The University of California regents will consider taking the unusual step of passing a resolution to oppose a statewide ballot measure championed by one of their own: Ward Connerly's effort to bar the state from collecting racial data.

Set to appear on March's ballot, the measure would prohibit the state and other public entities, such as the university, from classifying certain people by race, ethnicity, color or national origin.

UC President Richard Atkinson fears the measure could severely restrict research and the university's ability to inform public policy. The regents will consider opposing the measure Thursday in San Francisco at what is expected to be an emotionally charged debate.

In the last 24 years, just nine ballot measures unrelated to bonds have come before the board. The last was in 1993, when the regents voted to support a measure maintaining the state sales tax at 6 percent.

Connerly is no stranger to statewide initiatives. He championed Prop. 209 in 1996, which ended racial preferences in admissions and hiring. He has said this latest effort, which he calls the Racial Privacy Initiative, is the next step in working toward a colorblind society where people no longer classify themselves by race.

Connerly could not be reached for comment. His Web site, racialprivacy.org, states that, "By helping California government stop obsessing about race, RPI will unite us to create a colorblind state for our children and grandchildren, one that is more respectful of the inherently private and complex nature of racial identity."

A vote by the regents to oppose the measure would be a symbolic public stand. Student regent Dexter Ligot-Gordon believes many people don't realize the potential consequences should the initiative pass. A vote of opposition by the regents, he said, would send an important message.

"The University of California has been the epicenter of dealing with issues of race and ethnicity in higher education: The entire country looks and follows what we do," Ligot-Gordon said. "The importance of this vote is critical to inform the state of California how this initiative is going to impact the state institutions that serve the people of California."

The initiative does have exemptions. It would permit the collection of data to comply with federal law, to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program which would otherwise withdraw federal funds from the state, and for medical research subjects and patients.

The university spent six months researching how it uses racial and ethnic data and how the ballot measure could affect its research. UC officials concluded that the university would probably be restricted from using even the exempted data for internal purposes and research. Such restrictions and lack of data could hinder UC's ability to attract the highest-caliber scholars and graduate students in certain disciplines, university officials wrote in a memo to regents.