BY RICHARD C. ATKINSON

In the weeks leading up to the U.S. Supreme Court’s hearing on affirmative action, the University of California system was depicted alternately as a dramatic success or a dismal failure in its efforts to enroll Latino and African-American students after race and ethnicity were eliminated as factors in student admissions.

The truth lies somewhere in between. But as a university president who took office just after the decision in California was made to disallow consideration of race and ethnicity — and as one who retires a few months from now — I have concluded that we are still not doing a good enough job.

California is a rapidly diversifying society. In 1990, 34% of the state’s public school students were Latinos; in 2000, the figure was 43%, and by 2010 it is projected to be 52%. Against this backdrop of stunning demographic change stands a public school system characterized by vast disparities in educational opportunity.

The impact of educational disadvantage is evident in students’ eligibility rates for UC. The most recent study found that 30% of Asian-American students in California and 13% of white students met UC eligibility requirements; the figure was a disheartening 4% for Latinos and 3% for African Americans.

When race and ethnicity were disallowed, UC launched a greatly intensified program of outreach to public schools, working in partnership to improve academic performance and college eligibility in schools that traditionally sent few students to UC. We also made changes in our admissions process — such as granting UC eligibility to the top 4% of students in every California high school.

What have been the results for underrepresented minority students? After an initial drop, these students have represented an increasing proportion of the UC entering class in each of the past four years. This year the absolute number of underrepresented minority freshmen at UC campuses exceeds the number enrolled before race and ethnicity were eliminated from consideration.

But the story is troubling in at least two respects. First, the proportions of underrepresented minority students at UC’s more selective campuses — particularly UC Berkeley and UCLA — remain far below their previous levels. Second, the gap between the percentage of underrepresented minority students in the California graduating high school class and the percentage in the UC freshman class has widened appreciably.

In 1995, 38% of California public high school graduates were underrepresented minority students, as were 21% of UC freshmen — a gap of 17 percentage points. In 2002, however, the figures were 42% in the statewide high school graduating class and 18% in the UC freshman class — a gap of 24 percentage points. Gains in minority admissions at UC are not closing this gap because the diversity of the California high school population continues to grow.

What we do about this is a source of real concern. We must continue our efforts to help close the achievement gap in the public schools. We must continue refining our admissions policies to ensure that they reward high achievement and yet recognize that this can be demonstrated in different ways in different educational settings.

But I offer California as a cautionary tale to the rest of the nation. If race cannot be factored into admissions decisions at all, the ethnic diversity of an elite public institution such as UC may fall well behind that of the state it serves. And that is something that should trouble us all.

Atkinson is president of the University of California.