by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright October 17, 2003
All Rights Reserved.

reaking his silence, UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert M. Berdahl blasted UC Board of Regents Chairman John J. Moores for going public with a controversial report, exposing glaring inconsistencies in Berkeley's admissions policy. Moores' report revealed that hundreds of students were admitted to the state's most prestigious academic institution with sub-par SATs. California's 1996 Proposition 209 forbids academic institutions from giving preferences to ethnic or racial minorities, scrapping a 20-year practice of affirmative action. “You have done a disservice and shown contempt for the reasoned discourse about complex issues,” Berdahl wrote in an Oct. 10 letter, referring to concerns that Berkeley skirted Proposition 209, engaging in de facto affirmative action. Berdahl accused Moores of raising too many questions and “undermining confidence” in Berkeley's admissions practices.

      Admitting 400 students with SATs below 1,000 and excluding 600 others with scores over 1,500 [1,600 is a perfect score], raises serious concerns about Berkeley's admissions practices. Moores did nothing more than “open the books,” embarrassing University officials, now scrambling to explain egregious abuses in the admissions process. Attacking Moores reveals the extent of the University's culpability in skirting Prop. 209, a law ending affirmative action and reverse discrimination in admissions practices. Grades and test-scores are the only objective way to guarantee admissions to the best candidates. “You have not behaved responsibly in the public disclosures in your study,” said Berdahl, turning inside out who's really to blame. Had admissions officials not deviated from Prop. 209 and uniform standards, no embarrassing study would have been necessary.

      Caught with their pants down, Berkeley officials now want to discredit Moores' alarming study. Moores' report suggests that Berkeley's admissions practices “might not be compatible with [its] goal of maintaining academic excellence,” but instead protect officials busy correcting imbalances caused by Prop. 209. Unlike Berkeley, other UC campuses apply different criteria, including athletics, artistic talent, work experience and family hardship to the admissions process. Defending such practices, Berkeley officials indicated that rejected students had lower grade-point averages, applied in competitive majors, opted for other schools or were out-of-state applicants. All things considered, Berkeley bypassed academic standards and the flaunted Prop. 209. Using “personal factors” is no substitute for standardized criteria. No matter how embarrassed, Berkeley must cop to its unfair practices.

      Debating the merits of the SAT has nothing to do with whether Berkeley created its own arbitrary criteria, applying “personal factors,” to correct racial imbalances caused by Prop. 209. Whether former U.C. Berkeley President Richard C. Atkinson dislikes the SAT can't be used to justify capricious admissions standards. Nor can successful students admitted with low SATs justify that it's OK to select unqualified students using “personal factors.” No one other that The College Board [the maker of the SAT] believes the SAT predicts academic success. Calling its new practice “comprehensive review” can't become a smokescreen for licensing universities to ignore objective admissions policy. Berdahl calls Moores' report “flawed” because it doesn't go inside the university's arcane practices, examining all factors considered in the “comprehensive review.” Whether flawed or not, Moores' study exposes serious faults in Berkeley's admissions policy.

      Newly installed UC President Robert C. Dynes has agreed to a comprehensive review of the university's admissions process. Since Prop. 209 ended affirmative action in 1996, most UC campuses have opted for “comprehensive review” and “personal factors” in admissions practices. Moores' report does no harm to UC Berkeley or its students or faculty. “They deserve more than derision from the chair of the Board of Regents,” wrote Berdahl, overreacting to the report's conclusions questioning whether some students “don't have any business going to Berkeley.” UC Regent and author of Prop. 209 Ward Connerly believes that unqualified applicants are indeed getting into the state's flagship campus. Granting admissions to “hardship” cases turns Berkeley's academic reputation on its head. “Personal factors” should be applied only to candidates who meet competitive standards.

      Announcing his upcoming retirement, Berkeley President Berdahl went over the top attacking UC Regent Chairman Moores for releasing stunning facts about Berkeley's admissions practices. Incoming UC President Dynes must find out whether Berkeley—and other UC campuses—routinely ignores Prop. 209, hides behind the smokescreen of “comprehensive review” and engages in de facto affirmative action. “As a public institution we need to be open to public criticism and responsive to it,” said Dynes, putting Berdahl on notice that he intends to get to the bottom of questionable admissions practices. UC campuses must apply state laws—including Prop. 209—not find clever ways to circumvent the current ban on affirmative action. UC officials must uphold the law and resist letting personal ideology interfere with a non-discriminatory admissions policy.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.