Regent to re-examine affirmative action today
Students protesters expected at meeting in San FranciscoBy
Michael Howerton
Daily Bruin Staff
SAN FRANCISCO — A showdown is being staged as members of the
Board of
Regents face off today in a battle over the fate of affirmative
action in
the University of California.
So politically charged is today’s meeting that Gov. Pete Wilson,
who has
only attended two regent meetings to date, is planning to attend
the
session to reaffirm his commitment to end affirmative action. On
the other
side, hundreds of student protesters are expected to rally
outside the
doors of UC San Francisco, threatening to close down streets and
blockade
the meeting.
Two competing proposals, one to rescind the July decision
completely and
one to put the decision in the hands of faculty, have divided
the regents
into opposing camps that leave the fate of affirmative action in
the UC
system uncertain until the vote today.
Proposing to amend resolutions SP-1 and SP-2, which struck down
the use
of gender and race preferences in admissions, hiring and
contracting,
Regent Judith Levin criticized the board for making their
decision in
complete isolation from the rest of the UC community. She
maintained that a
legitimate decision can only be made with full input from all
parts of the
university.
"What occurred created such a schism between the regents and
the
faculty, staff and students that … it will be impossible to
maintain the
university’s dedication to excellence in the destructive
environment it
brought about," she said.
Levin’s proposal would make the anti-affirmative action
measures
non-binding for a year while the UC president prepares a report
on them and
allows for input from others in the university. After the year,
the regents
would have the option of accepting new recommendations, changing
the
measures or continuing undeterred.
"My proposal puts no value of right or wrong on SP-1 and 2,"
Levin said.
"All it’s asking for is additional time to involve faculty
in
deliberations. The Board of Regents would still be the decision
making
body."
If her proposal is voted down today, Levin said it would
reaffirm that
shared governance and full deliberation is not a value of the
board and the
effects would be absolutely devastating to the reputation of the
University
of California.
"The regents may mouth the value they see in the faculty," Levin
said,
"but when push comes to shove, when it comes to consulting with
faculty,
the regents are not going to do it.
"We all know that affirmative action is a band-aid for
tremendous social
problems and it needed updating and changes, but it did not need
to be
thrown out as a policy," she continued.
In addition to Levin’s proposal to amend the measures is Student
Regent
Ed Gomez’s proposal to fully rescind both measures from July,
which
eliminated affirmative action in the UC system.
Describing why he is bringing the rescission motions to the
board, Gomez
said that the regents’ July decision lacked moral authority
because it was
made without adequate communication between the university’s
parts.
"We have to look systematically at how this whole issue has been
taken,"
Gomez said. "There was no consideration of what the faculty,
chancellors,
students, staff and community members had told the regents at
the
beginning."
The two proposals have split the board evenly, provoking fears
that
neither side may have the necessary number of votes. In light of
this,
Regents Roy Brophy and William Bagley have proposed a third
alternative: to
table Levin’s item until March, when the status of the
California Civil
Rights Initiative is more clear.
A ballot measure aiming to end all affirmative action in
California, the
initiative still has not collected enough signatures to
guarantee its
placement on the Nov. 1996 ballot.
Citing the need for additional deliberations, Brophy said that
now was
not the time to bring affirmative action back to the board.
"Ed (Gomez) is very well meaning, but it’s going to do more harm
than
good to bring it back now because it’s going to solidify those
who were yes
votes in July," Brophy argued.
"If there is a wrestling match here, the re-vote will go the
same way
because the same wording is in the measures – it’s just an
exercise in
futility," Brophy added.
Despite this, Levin criticized the concept of tabling as another
example
of politics manipulatingthe Board of Regents’ decisions.
"The issue we have to address here is that the Board of Regents
acted
under political pressure in July," Levin said. "By postponing
this decision
until March, we are again aligning ourselves to political
pressures."
Regent Ralph Carmona also took offense to Brophy’s assertion
that today
would mirror July’s decision, because of the morning session on
faculty
"shared governance," which will allow the UC’s faculty to
express their
grievances to the board.
"A lot depends on what the faculty says, and what the students
do
tomorrow," said Carmona, referring to a possible protest at
today’s
meeting. "The whole realm of (faculty) expertise will be at odds
with the
politics (on the board)."
With Gov. Wilson in attendance and large protests expected, more
than 75
university police officers in riot gear are expected to be used
to secure
the facility. Additionally, California Highway Patrol and San
Francisco
police officers are being held on reserve in the event of a
serious
disruption.With reports by Phillip Carter.