UC delays affirmative action decision
Regents postpone preference program review until March
By Michael Howerton
Daily Bruin Staff
SAN FRANCISCO — After a morning of student protests, arrests
and sharp criticism from faculty representatives for ignoring the
input of the university community, the Board of Regents dodged two
proposals to change their July vote eliminating affirmative
action.
Looming over the board’s vote yesterday was the California Civil
Rights Initiative, an anti-affirmative action measure which has yet
to acquire enough signatures to get onto the state’s November
ballot.
With that in mind, the board voted 12-4 to postpone Student
Regent Ed Gomez’s proposal to rescind the July vote.
But the biggest surprise of the morning meeting was Regent
Judith Levin’s decision to postpone her own proposal, which would
have made the July vote nonbinding for a year so the Academic
Senate could add its input to the issue.
After yesterday’s meeting, her proposal was expected to bring
about a close showdown at the meeting. The anticipation of such a
battle was great enough to bring Gov. Pete Wilson to only his
fourth regents’ meeting to defend his position.
"We decided (last night) that we would see what the mood was
following Gomez’s proposals (which failed)," Levin said. "Knowing
that the board was not considering any changes to its policies, we
decided to postpone mine indefinitely rather than lose a vote and
reaffirm the passage of SP-1 and SP-2 (the anti-affirmative action
measures)."
Additionally, Levin countered rumors that she had been the
target of last-minute coercion by the governor and other state
officials. "I’m a little fish on the board – they have enough
support on this board to influence me in other ways than to call me
late at night."
She added that yesterday’s meeting had become too tainted by the
politics surrounding the California Civil Rights Initiative to be
productive.
"The continuing and blatant political interference into the
proceedings of this board and our inability to conduct full
reasoned debate and meaningful consultation" has rendered the
atmosphere detrimental to her proposal, she said.
After the vote, she expressed hope that when she reintroduces
her proposal, possibly at the March meeting, the atmosphere might
be less politically charged.
"I’m not disappointed," said Levin about removing her proposal
from the voting table for now. "What this means is that we have the
opportunity to present the same proposal at a later meeting of the
regents and no one can change it."
Wilson, arriving just moments before the session opened,
reaffirmed his commitment to remove racial preferences in admission
policies and galvanized the board to uphold Regent Ward Connerly’s
measures which the board adopted by 15-10 and 14-10 majorities last
July.
"Racial preferences are by definition racial discrimination,"
Wilson said.
"Abolishing them last July was not only necessary to meet our
mission as an institution of higher learning committed to the
fundamental American principles of equal opportunity and individual
merit, it was critical to maintaining support from the millions of
hard working Californians whose taxes finance this
institution."
Responding to charges that the CCRI had unnecessarily
politicized yesterday’s vote, Wilson said that there was no direct
connection between that measure and the Board of Regents.
"This vote would have happened the same way with or without
CCRI," Wilson said after the meeting.
Similarly, Connerly stressed that CCRI played no role yesterday,
going so far as to refuse to answer questions outside about the
CCRI because he wasn’t wearing his "CCRI hat."
Although Gomez brought his proposal to fully rescind SP-1 and
SP-2 before the board with the knowledge that it faced certain
rejection, he used his presentation to verbalize his disapproval of
and opposition to the board’s policies.
"I respect the faculty, staff, and students who go through daily
the problems you create for them," Gomez told his fellow regents.
"You can table my proposal, but it will cause repercussions. When
you disrespect the students, faculty and the staff, the reaction
will come."
Despite his warnings, Regent William Bagley moved successfully
to postpone Gomez’s proposals indefinitely by a 12-4 majority.
The vote followed a presentation on the concept of shared
governance by the Faculty Committee to Rescind SP-1 and SP-2, in
which the committee rebuked the regents for making their July
decision without consulting the faculty members of the Academic
Senate.
The committee charged that the regents violated their obligation
to involve the faculty in matters of admission, in violation of the
UC tradition of shared governance.
"A narrow majority of the board overrode the express consent of
a large number of faculty and administration," read UC Berkeley
Professor Margaret Conkey from the committee’s report. "This is the
worst breach of shared governance in the university in over a
quarter of a century."
Stressing that all nine UC Academic Senates overwhelmingly voted
for the rescinding of SP-1 and SP-2, the committee expressed dismay
at the actions of the board and the direction those actions have
taken the university.
"The display of unity throughout the nine campuses in the
academic senates to vote for the rescission of SP-1 and SP-2 is
historically remarkable," said UC Berkeley Professor Jerome
Karabel, a member of the committee.
"The policy has already done tangible harm in that it has
altered the pool of applicants in an adverse way," he continued.
"Is this the kind of university we want – where the regents insert
themselves over the recommendations of faculty and staff?"
Despite the faculty’s complaints that their voice has been
ignored, Wilson insisted that the faculty had indeed been consulted
and their opinions have been considered.
"We have heard their opinions at great length," Wilson said of
the faculty’s positions on affirmative action and shared
governance, despite the fact that he did not arrive at the meeting
until after all the faculty presentations. "The decision is ours
… we must get on with implementing it."
At the core of the Academic Senate’s call to rescind the
measures is not the disagreement with the removal of affirmative
action polices, but rather how the board arrived at their decision
in July.
"The faculty is not one monolithic body against the regents, but
we are disappointed over the lack of consultation," UC Berkeley
Professor Jenny Franchot told the regents.
UCLA Chancellor Charles Young, advocating the importance of the
shared governance tradition, expressed regret that the regents have
refused the input of the faculty.
"Consultation is meaningful and that this board has made its
decision without consulting with the faculty and administration
shows that something is wrong," Young said.
While some viewed yesterday morning’s presentation by faculty
members as correcting the fact that their voices have been shut out
up till now, others indicated that the faculty’s recommendations
only fell on the deaf ears of the regents.
"They don’t care," said Regent Richard Russell of his fellow
regents attitude toward faculty input. "Many view this as a
colossal waste of time; in their minds it was a time for the
faculty to vent and that has now happened. There is no chance that
this board will be moved by the faculty."
But Board Chairman Clair Burgener disagreed, saying that today’s
meeting helped mend the rift which has grown between the regents
and faculty over affirmative action.
"I think we made progress today," Burgener said. "Shared
governance to them (faculty) has a hell of a lot do to with
admissions – that’s their life’s work: deciding who should be in
college."
Responding to the vote, several current UC students said that
the vote was neither a defeat nor victory, but an chance to
mobilize even stronger to influence the March meeting.
"I see it as an opportunity for students to organize and
mobilize more effectively than ever throughout the state," said
John Du, UCLA’s undergraduate external vice president. "We have two
months to escalate the movement," he added.
However, another student leader took a different view,
criticizing the regents for linking the UC affirmative action
system’s fate to the California Civil Rights Initiative.
"The California Constitution says the Board of Regents is not a
political board," said Christopher Schemers, a UCLA third-year
political science student and a finalist for next year’s student
regent position.
"It’s ridiculous for the regents to say it’s not a political
board and then wait for the outcome of the CCRI," he said.
With reports from Phillip Carter
See related story