Connerly offers new resolution to eliminate all VIP admissions

Monday, July 20, 1998

Connerly offers new resolution

to eliminate all VIP admissions

MEETING: Official claims all preferential treatment should be
eliminated

By Shannan Rouss

Daily Bruin Contributor

UC Regent Ward Connerly earned praise from his colleagues for
his resolution to prohibit preferential treatment for so-called VIP
applicants at last Thursday’s UC Regents meeting.

"Admissions motivated by concern for financial, political or
other such benefit to the university do not have a place in the
admissions process," according to a statement from the Academic
Senate’s Board on Admissions and Relations with Schools.

Connerly’s resolution will allow chancellors a bit of leeway,
permitting them to admit students outside the established criteria
with the consultation of the Academic Senate.

The chancellor is also obligated to notify the president of the
university and the chairman of the Board of Regents in such unique
cases.

UCLA Chancellor Carnesale acknowledged that certain instances
might warrant his intervention in admissions but felt that in
general, the admissions process should not be circumvented.

"No one should be able to buy … or threaten their way into
UCLA," Carnesale said.

"But can we take into account that someone built a building on
campus that we would otherwise not have had? I would argue that we
should (take this into account). It should be rare, and it should
be no more than a tiebreaker between qualified students," he
said.

Often an opponent of Connerly’s, Lieutenant Governor Gray Davis
commended him for the action restricting VIP admissions, saying it
would "eliminate misconceptions" that VIP admissions are
pervasive.

However, he and State Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa
agreed there should be a system for reporting the actual number of
students admitted by special consideration, in order to keep such
admissions at a minimum.

A survey of UC campus practices found the number of admissions
decisions influenced by members of the UC Board of Regents, elected
officials, or donors accounted for 0.03 percent of all freshmen
admitted per year.

Given the small number of students affected by the board’s
decision, UCLA English professor Rafael Perez-Torres called the
issue a "red herring."

Contrasting it with the consequences of the ban on affirmative
action, Perez-Torres said the matter of VIP admissions is a
"trifling one."

"Less than 12 freshmen per year receive some special
consideration. Compare this to just the drop-off in freshman
acceptances from under-represented minority groups between last
year and this: nearly 700 students," Perez-Torres said.

Connerly and others said the number does not matter, it’s the
principle.

"Money, not merit" should be the factor for selection, Davis
said.

Connerly called the considerations of other factors in admitting
students a "glaring inconsistency" in the UC admissions
process.

The resolution further honed his conviction that there should be
no "cache of set-asides" for any applicants.

However, Connerly pressed his luck a little too far when he
suggested that special consideration for children of UC graduates
was also unfair.

His contention with these current practices did not garner the
same unanimous support from other regents.

Regent William Bagley, expressing his frustration, said he
wished Connerly would not "muck around constantly."

In a last-minute effort, Connerly tried to tack on a provision
that would prevent children of UC graduates from receiving special
consideration in the admission process.

For admission purposes only, "the requirements for bona fide
California residents also apply to dependents of University of
California graduates and employees," according to the UC
application for 1998-99.

Connerly said the practice of privileging "legacies" with more
lenient requirements needed to be re-examined.

Although the board would not allow Connerly to amend his
original action, he announced plans to pursue the issue later.