Source
Automatically imported from: http://commons.somewhere.com:80/rre/1995/affirmative.action.at.th.html
Content
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.
affirmative action at the University of California
``` Date: Tue, 25 Jul 95 13:18:23 PDT From: schwartz@physics.Berkeley.EDU (Charles Schwartz) Subject: Regents
July 25, 1995
Governor Pete Wilson scored a major political victory for his Presidential campaign when he lined up his friends on the UC Board of Regents last week to trash the University's affirmative action programs. What will the consequences be?
Here is a collection of statements made at the Regents meeting on July 20-21,1995, which should be of special interest to UC faculty members. They go beyond the particular issue of affirmative action and point out more fundamental challenges to the University. At the end I have posed some questions for my colleagues to ponder.
PLEASE RE-CIRCULATE THIS WIDELY
---
---
During the public comment period of the Regents meeting on Thursday, a number of speakers recited the following statement of principle, which is contained in Article IX Section 9 of the Constitution of the State of California:
"The University shall be entirely independent of all political or sectarian influence and kept free therefrom in the appoint- ment of its regents and in the administration of its affairs"
---
DEAN HAILE DEBAS: "Governor Wilson, President Peltason, Regents, Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you very much for the privilege of addressing you today. I am dean of the School of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, but I have been associated with UC since the early 1970s. The University of California is an institution that I have come to love and greatly admire. I am, therefore, greatly saddened that what should be a solemn and deliberative meeting, the outcome of which will have far reaching effects, has been hijacked by political ambition and obscure personal agendas.
"The debate on affirmative action raises two important philosophical issues: 1) Does the public underwrite higher education to benefit the individual or society? 2) In an academic institution, what body or bodies appropriately determine academic policy?
"While watching CBS's Face the Nation last Sunday, I heard Governor Wilson state that admission to the University of California is based not on merit, but on race and gender. As a UC dean, I feel compelled to respond to that extraordinary statement.
"The admissions policy at UCSF is not politically motivated. It has been very carefully developed, debated, modified and improved over the span of 30 years. An applicant's race or ethnicity, as well as socioeconomic status regardless of race, are considered during the second screening of our eight- step admissions process. This information is used to evaluate the hardships a student has had to overcome to achieve his or her grade point average and MCAT score. We have no quotas or set-asides. A process such as this is the only way to effectively combat the inherent disadvantage of belonging to certain racial or socio-economic groups in American society.
"Our admission system has enabled us to achieve diversity and national academic preeminence. One might ask, But can you show that your affirmative action program directly benefits the diverse population of California? The answer is unequivocally YES!
"A recent UCSF study conclusively confirmed what we have long suspected: that African-American and Hispanic physicians return to serve their respective communities, the very communities that need more doctors!
"Hence, if you, the Regents of the University of California, believe that the public underwrites higher education to benefit society, you cannot close your eyes to these compelling findings. These accomplishments would not have been possible without affirmative action. If you dismantle affirmative action, you are denying the nation the healing opportunity to reject the injustice of race and class discrimination.
"Now, let me be personal and take a look at my own career. I have often examined and rejected that my success was due to special considerations I might have received because I am Black. Like some other successful minorities, I have wanted the world to know that my success represents a personal triumph.
"However, it would be both disingenuous and self-serving if I failed to recognize, and publicly acknowledge, that without the environment created by Affirmative Action, the doors would have been closed to me.
"And now for my final comments: 1) If you vote to dismantle affirmative action, you are doing so in defiance and in utter disregard, of the entire University: in defiance of its president, of all its vice presidents, of all its chancellors, of the academic faculty senates of all nine campuses, of the systemwide academic council, and of the student leadership. 2) It would be an outrage if thirteen or fourteen regents, acting alone, destroyed an historic instrument of social progress in a moment of political frenzy.
"At the very least, you should table the proposal until you have adequately considered the individuals and communities you will harm, and until you can examine it with the thought and deliberation it deserves. Thank you!"
---
-- Thursday evening, Regents' debate --
REGENT JOHN DAVIES (a close personal friend and political ally of Governor Wilson): "I would like to go back and somehow describe if I can the agonizing process we have all gone through here as regents to arrive at this point. This is not a recent political phenomenon. This subject started to percolate over a year ago when a couple at San Diego complained about their son being refused admission to the medical school in San Diego. And that led to studies at the request of regents and presentations beginning in November. All that time, as I recall, there was no Presidential campaign going on. That's just a false charge. This item ... [noise from audience]
"I listened to you for six and a half hours; give me my five minutes. We then had presentations throughout the first six months of this year on various aspects of the subject of affirmative action. ... This has been a very difficult process. What I have learned from that process is that we use race in an impermissible way in governing admissions and contracting and hiring. The proof of it is a statement made here in response to Regent Carmona's question, What would be the effect at Berkeley of eliminating race as a factor in admissions? It would take admissions [of African-American freshman] from 207 to 44. And if that isn't a significant factor, I don't know what is. That's a dominant factor.
"I agree with Regent Leach's analysis. We are not talking about doing away with affirmative action. Everybody on this Board supports affirmative action. [noise from audience]
"We support the goal of achieving diversity. We realize the necessity of having diversity on the campuses. The people of this state have to feel that they are all a part, they have to buy into a system that is healthy for everybody. We cannot exist without doing that. The question is whether this is the right tool to use. My opinion is that we have learned that this tool does more harm than good. Now I am determined to find a different way. And I think Regent Connerly's proposal directs the Academic Senate to develop supplemental factors that could be used, excluding race, to get us a diverse student body that we should have. And if they can't come up with something that will achieve that diversity, then we need new faculty. That should not be that difficult. [noise from audience]
"I am not talking about just economic factors, the whole list of supplemental factors and it would include all the disadvantages we heard spoken to this morning so eloquently by people who have suffered from them. Those factors should be considered, those are obstacles that are overcome, those should help people be admitted into the University. But that doesn't mean it is morally right to award places in the University on the basis of race. I agree with Regent Leach in that respect. So I support both of Regent Connerly's proposals."
---
-- Friday morning, public comment period --
REGENT ROY BROPHY: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am speaking on Ed Policy 305, which is Shared Governance. That permits me to say what I intend to say and that is: If there ever was a violation of shared governance it occurred during the affirmative action vote yesterday. I am not going to talk about how the votes came about, I am not going to talk about affirmative action. ... Your Board managed to circumvent the president. Your board managed to circumvent the chancellors, and also to circumvent the faculty and you managed to circumvent the students. I would say staff too, I am sure they were circumvented somewhere along the line, also it is going to affect them.
"But, it bothers me, not that we passed the thing, not because of what we voted on, not really because of the political pressure that was involved in the vote. But what bothers me more than anything else is for us to circumvent the best people we have, ...those are the Chancellors. That was so unfortunate, and the president and the faculty and the students. But I only hope in the future that we can keep it in mind that if we are going to do something like this let's not have a quick vote and shake hands and go home. We must plan for the future, in the future, that everyone is involved in the process ..."
---
PROFESSOR CHARLES SCHWARTZ: "Two items related to your agenda. The first one is 507 on the Finance Committee: Budget Plan ...
"In connection with budget problems, yesterday's action raises serious budget issue that I think has not been called to your attention. An essential part of Connerly's proposal to change admissions policy involves the redirection and improvement and enlargement of academic outreach programs to K through twelve. This is the essential feature of the program you voted in to get rid of race-based stuff and bring in improved academic outreach. And I ask the very simple question, What is that program going to cost? I believe it was irresponsible of Mr. Connerly to bring that proposal to the Board without a cost estimate. In that document, "
REGENT JOHN DAVIES: "Point of order, Mr. Chairman, which item does this discussion relate to?"
REGENT CLAIR BURGENER (Chair): "Professor, which item on our agenda today do your comments ..."
SCHWARTZ: "This has to do with general budget planning."
DAVIES: "I don't think there is any such item."
SCHWARTZ: "507"
DAVIES: "That is not a general budget item."
SCHWARTZ: "It is integrally related to budget planning. 507 is about cuts in next year's budget and among other things, they are going to be a lot worse to deal with if you were truthful and honest in the commitment this Board made, not just to try and improve academic outreach, but in Connerly's words to achieve effectively the increased UC eligibility of Latinos, Blacks and other underrepresented groups throughout the country. It was irresponsible of this Board not to ask for a cost estimate before you voted for that. It is not going to be a problem solved by throwing a couple of more million into the outreach program. It is an enormously expensive job of social engineering that you have committed yourselves to. And a very practical question, Who is going to pay for that? Thank you, on that topic."
[Some dispute about time for further comments]
SCHWARTZ: "I do thank you for that [additional 3 minutes]. It will be on the implications of what you did yesterday in a broader context. I am not going to argue the pros and cons of affirmative action but what you did yesterday and its implications for the University. A couple of the speakers yesterday spoke to that question, most particularly Professor Simmons and Dean Debas. I think you have no idea of the short term and long term implications of the politicization that came to this Board yesterday. [further objections are heard]
"Mr. Davies will leave. He doesn't care to hear this. This fundamental question of the independence, the political independence of the university: What are and will be the consequences? I don't know yet what the faculty at large thinks, will think about this. But I am very frightened that there will be - regardless of how many times people here say it was not politics, it was some other issue - the impression among many of the faculty at the University and faculty in the national academic community, that this Board has violated its obligation to protect the university from politics and has railroaded in a most divisive political issue into the University. And what enormous harm this can do.
"I think we are going to have to address that issue. You can not turn away from it. It will last for a long time. I suggest, among other things, you review the history of the Loyalty Oath in the fifties. Very interesting parallels; and the great damage that was done by an overzealous Board of Regents responding on high moral grounds to a strong popular public issue.
"It's worse than that. I think Regent Brophy was talking about this: ... the very clear fracture within the Board; and the very clear fracture between the Board and its appointed administrative and faculty representatives. That is a very serious issue whose repercussions are enormous.
"Now, I know that Mr. Brophy [who chairs the Regents presidential search committee] has problems in getting a president that must be overwhelming. You may have one perspective on it, but think about the perspective of faculty people. What self-respecting college president would take this job when he knows he's got a Board of Regents that is likely to come ramming in with God-knows-what political issue next week? But of course, you will find someone to be president. And what will the faculty think of that someone? A political tool of the Regents and whatever political clique happens to be in the majority of the Board. That is not a very healthy way in which to maintain a great university.
"And it's worse than that. Because what also came out clearly yesterday was that members of the Board, at least some of them, believe that the administrators lie to them, conceal facts, and are unwilling to sit down and discuss issues seriously. That is an issue in which I have had personal experience. And you are right. But how can you run a university with such fractures in it? [the gavel is heard]
"I have suggestions, but I've run out of time. Thank you."
---
---
Above and beyond the debate over affirmative action, we see an ancient question now thrust before the faculty of the University of California: QUIS CUSTODIET IPSOS CUSTODES? (who shall keep the keepers themselves?)
The primary responsibility of the Regents is to keep the University "entirely independent of all political or sectarian influence"; but they themselves have now become the trespassers. Who but the faculty, acting together, can mount the effort necessary to restore the principle of academic independence, for the benefit of this university and for others as well? And if we fail to do this, what consequences can we expect?
I invite your responses to this challenge.
Charles Schwartz schwartz@physics.berkeley.edu Physics Department, UCB 510/642-4427 Berkeley, CA 94720 ```
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.