Calls for the resignation of UC President Robert Dynes by state
legislators earlier this month was not the first time that state
government officials have tried to influence the UC’s
decisions.
Though under different circumstances and much more state
pressure, major and controversial decisions by the board have been
heavily influenced by state politicians in the past.
Governors and state legislatures were crucial to the 1967 firing
of UC President Clark Kerr for not doing enough to stop student
protestors at UC Berkeley, as well as the ban of affirmative action
in the UC admissions process in 1995.
Earlier this month, three state senators called for the
resignation or firing of Dynes, after a state audit of the
university found that he and other UC officials were involved in
several severe policy lapses in compensation over the past several
years.
Dynes, who is scheduled to speak at the UC Board of Regents
meeting today, told the Los Angeles Times last week that he has no
plans to step down.
“I’m not going to. It would be less stressful,
frankly, but this university is worth the effort,” he
said.
If the regents do not vote to fire Dynes, the only way for the
legislature to directly fire a UC president would be to strip the
UC of its autonomy.
Though no legislation has ever passed for the state to directly
fire a UC official, Kerr was fired partly due to pressure from the
governor at the time, Ronald Reagan.
During the 1960s’ Free Speech Movement that emerged from
student protests at UC Berkeley, Kerr was criticized by
conservative government leaders for being too lenient on student
protesters. The FBI was also tracking Kerr because he fought
against the firing of UC Berkeley faculty who refused to sign
anti-communist loyalty oaths required of UC faculty in 1949.
UCLA political science Professor Susanne Lohman said
Kerr’s situation was much different from Dynes’ because
of the political climate at the time. She said Kerr’s firing
was due to a fundamental political disagreement that involved the
whole state.
“McCarthyism and later the student protests really split
society into left and right,” she said.
Lohman said it is also important to distinguish between the
different pressures the government exerts on the university. What
happened to Kerr is important because it was an example of the
government interfering with the university for political reasons,
whereas politicians are now calling for the resignation of Dynes
because of administrative mistakes, she said.
Though popular with students and faculty, Kerr was seen as being
too liberal by a newly elected governor representing a
conservative-leaning public.
Kerr was fired by the regents in a 14-8 vote at their Jan. 20,
1967 meeting, which was the first meeting after Reagan was
inaugurated into office.
At the meeting, Regent William Coblentz, who voted against
Kerr’s firing, said Kerr had been an outstanding
administrator and attributed his dismissal to Reagan.
“I am deeply saddened that a change in Sacramento has
meant a change in the presidency of this university,”
Coblentz said.
Then-Assembly Speaker Jesse Unruh told the Daily Bruin in 1967
that the principal reason given by the board was that Kerr had
“lost the confidence of the regents and the people and was no
longer useful to the university.”
Board Chairman Theodore Meyer denied that Kerr was fired because
of budget pressure from Reagan.
In another instance of government influence on the UC, the
regents voted in 1995 to end affirmative action during Gov. Pete
Wilson’s term.
An opponent of affirmative action, Wilson appointed Ward
Connerly, a vocal opponent of offering preferential treatment based
on race and gender, as a regent in 1993. Connerly later introduced
the issue to the board and led the regents in a 14-10 vote for SP1
and SP2, two anti-affirmative action policies.
During the debate at the regents’ meeting on Jan. 20,
1995, some state legislators alleged that the regents served as
political tools in the hands of Wilson, and the governor was there
to personally state his support of abolishing affirmative action at
the UC, according to Daily Bruin archives.
“Students at the University of California should achieve
distinction and will achieve distinction without the use of the
kind of preferences that have been in place,” Wilson told the
regents.
Prior to the vote, hundreds of students protested and sent
letters to the regents in support of affirmative action by the UC
president, all the campuses’ chancellors and other
administrators.
Lohman said the situation was a “clear-cut case of the
government not wanting affirmative action. … The government
wanted to do away with it and the regents caved into the
pressure.”
She added that there is always going to be some political
interference at the UC because it is a publicly funded university
and must take into consideration what the people of the state
want.
But unlike Kerr’s case, where the governor and most
Republican legislators agreed on the firing of Kerr, there are only
a few senators calling for Dynes to resign. Lohman said it would be
hard for individual legislators to exert enough pressure to fire a
president.
So far, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a de-facto regent member,
has stood by Dynes, saying he should be allowed time to fix the
UC’s compensation problems.
Sen. Jeff Denham, R-Salinas, who is calling for Dynes to be
fired, said Dynes failed in his responsibility to see that
university policies were followed.
“I strongly believe that firing Dynes would be in the best
interest of the university,” Denham said.
In response to legislators’ concerns, Chairman Gerald
Parsky said he believed it is in the best interest of the UC for
the regents to have all the relevant information available before
deciding on a plan of action for management and compensation
practices.
“The regents will also determine, on a case-by-case basis
beginning at our May meeting, how people should be held accountable
for policy violations and other acts deemed to be
inappropriate,” Parsky said, referring to the board meeting
this week.