SP-1 didn’t limit access, it preserved UC quality

  Ward Connerly Connerly is Regent of the
University of California and Chairman of the American Civil Rights
Institute.

I extend my most sincere congratulations to the entire Class of
2001, and that includes those with whom I have disagreed as well as
those who have shared my views about sensitive public policy
issues. 

On virtually every issue that has been of concern to students
““ student fees, housing availability and affordability and
domestic partner benefits ““ I have been proud to be aligned
with the predominant views of the student community.

But on one issue of university access, there was enormous
controversy and we have differed, sometimes in ways that have not
been altogether pleasant. You have seen that controversy play out
since 1995, when most of you were applying to the University of
California as high school students.

I speak, of course, about the UC Board of Regents’ vote
six years ago to end race-based admissions (SP-1). Although some of
us will have profound differences of opinion about SP-1 until the
clock of time has exhausted itself, I was convinced in 1995 ““
and I remain so ““ that public decisions should never be based
on immutable characteristics and such an arbitrary concept as
race.

Make no mistake: not one student who was qualified for the UC
““ and therefore guaranteed a spot somewhere in the system
““ became ineligible because of the regents’ vote.

So, from the perspective of access, the UC system was just as
accessible during your years of campus life as it was before; more
so if you consider that we attracted qualified students of all
races who might have shunned the UC because the admissions process
seemed like a crapshoot that hinged more on the racial box that
prospective students check off on the application form than on
their own individual merit.

Administrators admitted that race was a heavy thumb on the
admissions scale, and we corrected that. Let us never underestimate
the appeal of a top-notch university that guarantees that your race
cannot be used as a factor to artificially inflate or depress your
chances of admission. That is a guarantee that no other college
system can make or package into an admissions or financial offer.
In short, that is a guarantee that money cannot buy.

So it was with the best interests of the university in mind that
a majority of regents supported the end of race-based admissions.
The immediate drop in “underrepresented” (read:
non-Asian) groups at UCLA and other campuses was sad evidence of
how numbers were artificially propped up for years using the
Band-Aid approach of preferences. Spurred into action, the
legislature dramatically boosted investment in K-12 education,
including UC outreach, so that we can achieve diversity in a
natural and lasting way.

Still, we regents could not deny that there existed, in some
areas of the state, a perception that there was an “unwelcome
mat” at the door of the University of California,
specifically the more competitive campuses in Los Angeles, Berkeley
and San Diego. Some cited the increased academic competition,
and some cited the lack of sensitivity to the plight of individuals
who struggle in their schools and neighborhoods to have the same
kinds of tools to learn and compete as everyone else.

There is no doubt that admissions became more competitive, but
that has been a trend for years. I could not disagree more,
however, with those who criticize the UC for a lack of sensitivity
to the inequality of opportunity in today’s
society. That is why we have an essay requirement and why we
look for leadership and other nonacademic talent as we balance the
need for an academic meritocracy and the need to evaluate an
individual in the fullness of his or her circumstances in the quest
for achievement.

Admissions numbers presented us with a tremendous challenge. The
number of underrepresented minorities admitted to the UC’s
undergraduate campuses continued the downward trend begun in 1995,
when race preferences were still in use. In 1995, the UC admitted
8,125 URM students. By 1997, that number had dropped to
7,605.

With the end of the UC’s preference policies in 1998 (the
effective date of SP-1), URM admissions fell again to
7,187. Since then, however, URM admissions have rebounded
significantly. In 1999, UC admitted 7,608 URM students, and in
2000 the UC’s 8,221 URM admissions actually exceeded
1995’s high-water mark. And, significantly, everyone
admitted can lay legitimate claim to having earned the right to
attend the nation’s best public university system on his or
her individual merit. No longer can anyone else question
whether attendance at the UC was distributed on simply refused to
check off a racial or ethnic box. Those who “declined to
state” numbered 1,738 in the last year of race-based
admissions (1997). The following year, that number rose to
7,556, the largest group outside of those who self-identified as
“white” or “Asian American.”Â While
that number has dipped a bit since 1998, this year’s batch of
applications include 4,636 who object to being classified, sorted
or tracked by racial group membership.

I recognize that UCLA has been slower than the rest of the UC to
match the strides of the rest of the system. I do not believe,
however, that this is a result of a “unwelcome mat” at
UCLA. Instead, this is a reminder of the high selectivity of UCLA
and the fact that there is still a lot of work left to do in fixing
K-12. The UC has only begun to do what it should have been
doing vigorously and energetically for decades: form lasting
partnerships with the most under-served areas of the state without
obsessive over-rescuing of only certain groups in a certain
run-down school or depressed neighborhood. The UC is spending more
than $300 million this year on outreach, compared to $60 million
five years ago.

Other evidence of progress includes the rapidly shrinking gap
among all racial groups in average SAT scores and GPAs for entering
UC freshmen, and the disparity in our retention and graduation
rates also have narrowed dramatically in the post-preference
era.

My commitment to equal treatment and individual opportunity has
not waned since the passage of SP-1, and the tumultuous
circumstances surrounding that resolution have not diminished my
sense of optimism that someday we shall all realize and embrace the
core theme of SP-1: equal treatment for all. My vote this year to
support its rescission ought not be interpreted as a substantive
change in policy or commitment. To use a term made famous in
last year’s presidential campaign, the protection against the
old regime of race-based admissions is safely tucked away in the
“Clock box” that is our state Constitution (Article I,
Section 31).

When pressured by several members of the Latino Caucus of the
state Legislature to symbolically remove the race ban or face
severe budget cuts, I once again voted for what I believed to be in
the best interest of the university ““ even if it meant
acceding to blatant political demands.

I am not happy about it, but I believe it was the statesmanlike
thing to do for the university and the people of
California. We can now move forward and deal with the
continuing challenges and opportunities to fix K-12 within the
clearly defined legal constraints of the California
Constitution.

With the receipt of your diploma, it is likely that your
perspective about the University of California will evidence
significant changes. Instead of access, your concerns will begin to
center on quality and the market value of being a graduate of the
UC. Each of you should be secure in the knowledge that the
overwhelming majority of regents share that concern and will remain
steadfast in trying to preserve the unrivaled quality for which the
UC is known throughout the world.

As some of the first to live in the post-preference era at UC,
you are participants in our nation’s long march to create a
colorblind society. As we enter the 21st century, we need to keep
moving forward to realize the vision of high-minded leaders of
decades long past. Thurgood Marshall said in 1954, on behalf of the
NAACP Legal Defense Fund: “Classifications and distinctions
based on race or color have no moral or legal validity in our
society.”

Such distinctions and classifications are contrary to our
constitution and laws. In 1963, John F. Kennedy
said,”Race has no place in American law or
life.”Â These are words that I carry with me every day
and which form the basis for seeking common ground to bridge the
racial divide.

Keep your head high and your moral compass pointed to what you
know to be right and true. Every one of you as individuals has
left the university better and stronger during your time here, and
I wish you every success in all of your future endeavors.

Even as some of us have disagreed, I hope my firm commitment to
my convictions has steeled your resolve to remain true to yours. I
believe each of us shares a common goal of an equal opportunity
society, despite our differences about methods of achieving it. May
the fire of true equality that resides in all people of good will
never dim.