Curator's involvement in affirmative action petition is conflict of interest

As a member of the University of Missouri Board of Curators, David Wasinger has agreed to uphold the University's mission and goals, but as a private lawyer for the law firm Murphy Wasinger L.C. in Brentwood, he has sworn to aid his clients in the best possible manner.

Yet, when Wasinger decided to become involved in a court battle representing a group trying to convince voters to change the Missouri constitution to exclude diverse preferences in admissions processes at state universities, like the University of Missouri, a line needs to be drawn.

At the University of Missouri, one of the most diverse student populations in St. Louis, rules and regulations are in place in the hiring and admissions offices and the curators of the University of Missouri vow to support those rules and regulations.

In fact, high school seniors applying to the UM system who do not have the qualifications such as standardized test scores or class rankings to meet the University's requirements for admission have the option of going in front of a committee that considers certain circumstances, such as gender and race.

So, how can Wasinger play both sides of the fence: support affirmative action regulations at the UM system, yet represent Tim Asher, a sponsor of the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative amendment in Missouri courts, to help push through a proposal that would basically dismantle years and years of affirmative action?

The conflict-of-interest policy for curators does not allow them to vote on or influence the University's decisions on issues resulting in some sort of physical or financial gain. So, as long as the curators do not vote on the ballot initiative, there seems to be a loophole, allowing Wasinger a free ride.

However, the conflict-of-interest policy also states, "An employee's outside employment or business activities and interests must not interfere with the employee's regular duties nor represent a conflict of interest."

While it may not be a direct vote, how is his involvement in the Missouri courts supporting the Civil Rights Initiative not interfering with his promise to defend affirmative action at the University of Missouri?

The case can also be made that Wasinger's action constitute consultation, which according to the UM system's policy regarding conflict-of-interest "whether income producing or otherwise, is the application of professional and scholarly expertise in the external community."

An attorney's job is nothing but consultation, and as the policy states, "consultation may in some instances also constitute a business interest requiring disclosure and approval when the entity…is in competition with the University, or where the consultation itself competes with the work of the University."

The Civil Rights Initiative is arguably a conflict, especially for the last reason. Wasinger's aid in pushing through some form of legislation banning affirmative action would ultimately affect how admissions offices at UM-St. Louis and other public universities rate and interview potential students and ultimately, the diversity of the campus would become less heterogeneous.

With a campus that is about 18 percent black, according to fall 2007 statistics from the Office of Admissions, what would happen to that figure if a ballot passed?

At the University of California-Berkeley Boalt Hall Law School, after affirmative action was eliminated in state universities' admission processes, enrollment numbers for minorities fell between 1996 and 1997.

"African-American applicants were particularly affected as their admission numbers declined by 81 percent from 75 to 14, but acceptances of Hispanics also fell by 50 percent," stated a study published in Social Science Quarterly by authors Thomas Espenshade and Chang Chung.

Supporting this initiative basically negates what the University admissions and hiring processes work so hard to achieve: a diverse campus community. Wasinger should withdraw his involvement from the case and keep his job as curator and lawyer separate.

"Our Opinion" piece reflect the majority opinion of the Editorial Board: Paul Hackbarth, Editor-in-Chief; Carrie Fasiska, Managing Editor; Cate Marquis, A&E Editor; LaGuan Fuse, Sports Editor; Tom Schnable, Assistant Sports Editor; Jessica Keil, Co-Features Editor; Ryan Scherr, Co-Features Editor; Shannon McManis, Design Editor; and Matthew Hill, Photo Editor.