One of my favorite sparring partners on the issue of affirmative action sent me an e-mail message last weekend, shortly after the UC board of regents voted to end racial preferences in hiring, contracting and admissions.
"You must be in hog heaven," he wrote.
Yes, I am gratified that the regents have at long last taken a principled public stand. Their resolution, passed 14-10 last Thursday, reads, "Effective January 1, 1997, the University of California shall not use race, religion, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin as criteria for admission to the University or to any program of study." A similar provision on hiring and contracting will take effect a year earlier.
Unfortunately, before adopting this admirably clear declaration of principle, the regents muddled it with an amendment saying the new policy "will achieve a UC population that reflects this state's diversity."
They can't have it both ways. And given the declared intentions of UC administrators, the regents' compromise just invites the continuation of preferential policies under other names. 
"With regards to faculty selection," said Dean William Simmons, director of the American Cultures Center at Berkeley, "the interest in having a diverse faculty is going to continue whether it's legal or not."
Writing more diplomatically, Berkeley Chancellor Chang-Lin Tien said in an open letter that he was disappointed in the regents' decision, but would work within the new guidelines "to develop creative, new strategies to assure continued diversity on our campus."
Tien makes it clear that by "continued diversity" he has something more in mind than just accepting students of all races according to the same standard.
"Even with our best efforts," Tien wrote, "we would anticipate some reduction in the number of underrepresented minorities."
The chancellor's comments underscore why the time had come for the regents to speak out, even if their vote was more symbol than substance. Departing UC President  Jack Peltason and the nine chancellors are deeply committed to preferential policies. That's about as surprising as the revelation that the GOP regularly nominates Republicans for president; for years, no one who opposed preferences could hope for a high-ranking position in the UC system. But now the regents are seeking a new president for UC, and they must ensure that the person they choose supports reform and will appoint and reward administrators accordingly. Expect some sudden conversions in the upper echelons as a result.
The reason a straightforward declaration of non-discrimination causes such anguish and confusion is that the population of UC-eligible high school graduates doesn't remotely "reflect" California's diversity, at least if reflection is understood to mean a rough proportionality. Overall, according to the most recent figures from the California Postsecondary Education Commission, 12.3 percent of graduates are fully eligible for admission, but the disparities are stark:
nLatino: 3.9 percent
nAfrican-American: 5.1 percent
nWhite: 12.7 percent
nAsian-American: 32.2 percent
The regents attempted to get around these discomforting statistics by allowing special consideration for individuals who have "suffered disadvantage economically or in terms of their social environment (such as an abusive or otherwise dysfunctional home or a neighborhood of unwholesome or antisocial influences)." 
If it is possible to devise a worse policy than the current one, this is probably it. Of course it is appropriate for admissions decisions to take into account the obstacles that a student has overcome, because it's an indication of future success in overcoming obstacles, including weak academic preparation. Universities have always done that. But it's cynical, at best, to assume that family and social disadvantage are the exclusive possession of "underrepresented minorities."
Furthermore, the resolution sets up a task force specifically to increase the eligibility rate of these disadvantaged students, when surely the greater problem is to increase the number of high-achieving Latino and African-American students including those who have loving families and comfortable homes.
Last week's media circus has obscured the fact that the regents did not change either the eligibility requirements for the UC system as a whole or their policy of guaranteeing every UC-eligible student admission to some UC campus (although not necessarily their first choice). That essential point has hardly been mentioned, so it is sad but not surprising that many students have misinterpreted what the regents' action means to them.
"I wouldn't even try to apply to any UCs," a black high school senior told a reporter. "Now our opportunities to get into college are taken away."
She's wrong. Anyone who was UC-eligible before is eligible now. If  the regents are serious about their commitment to outreach, the first priority in that effort has to be to help high schools inform their students — accurately, early and often — about what they have to do to qualify for UC and to succeed once they get there.
Raising expectations for all students is better than lowering standards for a few.