Thursday, January 30, 1997
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION:
Democratic legislators urge regents to reconsider graduate admissions planBy Brooke Olson
Daily Bruin Staff
For the second time this month, the UC Board of Regents' ban on affirmative action was challenged this time by state Democratic legislators.
In a written request, 57 lawmakers urged the University of California to postpone its ban on affirmative action in graduate admissions until U.S. Labor Department officials can decide if the change of policy violates federal law.
The request comes two weeks after civil rights lawyers filed a complaint with the U.S. Labor Department, seeking to tie graduate school admissions to the university's obligation as a federal contractor to follow equal opportunity hiring rules.
"We strongly believe that the university, as a recipient of over $1.3 billion from the federal government, must seriously re-evaluate the decision to move forward with a policy that may violate federal laws," the letter said.
Under the regents' July 1995 rulings SP1 and SP2, ethnic and gender preferences would end in graduate admissions with the incoming Fall 1997 class.
With much of the admission process for the class already under way, UC administrators contend that it is too late to reverse the policy.
"Each of the UC schools and departments that admit graduate students do so independently of each other," said UC spokesman Terry Colvin. "This is not a central process and many of the departments have already made admissions decisions," he added.
Many of the UCLA graduate schools began admitting students for Fall Quarter 1997 last December.
But some legislators believe that it is not too late for the university to reverse its admissions policy.
"It is possible for the university to turn on a dime when it wants to, particularly if they are paying attention to the jeopardy of federal contract dollars," said Assembly Speaker Pro Tem Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) in an interview with the Los Angeles Times.
The UC system receives $1.3 billion per year in federal grants and contracts. Like all federal contractors, it is obliged to maintain goals and timetables for hiring women and minorities.
Two weeks ago, lawyers from both the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund filed a complaint with Labor Department officials claiming that graduate students are also university employees.
"There's a strong connection between hiring and the admissions process in general," the complaint said. "In some departments they're virtually indistinguishable."
Without a diverse student body, employers will be unable to obtain a diverse work force, the plaintiffs claimed.
But the university maintains that there is no such connection. James Holst, the university's general counsel, said that in his extensive reviews of federal regulations, graduate students are not covered by affirmative action job rules.
Colvin re-emphasized Holst's findings, noting that "the federal government has upheld the university position that graduate students are not employees and therefore the university does not have to comply with federal affirmative action when making graduate student admissions decisions."
Labor Department attorneys are now scrutinizing the civil rights groups' complaint to determine if it warrants a full investigation, a department spokesman told the Times.
Despite the labor department's delay, the lawmakers' letter urged UC President Richard C. Atkinson to postpone the affirmative action ban until next year if there is "any chance" of a ruling that could threaten UC's lucrative federal contracts.
"As a distinguished taxpayer-supported institution, the University of California has an obligation to encourage diversity and to train adequate numbers of professionals from all sectors of society," the legislators wrote.
Although Atkinson has not yet responded to the letter, UC attorney Susan Thomas said several weeks ago that the officials believe the new graduate admissions policy does not run afoul of any federal rules.
The legislators' letter cannot legally force the administrators to reverse the ban, but university officials have indicated they will carefully consider the legislators' position.
"It makes a persuasive argument especially coming from the group that provides funds to the university," Colvin said.