The University of California Board of Regents was right to distance itself from its chairman, who has berated university admissions using only slim evidence of any real problems.
Board Chairman John Moores began his charge by indicating that a study he conducted – which showed some students were being admitted to UC Berkeley with low SAT I scores – was evidence that the UC was practicing affirmative action.
Moores’ very public campaign insulted both students and Berkeley’s chancellor. But for eight regents who voted to censure him, Moores crossed the line when he wrote an editorial in Forbes Magazine, pre-empting a report by a special university committee that was created to address possible admissions problems. (When released, the report assuaged many people who had initially shared Moores’ concerns.)
Moores said the censure was an assault on his free speech. And certainly Moores has the right to say whatever he wants.
But if other regents found their chairman’s shallow criticism to be irresponsible and potentially undermining, they also had a right to express their concerns. And good for them for doing so.