Shared governance debate arrives at Senate
Hayden asks for review of process that repealed affirmative
action
By Michael Howerton
Daily Bruin Staff
The debate over shared governance which has turned the UC Board
of Regents meetings into a battle ground in recent months, moved to
a new artillery site yesterday as volleys flew across the Senate
floor in the state capitol.
The hearing was called by Sen. Tom Hayden (D – Santa Monica),
the chair of the Select Committee for Higher Education, to review
the crisis in university governance and the regents’ decision
process in overturning affirmative action in the university.
University faculty have traditionally been consulted on all
policy decisions under the long-standing practice of shared
governance. Faculty representatives from all nine UC campuses,
which overwhelmingly voted to retain affirmative action policies,
said that the board ignored their input on the matter.
"In pursuing the repeal of affirmative action, Gov. (Pete)
Wilson and his appointed regents significantly changed admissions
policy, an authority historically delegated to the faculty," Hayden
said in a statement explaining why he called the legislative
review.
"This breakdown in the tradition of shared governance promises
to create major demoralization in the university community as well
as a serious identity crisis," he continued. "We need to sort out
the proper role of regents, administration, faculty and students in
setting and implementing university policy."
The July decision to pass measures SP-1 and SP-2, which
eliminated race and gender criteria from UC admissions and hiring
practices, have provoked wide criticism. Regent Roy Brophy, a
proponent of affirmative action, expressed dismay that the long
tradition of consultation with the faculty was ignored in the
vote.
"It’s a complete violation of everything that has been important
to UC for 80 years," Brophy said at Tuesday’s morning meeting.
Regent Ward Connerly, who initially proposed the measures,
refuted the notion that shared governance had been violated.
Testifying before the Senate Committee, Connerly explained that he
had personally traveled to various campuses in search of faculty of
UC community input on affirmative action in the months before the
vote, but had found the faculty unresponsive.
"There is no crisis of shared governance," he said at the
meeting. "The regents have the authority to make the decision, and
they made it. We wanted to consult with (the faculty), but you
can’t consult with a blank wall."
In addition, Connerly reaffirmed his position on the need to end
programs that have divided the student body and have denied access
to the university for those who deserve it, said Ignatius Anyanwu,
Connerly’s special assistant.
UC President Richard Atkinson said that although he did not
believe that the principal of shared governance was violated in the
decisions, he added that the lines of communication among the
regents, the faculty and the administration had failed and needed
improvement.
"Shared governance means that decisions about issues facing the
university are made through a process of consultation and advice
that involves the faculty, the administration and the regents,"
Atkinson testified before the committee.
"Great faculties make great universities," he continued. "Their
involvement in governing the university is indispensable because
the faculty have firsthand experience of the research and
educational process of what makes it work."
But despite the faculty’s value, the regents have the final say,
he said.
"More than any other kind of management, shared governance
reflects what universities are all about," Atkinson said. "And
under our system of shared governance, the regents are responsible
for setting policy for the university."
Yesterday’s legislative review was a common formality, Anyanwu
explained. It was not predicated on the assumption that the regents
acted improperly, but merely examined how the board arrived at its
decision.
"(The committee) was seeking to understand, rather than looking
for a constitutional conflict," he said. "The Board of Regents is
given constitutional autonomy to run the UC system. Not even the
harshest critics have ventured such a tactic (as to challenge the
board’s behavior on constitutional grounds)."
Last Friday, however, UC Santa Barbara’s newspaper, the Daily
Nexus, sought to do just that as it filed a lawsuit against the
regents. The suit, which seeks to overturn the regent’s decision,
claims that the board violated the open-meeting act in arriving at
their July decision.
The Nexus contends that Wilson, a regent by virtue of his
office, lined up votes in private telephone conversations prior to
the open-board vote. In the suit, they claim that this was a
violation of the Bagley-Keene Act, which promotes fair access to
public decision making meetings.Comments to
webmaster@db.asucla.ucla.edu