• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

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.