the
President."

Bravin urged that admissions procedure reforms include adopting
a more open process and uniform policy ­ something many people
have been demanding since the revelation that favoritism has
encroached upon the equity of admissions policies.

In the last month there have been two senate hearings called by
state Sen. Tom Hayden to investigate the issue. He indicated during
those hearings that he is considering seeking legislation to
eliminate admissions favoritism at the University of
California.

His efforts have met with resistance by some UC officials, who
regard the senator’s investigations as intrusive.

Alumni Regent Judy Levin told Hayden at the hearing at UCLA
three weeks ago that she resented his interference. She asked that
he hold off of drafting any legislation until the regents have had
a chance to review the findings from the University Office of the
President and try to remedy this problem internally.

Burgener, however, didn’t share Levin’s disdain for the senate’s
efforts and welcomed them into the reform process, while
recognizing that the impetus should come from within the
university.

"The university is supposed to have some autonomy," he said,
"but we can’t exist without the legislature."

Burgener said he understands Hayden’s concern that the Board of
Regents might not be the best place for reform of the admission
procedures since they are part of the system, but he equally
cautioned that the legislature might not be the appropriate place
either for the same reasons.