Is The Univ. Of Calif. A Scofflaw? Maybe…

As I’ve discussed here, here, and here, John Moores, chairman of the University of California Board of Regents, has charged that the university system is using its “comprehensive review” admissions procedures to avoid the non-discrimination requirements imposd by Prop. 209 and its own rules. A committee was created to study the problem.

According to an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education this morning, the review panel has just issued its report. So, is the system violating the law? In the thunderous conclusion of the report, maybe. Or maybe not.

The 17-member panel, called the Eligibility and Admissions Study Group, consisted of regents, administrators, and faculty members. It concluded, based on a review of admissions data, that several system campuses are admitting black and Hispanic students at slightly higher rates, and Asian-American students at somewhat lower rates, than could be predicted on the basis of the students’ grades and admissions-test scores.

But the group left open the possibility that its method for predicting admissions rates may be flawed, or that some factor other than race might account for the differences that it found.

The report found that although blacks and Hispanics are being admitted at slightly higher rates than their grades and tests would predict, their advantage has been dramatically reduced since the university’s ban on racial preference and Prop. 209 went into effect.

At the University of California at San Diego, for example, 77.4 percent of black applicants were admitted in 1997, when race could still be considered; just 39 percent would have been admitted based on grades and test scores, the study group said. By 2003, 30.2 percent of black applicants were admitted to the campus, while 28.5 percent could have been expected to gain admission based on grades and test scores.

The panel concluded, predictably, with a call for further study, this time by the system administrators themselves. President Robert Dynes has already directed admissions officers and data analysts to begin such a study, but according to Mr. Moores this is simply “asking the fox to go back and recount the eggs.”

Say What?