Source
Automatically imported from: http://commons.somewhere.com:80/rre/1996/AFTERMATH.3.html
Content
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.
AFTERMATH #3
``` [Provocative analysis of the conflict over affirmative action at the University of California.]
---
This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help@weber.ucsd.edu
---
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 96 10:01:52 PST From: schwartz@physics.Berkeley.EDU (Charles Schwartz) Subject: AFTERMATH #3
% %%% %%% %%% %%% % % % %%% % % %% % % % % % %% %% %% % % % %%% %% % %% %%%% % % % %%% % %%%% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %%% % % % % % % % % %
AFTERMATH #3 February 12,1996
---
by Charles Schwartz, Physics Department, University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 510-642-4427 schwartz@physics.berkeley.edu
---
A series on questions of university governance flowing from the UC Regents' actions of July 20,1995. Contributions from readers will be considered for future issues, with information, analysis and innovative ideas preferred over mere opinion.
---
SINS OF THE ADMINISTRATION
Atkinson self-destructs. Connerly triumphs.
Previously, AFTERMATH has carried a description and an analysis of the conflict between the faculty and the regents following the latter's vote last July to eliminate the use of ethnic or gender preferences in admissions (Resolution SP-1) and in hiring and contracting (SP-2) at the University of California. Attempting to put aside the debate over affirmative action per se, I have focused on the questions of "shared governance" and "political independence", which the faculty has put at the center of its protest.
Generally, the governance of a university is a three-way partnership involving Faculty (represented by committees of the Academic Senate), Administration (the president, chancellors, and on down the line) and the Board (called regents or trustees.) We know that the Board holds formal/legal authority; and we know that the Faculty is actually in control of the real academic functions; and we also know that, most all of the time, the Administration is the dominant power in matters of policy, planning and finances as well as the overall management of the institution. So, why have I ignored the role of UC's administrators in my study of this present crisis and looked only at the regents and the faculty? I had some reasons, but they were swept away by the startling events at the end of January: the self-destruction of President Richard C. Atkinson.
Here is a summary of the events, with headlines, as reported in the state's leading newspapers January 25 - February 2, and backed up by documents available from the UC Office of the President.
* - -
UC PRESIDENT DELAYS BAN ON ADMISSIONS PREFERENCES. President Atkinson has decided that implementation of the regents' new policy on student admissions will be delayed a year, until fall 1998. This is due to the complexity of the university's admission process, Atkinson explained in a January 19 letter to the Chancellors. Regent Connerly, the author of SP-1&2, is furious and is prepared to call a special meeting of the Board. Governor Wilson is also displeased.
GOVERNOR CALLS UC PRESIDENT ATKINSON ON THE CARPET. "There simply are too many issues and too little time to finish the job in time for the 1997 admissions cycle," Atkinson explained and stood firm in his meeting with the Governor.
UC PRESIDENT IN HOT WATER WITH REGENTS. Ten members of the Board, led by Regent Connerly, have formally called a special meeting scheduled for January 31 as a closed door session to "review the performance" of the president. Such an action is unprecedented since Clark Kerr was fired from this job in 1967. In what appeared as a partial retreat, Atkinson said that his delay would apply only to undergraduate admissions, not to graduate or professional schools.
UC CHIEF YIELDING, REGENT BELIEVES. Regent Connerly:"I have been conferring with President Atkinson and other regents over the last 24 hours and I think there is a reasonably good chance that if the president can work out this governance problem that we have, that there might be a solution in the making and the meeting will not occur." Governor Wilson, declaring he would not allow the regents' authority to be "usurped", said he would attend the special regents meeting.
UC PRESIDENT APOLOGIZES TO REGENTS. Atkinson has sent a draft letter to Connerly, acknowledging that he mishandled the matter and should have consulted more with the regents before deciding on the delay in implementing their policy. Connerly said that this was "a step in the right direction"; but he still wants to go ahead with the special meeting as scheduled. "There are certain issues that have emerged that can only be resolved by a meeting with the president - namely, the role of the chancellors in all this," Connerly said. "If the chancellors are egging the president on (to defy the board), that's something the board needs to address," he continued. "The meeting is on."
REGENTS LET UC CHIEF OFF HOOK. It was decided to cancel the special meeting "after a day of behind-the-scenes negotiations that jammed the phone and fax lines of many a regent's office." One early letter from Atkinson offered to compromise on implementation for the spring, not the fall, of 1998. However, it was Atkinson's later letter to Governor Wilson that finally satisfied Regent Connerly: "We were making sure that Dick (Atkinson) understood that his error was...in trying to make an administrative decision that was clearly a policy decision." Atkinson wrote, "There is no question in my mind that it is the constitutional duty of the Board to set policy for the University, and the role of the President is to implement that policy. I have a legal duty as well as a moral obligation to do so." Regent Glenn Campbell was also pleased with the outcome: "There's been great improvement since we did that [called the special meeting] - the clarification of the policies of who's in charge. The regents are in charge of the asylum."
UC PRESIDENT'S MEA CULPA. Atkinson explained that an unfortunate breakdown in communications led to his recent blow-up with the regents and he took the blame for a series of miscues, including a premature e-mail message sent out by his staff. Atkinson said that he had not intended to bypass the regents when he ordered the delay in implementation of the new admissions policy.
* - -
Let me state, bluntly, my own interpretation of what happened. President Atkinson, probably with the support of the Chancellors, tried an underhanded bureaucratic trick, believing that the regents would allow him to get away with it. He foolishly misjudged the temper and the strength of the Connerly-Wilson faction of the Board. When he finally caved in, the price extracted from him was a complete surrender of the independent authority of his office.
One must know that on January 18, at a regular meeting of the Board of Regents, President Atkinson and his staff presented Status Reports on Implementation of Regents' Resolutions SP-1 (to be in force for admissions by January 1997) and SP-2 (to be in force for hiring and contracting by January 1996). If there was a valid basis for delaying the new policy on admissions until the fall of 1998, it was certainly known by Atkinson and his staff on that date (The very next day is when he sent the new directive out to the Chancellors!); and there is no good reason why he did not mention this matter then.
But, let's try to be generous in our interpretation. Maybe there were miscommunications, maybe there was poor judgment - but no intent on Atkinson's part to deceive or to circumvent the regents. Why, then, was he unable simply to explain the facts and offer an apology for the confusion when he spoke with Governor Wilson and with Regent Connerly in the first days of the affair? Why, then, did he repeatedly offer compromises (delay undergraduate admissions but not graduate admissions; delay to spring 1998 instead of to fall 1998)? No, this generous interpretation just doesn't fit the facts.
I cannot avoid the conclusion that Atkinson & Co. were playing affirmative action politics, just as surely as Connerly & Co. have been playing affirmative action politics. But how stupidly he did it. There was another path, one far more honorable and potentially much stronger, that Atkinson could have taken. He, together with the Chancellors, could have stood openly and firmly with the great mass of the UC faculty who have called upon the regents to rescind their July 20 vote out of respect for fundamental principles of university governance, which the majority of regents had violated. But this opportunity, when offered to him, was rejected; and instead Atkinson chose an arrogant and devious bureaucratic ploy.
All that, however, is minor misconduct compared to the enormous damage that Atkinson has done to the University in his final capitulation before Connerly and his troops. This is about the simple question, Who runs the University of California? To understand this fully, let me trace some recent history as I have followed it. (For more details see my series "Looking Into the UC Budget", Reports # 10, 11, 12.)
When Ward Connerly first joined the UC Board of Regents, in early 1993, he distinguished himself as a newcomer who often voiced opinions, asked questions, and even voted on occasion in direct contradiction of what the then President of the University, Jack Peltason, presented to the Board. When confirmed by the state Senate, Connerly received an inordinate amount of praise from Legislators for his independence, especially his votes against increases in student fees at UC; and that earned him scorn from those who sat at the President's table. (See the newspaper stories of a leaked transcript from the Council of Chancellors meeting in March 1994.)
Connerly urged his fellow regents to take a more active role in policy deliberations and not just be rubber stamps for whatever the UC president laid before them. And Peltason replied at length, in a January 4, 1994, letter, widely circulated among UC officials, giving a definitive description of the policymaking process within the University. I quote the key portions.
"The Board of Regents is the governing body of a great university, an incredibly complex multicampus university. The administration- -and this is also true of the Academic Senate--is not just one of many constituencies, but is the Board of Regents' chosen and publicly designated agent in whom it has vested confidence and to whom it has delegated responsibility to manage the University."
---
"The Board, by its policies, has instructed the President and the Chancellors to consult with constituencies--faculty, staff, students, alumni, and external publics--prior to bringing a recommendation to the Board. By the time a recommendation is presented to the Board it has been through an elaborate consultative process, appropriate for the particular recommendation at issue. Such a recommendation, appropriately, should come to the Board with a VERY STRONG PRESUMPTION THAT IT WILL BE SUPPORTED." (Emphasis in original.)
Frequently, at a meeting of the Board, when some regent starts digging too deeply into the details of whatever subject is under discussion, another member will gently recite the mantra that regents ought not get involved in "micromanagement". Regent Connerly, by contrast, reciting his mantra of "fiduciary responsibility and due diligence", would frequently assert that regents should inquire thoroughly into any aspect of the University that concerned them. When Connerly was made chair of the Committee on Finance in July 1994, he gave a remarkable speech, promising to look deeply into the university's budget, following where the dollars go and looking for ways to cut costs.
It was the issue of affirmative action, and not the budget, that really grabbed Regent Connerly's attention; and this brought him face to face with the administration on its own turf. He was not the first person, nor even the first regent, to discover that high officials of the University of California share certain distinctive characteristics with high officials of tobacco companies or the C.I.A.
I cannot say when it was that Connerly's private passion over affirmative action became entangled with Governor Wilson's political ambitions. Even as I scold regents for not keeping those political and sectarian interests separate from their duty to the University - as the California Constitution requires every regent to do - I should also scold President Peltason for adding anger and frustration to their righteous stew by his high-handedness.
Presidential machinations are nothing new to the University. Traditionally the president controls the agenda and selects the speakers for the regents' meetings. A united front is the rule, not only among administrators but between administrators and Academic Senate chiefs, when facing the Board or the public. But it is worth recognizing, from the experience of UC's affirmative action debate, how damaging that practice (Is totalitarian too strong a description?) can be to the credibility of all involved.
In July Connerly, with a little help from his friend, scored a resounding political victory. Since then, as the former chancellor and new president Dick Atkinson along with his circle of advisors must have been aware, Connerly has been sharp to respond to any challenge, coming from the faculty or from regents who voted against him in July. And in so doing he has staked out the extreme position that there is no such thing as "shared governance" between regents and faculty: while the regents should consult fully with the faculty, through the established channels of the Academic Senate, power and authority resides only with the regents. (See AFTERMATH #1 and #2.)
What has now occurred, in this recent bout with Atkinson, is that Connerly has succeeded in forcing the president to acknowledge the absolute supremacy of the Regents over the Administration. No more "shared governance." This has extraordinary implications which demand our attention. But first, let me convince you that this is what has actually occurred.
The key portion of the final letter that President Atkinson wrote to Governor Wilson on January 29 is as follows: "There is no question in my mind that it is the constitutional duty of the Board to set policy for the University, and the role of the President is to implement that policy. I have a legal duty as well as a moral obligation to do so." And Regent Connerly, in response, released the following statement: "...Given the very gracious and fully explanatory letters sent today from the President to the Regents and to the Governor, I believe the governance issue has been resolved. In the spirit of good faith, I have recommended to my colleagues who joined me in calling the special meeting that it be cancelled. I expect they will concur." There it is, Connerly is satisfied that "the governance issue has been resolved." What a triumph for him.
Let me be sure, dear reader, that you understand what is so astonishing about Atkinson's statement of obeisance. Isn't he just acknowledging the formality of the law as we all know it? Go back and read the paragraphs quoted earlier from Jack Peltason's January 4, 1994, letter to Connerly in which he describes the well- established relationship between the UC Administration and the Regents. Compare that with what Atkinson has now written. The outcome of this power play has turned the University upside down.
What is most telling about Atkinson's letter is what it does NOT talk about. It does not mention "shared governance" in any way, shape or form. It does not make any mention of that great expanse of authority which was formally delegated to the President in the Standing Orders of the Regents and has been practiced for decades. Nor does he even try to stake a claim for the faculty's role in exercising independent authority over such fundamentals as the conduct of teaching, research, academic evaluations, etc. As I read this story, those traditional ideas are now dead. All power now resides directly with the Board of Regents. (I wonder whether Atkinson tried to include in his final letter any reaffirmation of the principles of shared governance, either for his own office or for the Academic Senate. If he tried to do so but was forced by Connerly to abandon that defense, what does that tell us? Or maybe he never even thought about it.)
Where does this leave the University now? Consider this quote from the Los Angeles Times article on January 27: "This is like a corporation in which the chief executive officer doesn't keep the board of directors advised," said one regent who asked not to be identified. "This is a serious thing, forgetting the affirmative action end of it. It's a governance issue."
Most of the regents are people who are very experienced with how corporations work. That is their world. Questions of power, of lines of authority, of Who is the boss around here? - this is bread and butter to them. Somebody needs to stand up and say, very clear and loud, that a university cannot be run like a corporation!
At the moment, absolute power in the University of California has been taken into the hands of the Connerly-Wilson faction of the Board of Regents. Actually, it is more like a dictatorship than like a business corporation because these regents are accountable to nobody but themselves. Let's have a look at the lineup.
The list of ten regents who signed up with Connerly in calling the special meeting to "review the performance" of President Atkinson included one (Montoya) who had voted against SP-1 in July and one new member of the Board (Curt Pringle, Speaker of the Assembly, leading the new Republican majority in that house of the state legislature.) Six other regents (including Wilson), not included in the list of ten, voted in favor of SP-1 and SP-2 last July. Between this group of sixteen regents and the ten others (those who lost the vote last July) there has been continuous open acrimony, certainly exacerbated by this recent flap. The unanswerable question is whether Connerly & Wilson and their closest political allies on the Board will be able to maintain a majority of votes in who-knows-what will be the next divisive issue forced upon the University.
Certainly this recent fracas, aside from its immediate effects, makes it more difficult for UC to deal with the serious long term fiscal and policy problems facing higher education in this state and nation. Note the following comments, from an editorial in the Sacramento Bee on January 30: "There are in fact a great many areas where the regents ought to exercise more policy direction over the course of the university: The history of the past few years - as in the administrative pension scandals, or in the faculty's indefensibly light undergraduate teaching loads - is full of examples. The challenges of the coming years will provide many more. But a public shootout with the university's administration is hardly the way to get there."
Regent Glenn Campbell, the senior member of the Board who is facing the expiration of his second term at the end of this month, has placed two eye-catching proposals on the agenda for the Board's meeting on February 15. One is titled, Discontinuance of Student Regent Position. The other is, Return of Tenure Authority to The Regents. It is not expected that these proposals will gain (m)any votes; but they should be heard as wake-up calls to students and faculty. Indeed, after the collapse of Atkinson's ill-conceived caper (with the Chancellors implicated in the complot) it might be said that Connerly & Co have, at least implicitly, all the Authority they might wish over any and all decisions that UC officials make.
The Faculty Committee to Rescind SP-1&2 has circulated a plan for what the faculty throughout UC might do at this point. They expect that the motion to rescind, which the Board tabled at their January meeting, will be brought up for a vote at the meeting on March 15; and they propose that faculty call for Special Meetings of the Academic Senates on all nine campuses within a week after that date. Each campus would consider a motion of No Confidence / Censure of the Regents if warranted by the Board's behavior. In addition, they suggest the creation of a Special Commission to investigate and report back to the faculty on alternative forms of governance for the University. The steering committee asks that reactions and further suggestions be sent to them via e-mail to: maxima@garnet.berkeley.edu
Unless some marked change in the regents' behavior should occur, a vote of No Confidence by the faculty seems exactly the right step. Such a vote is not a referendum on affirmative action nor is it just the rhetorical outpouring of a bunch of unhappy professors. It announces a considered conclusion: that the faculty has "no confidence" that those now in charge are capable of running the University of California with the academic integrity that is required for any quality university. It says that UC's ship of state is broken and this university is in great jeopardy. It is a cry for rescue.
In the next issue of AFTERMATH, I plan to discuss a variety of ideas about how to rescue this university.
If some readers believe that I have misinterpreted the current situation, or exaggerated its gravity, please let me hear from you. ```
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.