Features

Race Dominates Connerly’s Last Regent’s Meeting By J. DOUGLAS ALLEN-TAYLOR

Friday January 21, 2005

In a demonstration of Ward Connerly’s ability to influence California events even on his way out the door, the University of California Board of Regents this week debated diversity issues in American law schools and passed a policy affirming intervention in the K-12 achievement gap battles in Connerly’s last meeting as a regent. 

Connerly was appointed for his eight-year term in 1993 by then-Governor Pete Wilson. The two-day Regents meeting was held at the UCSF Laurel Heights campus in San Francisco. 

At Connerly’s request, regents heard a presentation from UCLA Law School professor Richard Sander on his controversial “mismatch” theory that affirmative action policies designed to give a boost to African-American law school admissions have actually been detrimental to the African-American law school applicants themselves. 

Shortly before, the regents approved Policy RE-56, co-introduced by Connerly and Student Regent Judi Anderson, “affirming engagement in the preschool-through-postsecondary education system as fundamental to the university’s mission.” 

Connerly is well-known for his belief that affirmative action is morally wrong and should be ended, both in California and in the nation. At Connerly’s initiative, the UC Regents banned affirmative action in the UC system in 1995. A year later, California voters passed Connerly’s Proposition 209, ending the practice in state agencies. 

What is less-known and little-discussed about Connerly is his companion belief that while government has no right to intervene to end racial inequalities, it has every responsibility to make sure that underrepresented minorities are equally prepared. This week, he made good on pledges to advance that agenda as well. 

“While it’s not critical to go to college to lead a productive life, for most people it’s the ticket,” Connerly told the regents. “This policy gets the university engaged in getting all our students into higher education. It’s not an asterisk or an afterthought. It’s part of our core commitment.” 

Anderson said that the new policy “sends a message to California schools that they need to address and ameliorate educational inequality in our state.” 

The new policy acknowledges that “significant gaps in achievement exist in the pre-K-16 education system” and pledges university support and resources in an “unambiguous effort” to “reduce educational inequities.” 

The proposal calls upon “the UC President, in collaboration with the Governor, the Legislature, the other segments of California public education, and business and community leaders, develop and implement a plan for meaningful, consistent, and long-term funding” for a program of ‘Academic Preparation and Educational Partnerships’ between UC and K-12 public schools. The proposal commits UC to “broad efforts … to build the capacity of [California’s] preschool-postsecondary education system to academically prepare students for their future endeavors.” 

The proposal passed unanimously, with little discussion. 

That was not the case with Professor Sander’s “mismatch” theory presentation, which drew some 30 minutes of dissent and debate. 

Sander’s presentation was a slideshow summary of his 117-page “A Systematic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools” published this week in the Stanford Law Review. 

In the paper, Sander concludes that “the annual production of new black lawyers would probably increase if racial preference were abolished tomorrow.” In a Los Angeles Times interview last November, Sander said, “The big picture is that this system of racial preferences is no longer clearly achieving the goal of expanding the number of black lawyers. There’s a very good chance that we’re creating such high attrition rates that we’re actually lowering production of black lawyers, and certainly we are weakening the preparation of the black lawyers we are producing.” 

In his presentation to the regents, Sander said that lowering admissions standards to allow African-Americans into top-tier law schools has produced what he calls the “cascade effect,” meaning that each succeeding tier of schools is forced to admit what he called lesser-qualified blacks in order to reach racial goals. 

Connerly told Sander that his only criticism of the study was that its conclusions were based on the fact that affirmative action in the nation’s law schools is not working in its intended goal to produce more black lawyers. 

“I think the use of race is morally wrong, regardless of the result,” Connerly said. “If that weren’t the case, someone could come up with a study to show benefits from segregation.” 

UC Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law Dean Chris Edley disputed Sander’s assumptions and conclusions in a following presentation to the regents, stating that the failure of many black lawyers to follow up top-tier law school inclusion with equal success in the workplace could be due to “lingering discrimination in our society,” and that prospective black lawyers should not be judged on their test scores alone. 

“Even in a color-blind world there will still be a score gap between blacks and whites,” he said, adding that it was performance that ultimately counted. “And a lot of things are driving performance other than standardized test scores that are stamped on students’ heads when they enter the door.” 

Answering Sander’s contention that higher grades, regardless of the prestige of the law school, were the real key to success after graduation, including bar passage rates and salary, Edley said that “if you say that it’s better to get an A from the University of Tennessee than it is to get a C from Vanderbilt, one possible response might be to say ‘My God! Don’t let them go to Vanderbilt, then!’ Another response might be to say, ‘What is it that Vanderbilt is doing wrong in preparing its black graduates for their careers? How can we change that?’” 

Regent Judith Hopkinson, a Gray Davis appointee, told Sander that “it bothers me that we would come to certain conclusions based on your research. It seems as if you only looked at racial factors, but it’s not clear that if you looked at socioeconomic factors, you wouldn’t come to the same conclusions.” 

And regent Tom Sayles, a Wilson appointee, said that if lower grades—and not graduation from prestigious law schools—were the main criteria for career success among all students—both white and black— “then maybe we should just be dumbing down and sending everybody to lower-tiered schools.” 

In the end, regents agreed with Edley’s contention that more research on Sander’s study was needed before any conclusions could be drawn or action taken. Edley called Sander’s Stanford Law Review paper “a good and needed addition” to that study. 

At an interview with reporters during a lunch break, UC President Robert Dynes said that Connerly’s legacy on the Regents Board was going to be mixed. 

“On such things as domestic partner benefits and lowering costs for students, he did good work, very good work” Dynes said. “But I disagreed with him on affirmative action. That’s no secret.” 

For his part, the 65-year-old Connerly said following the meeting that he was taking off from public life for a knee operation in a few weeks, after which he would be prepared to talk about any possible future actions.Å