According to the LA Times, in one case he wrote to the chancellor at Berkeley on behalf of an applicant on the waiting list. The letter did get attention. Among other things, it noted a donation to the law school an associated of Blum was poised to make.
There are two noteworthy elements in the story. One is that although the state auditor got the documents from Berkeley, Berkeley doesn't seem to have them. (Did the auditor get the original with no one making copies at Berkeley?)
...(Berkeley spokesperson Janet) Gilmore... said Berkeley officials have asked the auditor for the underlying documents that led to the findings “for several months now” but have not yet directly received any material...
The other is that the applicant was ultimately not admitted, despite the special attention the case received.
...The redacted emails appeared to indicate that the applicant was not admitted...
Although the letter was "accepted" by Berkeley contrary to policy and discussed, it appears that ultimately officials did the right thing, even if Blum didn't. It's not clear what would define not "accepting" the letter. Trashing it? Return to sender? No such chancellor at this address? The problem was at Blum's end of the transaction, at least in this case.** There is no way that a letter from a regent to a chancellor is not going to receive some measure of attention.
An ethics review of Blum's actions is now underway.
The article is at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-09-25/how-uc-berkeley-handled-a-regents-inappropriate-support-letter-to-get-student-admitted
===
*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2020/09/a-bunch-of-times.html
===
**UPDATE: Later news stories indicate that another applicant endorsed by Blum was accepted.
No comments:
Post a Comment