Faculty members contesting SP resolutions speak out
Professors restate reasons to rescind proposed measures Reasons
in favor of rescinding measures restated by professors
By Victor Wolfenstein andEllen Dubois
We are currently nearing the end of the two-week period during
which faculty members of the UCLA Academic Senate are permitted to
vote on the senate mail-ballot resolution requesting that the
regents rescind SP-1 and SP-2. Great care was taken in preparing
the ballot, with scrupulous attention given to balanced arguments,
both pro and con.
Last Thursday, all faculty members received a yellow sheet of
arguments from a group of about 40 members of the faculty who
oppose the resolution. Because campus mailing facilities were used
to distribute their views and because such attention had been given
to balanced arguments accompanying the original resolution, we (the
pro side, and initiators of the resolution) believed this to be a
violation of Academic Senate fairness rules, and brought the case
to the attention of the senate leadership the same day. The senate
leadership seemed to share our concern.
On Tuesday, Feb. 13, we were informed by Professor Lewis, chair
of the senate, that no rules violation had occurred and that we are
free to send out a statement of our own. Had we been so notified
last week, we would have sent out a statement of our own. Now, of
course, the voting period is nearly ended.
Permit us to restate briefly our arguments in favor of the mail
ballot.
POLITICS: The pattern of political intrusion, begun by Gov.
Wilson’s pressuring the regents to pass SP-1 and SP-2, has been
continued with, among other things, the joining of university
policy to the California Civil Rights Initiative campaign.
SHARED GOVERNANCE: In passing SP-1 and SP-2, the regents did not
consult meaningfully with the president of the university, the
council of chancellors, the academic council, and the student
association; and they did not adequately evaluate the efficacy of
existing affirmative action programs, the impact of ending these
programs, or the probable effectiveness of alternative
policies.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION:
1) The university’s affirmative action policies were developed
to institute the regents’ 1988 statement on undergraduate
admissions.
2) The Office of Civil Rights reported in September of 1995 that
our student affirmative action program, as it existed in 1990 (the
model for each following year’s admissions), complied with Title VI
of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the standard outlined in Regents
of the University of California v. Bakke (1978).
3) Our affirmative action policies have been fully compatible
with our pursuit of academic excellence.
Originators of the Legislative Assembly resolution on SP-1 and
SP-2: are as follows: Richard Abel (Law), Emily Abel (Public
Health; Women’s Studies), Reginald Alleyne, Jr. (Law), Alison
Anderson (Law), Richard Anderson (Political Science), Joyce Appleby
(History), Richard Ashcraft (Political Science), Bruce Baker
(Psychology), S. Scott Bartchy (History), Edward Berenson
(History), Gary Blasi (Law), Ruth Bloch (History), Albert Boime
(Art History), Scott Bowman (Political Science), Lester Breslow
(Public Health), Carole Browner (Psychiatry), Jean-Claude Carron
(French), Barry Collins (Psychology), Stanley Du (Health Sciences),
Ellen DuBois (History), Christopher Ehret (History), Henry Em (East
Asian Languages), Julian Eule (Law), Victoria Fromkin
(Linguistics), Jody Freeman (Law), Barbara Geddes (Political
Science), Carole Goldberg-Ambrose (Law), Laura Gomez (Law), Carlos
Grijalva (Psychology), Gerry Hale (Geography), Sondra Hale
(Anthropology; Women’s Studies), Joel Handler (Law), Michael Haslam
(Classics), Nancy Henley (Psychology), Guillermo Hernandez (Chicana
and Chicano Studies; Spanish and Portuguese), Robert Hill
(History), Jerome Hoffman (Health Sciences), John Horton
(Sociology), Shirley Hune (Urban Planning), Yuji Ichioka (Asian
American Studies), Marion Jacobs (Psychology), Donald Kalish
(Philosophy), Jerry Kang (Law), Shushi Kao (French), Edmond Keller
(Political Science), Katherine King (Classics), Robert Kirsner
(Germanic Languages), Marc Lange (Philosophy), Steven Lattimore
(Classics), Gillian Lester (Law), Leon Letwin (Law), Christine
Littleton (Law), Gerald Lopez (Law), Valerie Matsumoto (Asian
American Studies), Susan McClary (Musicology), Thomas McClendon
(History), Carrie Menkel-Meadow (Law), Melissa Meyer (History),
Ruth Milkman (Sociology), Sarah Morris (Classics), Albert Moore
(Law), Don Nakanishi (Asian American Studies), Gary Nash (History),
Melvin Oliver (Sociology), Frances Olsen (Law), Vilma Ortiz
(Sociology), Sule Ozler (Economics), Jeffrey Prager (Sociology),
Jerome Rabow (Sociology), Jan Reiss (History), Milton Roemer
(Public Health), Ruth Roemer (Public Health), Hans Rogger
(History), Vernon Rosario (History), Karen Brodkin Sacks
(Anthropology; Women’s Studies), Shu-mei Shih (East Asian
Languages), Miriam Silverberg (History), Judith Smith
(Physiological Science), Clyde Spillenger (Law), Glenn Stephens
(Political Science), Geoffrey Symcox (History), David Takeuchi
(NPI/Asian American Studies), Masamichi Takesaki (Mathematics),
M.B. Tucker (Psychology), Abel Valenzuela (Cesar Chavez Center),
Robert Walser (Musicology), Eric Wat (Asian American Studies), Jill
Waterman (Psychology), Herbert Weiner (Health Sciences), Cecile
Whiting (Art History), Victor Wolfenstein (Political Science,)
Stephen Yenser (English).Comments to
webmaster@db.asucla.ucla.edu