Thursday, April 25, 1996
California senator weighs in on higher educationBy Michael
Howerton
Daily Bruin Staff
As Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Higher Education, Tom
Hayden has taken a leading role in investigating the issue of
admissions favoritism in the University of California for the
well-connected. In the past week, the California senator held two
investigative hearings into the admissions scandal, one at UCLA
last Friday, and another this past Monday in the State Capitol.
Hayden has vowed to put an end to university favoritism by
introducing legislation if the regents don’t pass a strict policy
limiting their own avenues of influence. Hayden outlines the
prospects of reforming the university’s policies and discusses his
concern for the future of public higher education at the University
of California.
Q: Over the past year, we have seen many changes in the
university and much disagreement and confusion over policy. Some
claim the Master Plan is all but obsolete. And with privatization
increasingly becoming an issue, the admissions privileges coming to
light, the change in affirmative action policies, the controversy
over what exactly shared governance means, do you see a sort of
identity crisis in the UC system?
A: I think there is an identity crisis and we need a time-out to
consider where we are. The symptoms are: One, the students aren’t
represented as a lobby. Two, shared governance is in disrepair. The
faculty seems to be losing its historic prerogatives, with respect
to admissions for example. Three, I don’t know if this is new, but
the regents are becoming more political when they are supposed to
be representing the public trust without political or sectarian
influence … The effect of it is to raise new questions whether
one can be that partisan and involved in fundraising (on) one hand
and on the other be an independent protector of the public trust,
which is what the (California) constitution says.
Q: Do you see a conflict of interest there?
A: We need to sort that out. There’s no way to have a time-out
and say, ‘don’t you think there is something wrong here?’ People
are just entrenching themselves in the acquisition of power game.
It came to a peak when Governor Wilson wanted to run for president.
You know, his campaign defined the affirmative action issue as what
they called a ‘defining moment.’
The governor lined up the votes before hand, I believe; that’s
my opinion, and that’s like the natural evolution of a problem into
a crisis. There’s a problem here about what the regents are
supposed to do, but when the issues become really passionate now it
has become a crisis and you have the regents way over here, and the
faculty way over here, and the students left out. Sure, (there’s) a
big governance problem in the university.
Q: Does it seem so surprising that, since regents traditionally
have been appointed through this culture of favoritism, that they
might engage in the same behavior?
A: I think you are right on target. They probably, until these
revelations came out in the newspapers, never thought twice about
favoritism because that’s how they became regents. For the most
part, not all, they got their appointment because of a culture of
favoritism.
Q: Is this culture of favoritism really so surprising? Students
testified today that they would have been shocked if it wasn’t
happening. It’s a common assumption in institutions.
A: That’s part of what’s so interesting. The public is so used
to revelation about privilege and influence for the powerful. So
what this is doing, in my view, is breeding cynicism among the
public.
Q: What is there to be done about this?
A: Something’s going to happen. It’s going to be a debate
between those who want to formalize favoritism and those who want
to faze it out. Formalize favoritism means that the president (and)
each chancellor have discretionary power to approve a certain
percent of applications based on who their parents are. The other
point of view is, don’t do it with admissions. We know you want to
cultivate donors, cultivate connections, don’t do it with
admissions.
Q: Why would you be against a formalizing policy?
A: Well, you don’t want to build inequalities into public
institutions, there are enough in society already. Why should the
class structure of the United States be the formula for public
higher education? I thought public higher education was supposed to
offset the market power of wealth and privilege, not abolish it,
just offset it.
Q: Do you think the practice of legislators writing requests
should be banned in any way?
A: I’m thinking about it. The problem for legislators is another
problem … I wouldn’t want to write back, ‘I can’t help you.’ So,
it’s a problem. With respect to admissions, what I think we should
do, and we’re mulling this over, is either one of two things: Pass
on a routine character reference, but send it to the admissions
office, don’t send it to the chancellor. Or, do it only where we
professionally know the person.
At some point we need a line drawn, because what the university
inevitable tries to do is curry favor with legislators. So they
have a temptation because I vote on their budget. On the other
side, the legislator, individually, has a temptation to use
influence to get an advantage for somebody.
Q: There has been some mention that you have made requests,
yourself, for various students. Do you have any comment on
those?
A: Sure. I think that somebody in the university or the
political culture is attempting to undermine my investigation …
I’m not saying in some exaggerated paranoid sense they’re out to
get me. But they are (laughing). No, but somebody out there does
not want this investigation to go forward. But it makes me think
I’m on right track here.
Q: Do you deny that you made those requests?
A: They don’t have anything. I believe twice in the past 13
years there were letters I sent involving cases. One, having to do
with a student loan. And the other one, we don’t know, I don’t even
know what it was. We don’t have a record of it. It was probably one
of these things, ‘Can you help me with a glitch?’ It certainly
wasn’t an admissions request.
Q: Would you be against making a recommendation for a person who
worked in your office?
A: No, I think the policy should be if you professionally know
the person. But the fact of the matter is that I haven’t. And you
don’t put it in an envelope and hand it to Chuck Young, tell him to
take care of this, then go call the parents the next day and ask
for a donation …
Q: Do we need the solution to come from the legislature? Do we
need a re-commitment to education on that level?
A: It can come from anywhere, what’s disappointing is how the
downsizing of the imagination is going on, the downsizing of
leadership. Why doesn’t the president take the lead? Why doesn’t
the governor take the lead? It can only be because they don’t think
it is realistic anymore to try to achieve what the previous
generation achieved … If you look at what Roosevelt did, he put
three million people to work in the CCC (Civilian Conservation
Corps) in the 1930s. Today, if someone said ‘I want to do that,’
they would be considered utopian or worse.
Q: So, how do we get out of that cycle?
A: Pain either gives way to healing or it leads into brutal
competition. I don’t know which it’s going to be. I’m not saying
it’s up to your generation, but I don’t know, it’s a problem. It’s
a lack of will, a lack of imagination, a lack of something. It’s
downsizing.
Q: You’ve said that you see your role in life as a watchdog. As
a watchdog on abuses in the university, how do you expect to effect
change?
A: I am a watchdog. That’s what I do. But the people you’re
watching don’t like to be dogged and they always react with a
similar pattern. It’s first, absolute denial, right? Second,
defense, and third, ‘It’s your fault.’ And then eventually they
cough up a better response. Isn’t everybody that way?
Once you become accused of something, you immediately become
reptilian. You defend your territory. You defend your identity.
Nobody has found a convenient way to bring up a failing or a flaw
in another person without causing them to stiffen. That’s kind of
where we are now. A year from now we might have a different
policy.
Q: Are you willing to give it that time or will you try to bring
legislation on the issue?
A: Either way. But really it has to be the university. If you
try to impose something from the outside on an unwilling party they
just find new ways of getting around you. It has to come from
within, like a change of heart, change of culture, change of
policy. I’m hopeful it will. Once it’s out of the shadows it’s
really difficult to defend.
A long-time political activist, California Sen. Tom Hayden has
criticized recent revelations of favoritism for the powerful and
affluent in the University of California admissions process. He has
become a key player in seeking reform.Q&A Homepage