Dianne Feinstein’s husband named in UC admissions scandal

Richard Blum, a wealthy investment banker and Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s husband, was revealed Thursday as the mystery University of California regent in a state audit earlier this week who inappropriately penned a letter that likely helped a borderline student gain admission to UC Berkeley.

The explosive audit released Tuesday found that dozens of students were admitted to the most selective UC campuses over more qualified applicants because of exaggerated athletic abilities, connections andwealth.

The audit did not name the individuals involved, instead using generic terms like “coach” and “donor.” The auditor’s office said the lack of identification was meant to protect student privacy. But in response to a specific question from the Bay Area News Group about the identity of the regent, spokeswoman Margarita Fernandez said the report refers to Richard Blum.

In a phone interview Thursday, Blum was unapologetic, saying he did not recall the specific incident mentioned in the audit but that he has written letters on behalf of students to chancellors at various UC campuses for years.

“This is the first time I’ve heard that maybe I did something that wasn’t right,” Blum said. “I think it’s a bunch of nonsense.”

The regents oversee and make decisions about how the state’s most competitive public higher education system should run. Blum, a Cal alumnus, was appointed as a regent in 2002 by then-Gov.

Gray Davis and reappointed in 2014 by then- Gov. Jerry Brown. His 12-year term is set to expire in 2026.

According to the audit, Blumsent a letter in support of a still-unidentified student to the chancellor after the student was placed on UC Berkeley’s waitlist. The chancellor’s office sent the letter to Cal’s development office, which forwardedit totheadmissions office. And despite the fact that the applicant had around a 26% chance of being admitted based on the ratings assigned to their application, they were accepted. The admissions office consultedwith the development office about who to admit and prioritized applicants recommended by the staff and those on a list created by the former admissions director.

“It is therefore likely that the applicant whom the regent recommended would have been on a list that received priority admission from the waitlist,” the audit said. “Given the low likelihood of this applicant’s admission and the prominent and influential role that regents have within the university, we conclude that the decision to admit this applicantwas likely influenced by the regent’s advocacy.”

Blum said he never thought the letters “ever had much influence.”

But the audit called the incident “particularly problematic,” sinceUC policy specifically says that regents should not seek to influence admissions decisions beyond sending letters of recommendation through the regular admissions process, which Blum appears to have sidestepped.