The continuing debate over race and education

A look at student regent Maria Ledesma

By Michael Klein
From the September 2005 Print Edition

On July 20, UC regents selected as student regent–designate Maria Ledesma, a Ph.D. student at the UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies.

Meant to bridge the gap between students and the UC Board of Regents, the position of student regent embodies the past and present movement for an active student voice in the governing body of the UC system. All students in the UC system, both undergraduate and graduate, have the opportunity each year to apply for the position.

The single student-regent position attracted 79 applicants in the last election cycle. Of these 79 applicants, a nominating committee composed of regents and students from all nine universities selected nine of the most qualified applicants. These nine applicants then participated in a series of interviews with the Board of Directors of the University of California Student Association. The Board of Directors selected three of the most qualified to submit to the Board of Regents for the selection of the single most qualified candidate during the July Board meeting. Ledesma was chosen by the Regents and will commence her term on July 1, 2006; until her term begins, she will serve as a non-voting participant on the Board of Regents alongside current regent Adam Rosenthal, a UC Davis law student.

Ledesma, a graduate of UC Berkeley and Harvard University, maintains that her main interests as student regent will lie in student fees and the comprehensive review admissions process. While an undergraduate at UC Berkeley, she worked as an outreach coordinator for the Early Academic Outreach Program, and also as an undergraduate admissions reader. Now at UCLA, her research involves the admission of underrepresented minority students into selective public institutions. She admits to a UCLA news Web site, “The fact that UC continues to experience challenges in meeting the needs of historically underrepresented communities, coupled with my research interests, are the most important reasons why I wanted to serve as student regent.”

When Ledesma’s term begins, she will sit on the Finance, Educational Policy, and Grounds and Buildings Committees. She specifically chose the Finance Committee so she might voice her input on future fee increases, an issue that occupies much of her research interests and could arise before her term expires. The California Aggie reports that Ledesma believes admittance to higher education gives students “access to world-renowned faculty, research projects, and employment opportunities, which are all intangible benefits.” She also states here, “One of the principal reasons I applied is because I want to work with issues such as making the UC more accessible to qualified students.”

One of Ledesma’s controversial stances is her praise of the University of California’s withdrawal from the National Merit Scholarship Program. This program rewards incoming college students with scholarships for high performance on the annual PSAT exam. Ledesma’s opposition to the program lies in its conflict with the comprehensive review process. She explains to the Patriot, “The faculty’s Academic Council, as well as the campus chancellors, wisely recognized that using a single test to determine merit is incompatible with UC’s comprehensive review policy.” She recognizes that the incoming and current college students who earned scholarships through this program must be compensated for their achievements, but thinks that the program is not ideal. The definition of “qualified students” for Ledesma departs from an emphasis on merit, focusing rather on a variety of indicators, including race.

The current debate and rhetoric over the proper role of race in the admissions process is a key issue for Ledesma. When asked about her thoughts on the role of race in admissions, she points to what she believes to be the importance and the necessary centrality of the comprehensive review policy. Through it, she says, “UC accounts for each student’s experiences, especially those having to do with educational opportunities and resources.”

Regarding Proposition 209, which banned the use of race in UC admissions policies, Ledesma says that the regents are in compliance with this statute, which California voters passed in 1996. Meanwhile, much of Ledesma’s own undergraduate and graduate research would indicate that she supports an admissions policy that takes race into account.

Ledesma conducted a thorough investigation into the amicus curiae, or “friend of the court” arguments, in the University of Michigan cases Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger. Her findings are published in InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, as a work titled “Contesting an Illusion of Equity: A Textual Analysis of ‘Friend of the Court’ Briefs in the University of Michigan’s Affirmative Action Cases.”

In this work, Ledesma argues that contemporary debate over affirmative action has been hijacked by inappropriate rhetoric, such as “race preferences” and “quotas.” She asserts that those in the affirmative-action debate must adopt the more accurate language of “race consciousness” and “race sensitivity” in order to discuss the issue. She notes, “the terms ‘race-conscious’ and ‘race-sensitive’ as used by supporters of affirmative action recognize that race is an indelible part of the human experience, and thus must be considered in university admissions and beyond.”

Criticizing those opposed to affirmative action for favoring “meritocracy,” she cites a 2001 study by Allen & Solórzano that claims, “behind their altruistic façade, ‘meritocratic’ admissions practices work to maintain White privilege and White entitlement.” She further explains that admissions based on merit are impossible in a society where racism is still present and apolitical environments are not reality. Throughout the rest of the work, she dissects the terms “equal-opportunity,” “color-blindness,” and others in order to prove that they are wrongly applied by opponents of affirmative action; thus, in her opinion, the terms are applied deceptively because they do not describe an attainable norm.

Her preference for “race-conscious” admissions begs the question as to whether this stance played a role in her selection. According to the policy on the appointment of a student regent, the regent should reflect the diversity of the state, but it also states that no specific “formulas or specific ratios [may] be applied in the selection of Regents.” No political tests may be used in the process either.

It is difficult to know the exact criteria for the selection of student regents, as the explicit criteria are not released. In response to a phone call to the office of Monica Lozano, one of the regents on the selection committee, an assistant said that she usually does not conduct interviews about the selection process. A look at the qualifications and interests of previous student regents may help determine the selection committee’s definition of an ideal candidate.

Rosenthal, the current student regent, wrote a piece titled “Reflection on the UC Regents meeting” in the UC Irvine online publication New University. In this article, Rosenthal details a recent board meeting in which affirmative action was debated. He expresses his views in favor of affirmative action and questions whether Ward Connerly’s efforts to end affirmative action were “too early.”

Max Espinoza, student regent 1998-1999, reflected upon his own term on a UC Berkeley Web site and noted that he was surprised to be selected, given his work in META, a radical student organization on university campuses that supports affirmative action. David Bryan Hoffman, student regent 1986-1987, claims that he was interested in affirmative action and recruitment and retention centers as well. Linda Sable, student regent 1982-1983, says that she too was surprised to get the position, given her activist views and efforts.

In November 1974, citizens of California voted in favor of Proposition 4, which amended the California Constitution to permit both one student and one faculty representative to sit on the Board of Regents for a period of no less than one year. Leading up to this decision were a series of discussions and contemplations about the role of the Board as the administrating body of the UC system. The Board of Regents, a publicly governing group similar to that of a private corporation’s board of directors, determined in 1973 that a student-regent position was indeed valuable on the 26-member board. This decision came after a series of meetings with the Joint Committee on the Master Plan for Higher Education.

It is not fully clear what the Regents and interviewers look for in the selection of the student regent. With the selection of Ledesma, it is clear what she advocates: more weight and consideration of race in UC admissions. The history of the student regent position reveals a very liberal role, one of affirmative-action advocacy and other controversial activist positions. Will Ledesma speak for all students, or will she pursue an agenda of bringing back race-based initiatives? Her voice on the board will soon tell.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot