The University of California Board of Regents voted 8-6 Thursday to confirm its commitment to comprehensive review and censure regents chairman John Moores for an editorial in which he lambasted the university’s admissions practices.

Moores defended his comments as free speech. Several regents came to Moores’ defense, but many of the regents said his position as chairman made his comments damaging to the university.

Moores’ criticisms in Forbes Magazine focused on the fact that UC Berkeley admitted “359 students with combined SAT scores of 1000 or less,” and that 231 of these were underrepresented minorities. Moores said this indicates that comprehensive review is being used as a covert way to skirt state law and give students priority because of their race.

Proposition 209 prohibits the consideration of race and gender in hiring and contracting for state employers and in admissions for state universities. Moores also charged that comprehensive review was being used to admit students who were not the most qualified, and discriminated against Asian Americans.

“The largest single group that scored over 1400 and had over a 4.0 (and were denied from UC Berkeley) were Asian Americans,” Moores said. “A lot of people see this as a victimless crime -- because those are really smart kids who probably went elsewhere -- but I don’t,” he added.

Moores based his criticisms partially on two versions of a report, released on March 4 by the Eligibility and Admissions Study Group and the UC Office of the President.

The report showed that in 2003, admissions numbers among black and Chicana/o students mirrored university projections more consistently than in 1997, the year before consideration of race was disallowed by Proposition 209.

Specifically, the report found that white and Asian students were admitted at a slightly lower rate than projected, while black and Chicana/o students were admitted at a slightly higher rate.

Bruce Darling, senior vice president of university affairs, said the numbers for 2003 show the university’s “good faith effort to comply with Proposition 209” and that the UC would continue to investigate if differences between projected and admitted numbers shows bias or a problem with the model.

Moores’ repeated and outspoken criticisms of comprehensive review led regents Judith Hopkinson, Monica Lozano and George Marcus to draft a resolution to the committee on educational policy to reaffirm the regents’ commitment to comprehensive review.

They also sought to make the point that “the views in UC admissions policies expressed by John Moores, as chairman” do not represent the views of the Board of Regents, according to the resolution.

Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, a regent by virtue of his position, made a rare appearance at the meeting to introduce into record UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Berdahl’s response to Moores editorial.

Berdahl’s response, also published in Forbes, called Moores’ article an “inaccurate and damaging assault” on Berkeley’s admissions policy. Several regents, like Lozano, called Moores’ comments inappropriate because his position as chairman of the board means people will associate his opinion with the opinion of the regents.

“I think this is outrageous,” Moores said, adding that he saw it as “delicious irony” that he should be censured for criticizing UC Berkeley, a symbol of the free speech movement.

Though some regents disagreed with his stance on comprehensive review, several strongly supported Moores’ right to express his opinion.

“I can’t believe this. We are contemplating censoring a member of our board for an article that he wrote in a magazine,” said Regent Ward Connerly.

“If we disagree, we can write our own article,” he said.

Regent Velma Montoya agreed, noting that Moores’ article was partially titled “On My Mind.”

“It was John Moores saying what was on his mind,” Montoya said.

Regent Peter Preuss also took up Moores’ case.

“If we do something like this (we) would not be the type of congenial board that I entered 10 years ago ... we have the right to disagree,” Preuss said, adding that the regents should not pass a resolution before the investigation of comprehensive review was completed.

But for some, like Regent Odessa Johnson, this was not enough.

“We are told in the study group that the students with low SATs and high GPAs are progressing well,” Johnson said, adding that Moores’ comments could have made minority students feel unworthy of attending Berkeley.

“Even though it grieves me to support this resolution, I have to support the resolution,” she said.

The committee on educational policy voted 9-1 to send the resolution to the full board.