While UC Regents postponed until September taking action on the merger of UCSF Stanford clinical services, they will address recommendations from the UC Outreach Task Force on programs to better prepare California’s minority students for admission to UC and consider whether to offer domestic partner benefits to faculty and staff.

On Thursday morning, Regents will vote on the task force’s 58-page final report, which details an annual $60.5 million four-point strategy to improve K-12 academic achievement and increase enrollment eligibility at UC for underrepresented minorities.

Established by the Regents when they ended UC’s affirmative action programs in 1995, the task force recommends establishing intensive partnerships between UC campuses and California’s lowest-performing K-12 schools to promote academic success and high educational standards. An 18-month review of student achievement and minority enrollment in higher education by the task force reveals that 4 out of 5 students in these schools are either African American, American Indian, or Latino. Eligibility for admission to UC among these groups pales in comparison to the eligibility percentages among whites and Asian Americans. Data from 1990 shows that 32.2 percent of Asian American and 12.7 percent of white high school graduates qualified to attend UC, while only 3.9 percent of Latino and 5.1 percent of African American students were eligible.

“While factors outside the schools also influence these outcomes, it is clear that the role of the schools is critical and that school improvement provides the most effective single means by which the University can assist in providing equitable opportunities for UC access by all students,” the task force’s report says.

The comprehensive plan calls for greater attention to curriculum, student counseling and parent involvement. The task force proposes expanding existing academic development programs, such as the Early Academic Outreach Program, the Puente Project and the Mathematics, Science, Engineering Achievement program, as well as launching an aggressive media program to address the perception that UC has lessened its commitment to diversity. In fact, campuses have remained active in developing creative outreach programs to increase the pool of qualified minority applicants.

Another outreach recommendation calls for “harnessing the University’s research expertise” to identify the causes of educational disparity in California and to assess the effectiveness of its existing and proposed outreach programs.

Acknowledging the “great difficulty” the University would have in doubling its annual outreach funding, the task force also says, “these costs can and should be borne by all of those who have a stake in a revitalized K-12 system.” If the plan is approved by Regents, UC would launch a large-scale fundraising campaign seeking foundation and corporate support, as well as additional state financing.

Domestic partners

The Regents' consideration on Thursday afternoon whether to offer domestic partner benefits, first recommended by the Academic Council in 1994, is slated for discussion only. No formal action will be taken.

Background on policy, cost estimates and current practices at similar institutions provided to Regents falls into two major categories: extending health and retirement benefits to domestic partners of UC faculty and staff and broadening eligibility for student family housing to domestic partners of students.

According to estimates prepared for Regents, sign-up rates for health and retirement benefits for same-sex partners at UC would be between .5 and 2 percent and 3 to 6 percent, respectively. If benefits were offered to same- and opposite-sex domestic partners, sign-up rates could quadruple. Cost estimates, too, vary widely. Harvard, Stanford, Yale and Massachusetts Institute of Technology — among eight institutions UC used for comparison — each extend some form of health and retirement benefits to domestic partners and their children. At these particular institutions, however, benefits are offered to same-sex domestic partners only because they do not have the option to become legally married.

Universities offering such benefits said they did so for reasons of competition, employee morale, to acknowledge/promote workforce diversity and to comply with existing nondiscrimination policies. In a July 1 letter to Regents, UC President Richard Atkinson said that information gathering within the UC system has shown “widespread support” at all levels, from the UC Student Association to chancellors.

UC General Counsel James E. Holst is expected to address the legal aspects of the domestic partners issue, as well as offer his analysis and opinion on the implications for UC of the ordinance recently enacted by the City and County of San Francisco requiring its contractors to provide benefits to domestic partners. UCSF has for many years contracted with the City of San Francisco for the operation of San Francisco General Hospital and has many city and county contracts for other services, such as psychiatric care.

by Brad Foss

1st appeared 7/14/97