Source
Automatically imported from: http://commons.somewhere.com:80/rre/1996/AFTERMATH.4.html
Content
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.
AFTERMATH #4
``` ---
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: Mon, 4 Mar 96 11:48:16 PST From: schwartz@physics.Berkeley.EDU (Charles Schwartz) Subject: AFTERMATH #4
% %%% %%% %%% %%% % % % %%% % % %% % % % % % %% %% %% % % % %%% %% % %% %%%% % % % %%% % %%%% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %%% % % % % % % % % %
AFTERMATH #4 March 4,1996
---
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.
---
SOME IDEAS ABOUT HOW TO RESCUE THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
1. Statement of the Problem 2. Modification of the Board of Regents 3. Unionization of the Faculty 4. Privatization 5. Secession 6. Negotiation 7. Outlook
---
1. STATEMENT of the PROBLEM
Issues #1 and #2 of AFTERMATH examined the impact of the UC Regents' July vote on affirmative action upon the principle and practice of faculty "shared governance." Regent Ward Connerly, backed up by Governor Wilson, has stated the view that the regents do not share the governance of this institution with anybody; and the Board majority's demonstrated disdain for the voice of the faculty - as expressed in overwhelming votes by the Academic Senates on all nine campuses of the University of California - appears to confirm that view. In issue #3, examining the confrontation between UC President Richard Atkinson and the Connerly-Wilson leadership of the regents, I concluded that the Administration has surrendered all of its independent authority and that the majority faction on the Board of Regents now rules supreme.
I stated that this is an intolerable situation for any quality university and that a call for rescue - in the form of a faculty vote of "no confidence" in the regents - was both proper and necessary; and I invited response from any readers who might disagree with this stern judgment.
Regent Connerly did respond. Here is his telephone message: "Charlie, I have just read your Aftermath number three, at the end of which you invite readers to call you if they believe that you have misinterpreted the current situation or exaggerated its gravity. I am calling to say, Yes, with regard to both of those questions. Thank you."
I wrote to him, February 17, as follows: "Dear Ward, "I appreciate your brief phone message responding to my AFTERMATH #3; and I would like to invite you to write something expanding on this, for the benefit of my readers throughout UC. "The bottom-line question is: What is the status of "shared governance" (Regents/Administration/Faculty) at the University of California? I have concluded that it is now dead. You previously stated that it did not exist. So where do we disagree?"
Sending a follow-up note 10 days later, I got this reply: "Charlie, Thank you for the invitation, but time will not permit a response. Ward "
Lacking an explanation in his own words, I still want to try to make logical sense out of the various things Connerly has stated about shared governance. It appears to be something like this: The regents have not killed shared governance; the faculty and the administration at UC should continue to exercise the traditional functions delegated to them, but they must always stay within the policies that the Board of Regents may enact. It's like a job at the Ministry of Truth, under the watchful eye of Big Brother.
How many other responses have I received from readers expressing disagreement with my conclusions? None. Of course that silence doesn't prove me correct. I expect that many readers, especially among my colleagues on the UC faculty, would prefer to withhold judgment, being concerned about this situation but hopeful that things will somehow sort themselves out. Prudence, rather than rash judgment, is the disposition expected of professors. But I would ask, Which is the prudent course in a situation such as this? If the faculty really believe that the traditional norms of shared governance, along with the Constitutional mandate that "The university shall be entirely independent of all political or sectarian influence and kept free therefrom...in the administration of its affairs", are such important principles for this institution, then the prudent course is to sound the alarm and move thoughtfully to action whenever a serious threat appears.
At their January meeting, the Board of Regents decided to table indefinitely the proposal, requested by the faculty, that they rescind the resolutions SP-1 and SP-2 passed last July. It has been strongly hinted that an attempt would be made at the March meeting of the Board to bring this motion up for a vote; and this morning I learned from the Office of the Secretary of the Regents that the motion is indeed on the agenda for March 14.
If the Board should respect the faculty's express concerns and vote to rescind SP-1 and SP-2, that would open the way to a negotiated resolution of the conflicts - the conflict over shared governance as well as the conflict over the university's affirmative action policy. (The anticipated vote in November on a statewide initiative on affirmative action will doubtless be the determining factor in that matter.) If a majority of the regents continue to ignore or reject the faculty's view, the governance of the University of California is clearly "broken" and it must be fixed. The faculty, if it moves to the formality of a vote of No Confidence, must next ask the question, How shall the University be rescued?
First, it is worth asking, Who might lead the rescue? Such leadership is not likely to come from outside. The AAUP, which has initiated a formal investigation of our crisis, may issue an instructive report but it has no significant power to act.
Some members of the State Legislature are concerned. The Senate's Select Committee on Higher Education, chaired by Tom Hayden, held a hearing in Sacramento on February 20 on "The Crisis of Governance and Affirmative Action at the University of California." Faculty leaders from both the Academic Council and the Faculty Committee to Rescind SP-1&2 spoke, as did President Atkinson and several regents. However, there was so much partisan battle going on among the Legislators themselves that one should not expect effective rescue from that quarter.
Within the University, leadership is usually found in the President and the Chancellors; but their recent performance has left them without much respect from either the regents or the faculty. Similarly, the top leadership of the Academic Senate - the Academic Council and its representatives at the Board of Regents - have badly compromised themselves in the eyes of many faculty as well as regents. That leaves only the faculty itself to actively lead the rescue and restore the academic integrity of this university.
At this point some will conclude: Forget it. Faculty members are individuals full of ideas and ideals, bold in their words and lofty pronouncements, but they will never do anything. Action, especially collective action, is not in their make-up. The most common behavior of an outraged bunch of professors is to gather and declare something to be "intolerable" and then go back to their work, tolerating the thing. This is the present challenge: whether the faculty of UC, acting in concert from the grass roots, can move itself deliberately and effectively to restore a proper balance in this University's governance, overturning the recent coup carried out by the Connerly-Wilson junta.
The intent of this paper is to lay out, in rough sketches, several ideas for strategies that might serve that purpose. My hope is to stimulate the widespread thinking and discussion that must begin soon if any of these ideas, or any others that may emerge, are to become useful.
One essential thought to keep in mind is the following. This conflict between the faculty and the regents is not simply about the faculty wanting to preserve its "traditions" or its "privileges" or any such self-centered objective. What is at stake is the fulfillment of the University's mission - its service to the public, to its students, its alumni, and to the general welfare of society - and this must be kept in the forefront of debate.
2. MODIFICATION of the BOARD of REGENTS
One suggestion which I have heard from faculty members is that there should be some effective screening procedure in the selection of individuals appointed to the Board of Regents. I don't think this makes sense. Regents, unlike judges, do not need any professional expertise to do their job; their best qualification is to be experienced in the world of affairs (money management and other practical arts), where the faculty generally lack experience. What the advocates of this proposal want, I expect, is that regents should be chosen only if they think like faculty members; but that is hardly acceptable to the public.
Another set of ideas, which were incorporated into some proposals floated in the Legislature a few years ago, would modify the present arrangement, wherein the Governor appoints 18 out of the 26 members of the Board of Regents, by spreading this appointment power among the Governor and each house of the Legislature. This, again, hardly achieves anything because (a) partisanship will still be a dominant factor, and (b) individuals chosen will still be mostly big campaign contributors or political cronies of the power brokers in Sacramento.
A more thoroughgoing reconstruction is proposed by the campaign to democratize the regents. One early plan was outlined in my 1991 booklet, "A Look at the Regents of the University of California" (available online.) A group called The Committee for a Responsible University (which I founded in 1992) has produced a more complex plan which, in brief outline, provides for: 8 ex-officio regents (4 state officials, 2 alumni, 2 students). Eliminating the 18 appointed regents and in their place: 9 regents elected in statewide elections to 4 year terms; and 9 regents selected from each of the UC campuses by: Campus Councils, composed of elected representatives of faculty, students, staff, community. Absolute protection of authorities delegated to the Academic Senate.
There is plenty of room to argue over the details of this plan, particularly the precise balance of power distributed among the several constituencies in and out of the university. The overall objective is to have a governance system that is Representative of and Accountable to the public at the same time that the institution is kept Independent from political tides. There is obvious contradiction among these criteria and so the challenge is one of balance. The present Board of Regents has enormous Independence but is neither Representative nor Accountable.
The usual objections to any form of elected regents is that this will politicize the university's governance. However, the events of last July, and the continuing saga, have shown how vulnerable the present system is to politicization.
Any change in the structure of the regents requires amending the state constitution. The Committee for a Responsible University tried to put an initiative on the 1994 California ballot; and if we had had a million dollars to spend on that effort, the University of California would probably be in much better shape today.
3. UNIONIZATION of the FACULTY
Faculty unions have become common at many universities and colleges across the country but the UC faculty has mostly rejected this option. The typical reasons are: faculty are not workers but professionals; faculty are part of management because of "shared governance" through the Academic Senate; a faculty strike makes no sense since it only hurts our students and ourselves and not our bosses.
The present crisis has removed what is probably the strongest objection cited above - the one about relying on shared governance.
It should be understood that the main purpose of collective bargaining is to achieve a union contract with the employer - and this need not be limited to wages and hours but could also include binding commitments to such things as shared governance.
Among the several proposals brought forward in this paper, unionization would be the easiest one to implement if it should be chosen. There exists a body of law, a wealth of experience and the framework of organizations already available.
4. PRIVATIZATION
The usual form of privatization involves some individual or group of investors paying money to a government to take over the assets and operations of a public enterprise. Would Bill Gates be interested in buying Berkeley? Perhaps Michael Milken could put together a group of Hollywood moguls to buy out UCLA. I don't find any sense in this approach, but perhaps it can be explored.
What is actually going on now at UC, and at some other public research universities across the country, is another form of privatization. As state funding has decreased, student fees have been raised; and as government research grants have dwindled, more is being sought from private industry; and a big new emphasis is being put on soliciting gifts and grants from private donors (both individual and corporate, both unrestricted and with strings attached.) As this trend proceeds, the Board of Regents becomes even more detached from any public oversight. UC can become a university which is public in name only - effectively privatized by the people on the Board of Regents, who didn't have to pay a penny for it (except for their individual political contributions to the governor who appointed them.) [For further discussion see the article, "Privatizing UCLA: Has the Time Come?" in the Los Angeles Times, July 30, 1995.]
Let me suggest a quite different form of privatization. Suppose I get together with a few colleagues and we take out papers establishing a private corporation. Let's call it, for example, The Best University, Inc. We then offer one share of preferred (voting) stock to each current faculty member of the University of California in exchange for that individual's commitment to become a member of the faculty of TBU. When this subscription reaches a certain threshhold TBU makes an offer to that other corporation, The Regents of the University of California, to acquire the assets and the operations of UC. Interesting negotiations ensue.
5. SECESSION
The word secession evokes the romantic image of Mr. Jefferson writing at his portable desk set up in Philadelphia in June of 1776. "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Could the faculty of the University of California be so moved? (Guffaw, guffaw: Professor Minuteman vs. the Regents' redcoats!) The means to consider here are not military ones but rather the best of creative nonviolence, enlightened resistance.
Suppose the faculty declared itself to be free of the existing Board of Regents and went about establishing an alternative government, duly constructed to both serve the public interest and protect the academic integrity of the university. What might the regents do to retalliate? Fire people who refuse to obey them? Cut off salaries and other funds which they legally control? Tell the Governor and the Legislature to withhold appropriations meant for the University? All the regents are really capable of doing, ultimately, is impeding or stopping the teaching, research and public service functions of the University. When discussing unionization, we noted the difficulty entailed with the idea of a faculty strike; in the present scenario this onus shifts to the regents.
6. NEGOTIATION
Any time the present Board of Regents realizes that they have seriously transgressed and appears willing to make redress, the faculty should be open to negotiations. Spelling out in detail their binding commitment to shared governance would be the major issue at stake. Other issues might also be raised, depending on how the alternative ideas mentioned above have developed.
Who will do the negotiating is an important question, as is the question of who will lead in the development of the study and implementation of the various alternative ideas. The Academic Senate should be involved because it is the existing legitimate voice of the faculty. But the Academic Senate is also formally a creature of the Regents; and officials at the top of the Academic Senate have a history of general acquiescence to the Administration (i.e., the Regents' appointed executives.) Thus, some as yet undetermined new organizational forms will be needed.
Also, in any negotiations, the faculty will need to recognize that not all the complaints of bad behavior fall on one side. Some changes in the way the Academic Senate functions should probably be upon the negotiating table - one that I have advocated before is much more openness in both the faculty and the administrative organs of shared governance.
Renewing an earlier comment, the primary standard is: What will best serve the general public interest and not just the narrow interests of either faculty or regents?
7. OUTLOOK
My readers, especially among the faculty, will easily find shortcomings with all of the ideas suggested above; and this will provide an easy excuse for giving up any notion of fighting the regents. Professors are, by the very nature of their professional careers, disinclined to rock the boat that has so comfortably carried them this far. It is in looking ahead that one may find the motivation necessary to overcome inertia.
July 20, 1995, should not be seen as a one-time event. The continuing controversy, and the continuing hard-line taken by the Governor and his allies on the Board of Regents gives warning of more to come. "We will go to the meetings [of the regents] where there are specific issues with broad implications for the university," said Governor Wilson's spokesperson recently. [in The Daily Californian, Feb. 22, 1996.] The generally fractious state of partisan politics in California and elsewhere gives cause for heightened attention by all who value the independence of public institutions of higher education.
Regent Connerly and his cohorts on the Board of Regents are tough players. They understand the uses of power. They sense the strength or weakness of their own team and of those they see as their adversaries. The UC faculty has potentially great power right now but the big uncertainty is how that power will be organized and brought to bear. If the faculty should make no credible attempt to fight for what they profess, then the activists among the regents will become even stronger and bolder. The University of California will begin to shrivel and waste away as members of this faculty become increasingly demoralized and disaffected, and as other scholars, prospective new faculty members, look elsewhere for more hospitable environments.
Aside from current political pressures, the future of research universities is darkly clouded by basic economic concerns. The problems of the last few years' budget crunch will be dwarfed by the long-term structural-financial issues that UC's leaders have not wanted to face up to. But when the crunch comes, whether in 5 years or 10 years, there will have to be major restructuring that will impact directly the work of faculty at this great research university. Will the faculty have a real participating role in shaping those changes, or will they be forced upon the faculty from above? That will depend greatly on how the faculty is positioned at that time. Right now we are at a watershed on the issue of shared governance; how this turns out will have powerful consequences down the road.
One further issue should be acknowledged: whether all nine UC campuses will hang together or diverge or perhaps even split apart. There are varying opinions about what is most desirable, or about what may be inevitable. This is just another piece of reality that faculty will have to face candidly.
What should be done now? Here is my suggestion. Start with formal votes of no confidence in the Academic Senates on each campus. Then begin thorough study and debate, in committees inside and/or outside of the Senate, of any and all ideas about what path(s) the faculty might take to rescue the University. There is no need to rush to any conclusions. Rather, regular open reports and public confabulations should be encouraged before any final recommendations are brought back to the Senates for formal consideration. It is important that all faculty be encouraged to become involved in the thinking and discussing; and, of course, the opinions of other concerned citizens, both on and off campus, should be sought. The richness of the process will be key to the value of the outcome. ```
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.