Faculty, regent accord at breach

Faculty, regent accord at breach

Shared governance questioned in affirmative action ruling

By Rachanee Srisavasdi

Besides making national news, last July’s affirmative action
ruling created a rift between the faculty and regents, which may be
irreparable.

Behind the dispute over the UC Regents’ ruling is a fundamental
debate – whether faculty opinion was adequately considered by the
regents in their decision.

Under what is coined "shared governance," the Academic Senate –
the representative body of faculty at each UC campus – has the
authority to determine conditions for admissions, which some
faculty would argue includes the decision to use race as a
criterion for admissions.

The affirmative action ruling has placed faculty and regents in
opposite camps. Though the regents have final say, some faculty
think the regents have disregarded shared governance.

"The regents have broken the pact that existed," said Charles
Lewis, chair of the Academic Senate at UCLA. "Up until this
decision, the regents respected (shared governance) … This is a
major setback."

Some faculty members are upset not only by the ruling itself,
but that it contradicted the majority opinion in the
university.

"This decision was not made by what you call shared governance,"
said Judy Smith, who chaired UCLA’s Academic Senate last year.
"Shared governance only works if the people who have authority,
share authority."

With the presence of Gov. Pete Wilson at two recent meetings,
some wonder if political intervention led to a hurried ruling.

"Their decision was made in a highly charged political
environment," said Patrick Callan, executive director of the
California Higher Education Policy Center. "There’s no question
that the faculty should have been more involved."

Some faculty agreed and claimed that the governor’s presence
swayed the decision of some regents.

"I think one problem everyone has to realize is that the regents
have become politicized," Lewis said. "Politicians should not tell
faculty what to teach, what to pay us or who to admit to the
university."

Yet some administrators argued that the regents did consider the
opinion of the faculty and administration before the ruling.

"From the regents’ perspective, they’re saying, ‘what part of no
don’t you understand?’" said Rae Lee Siporin, the undergraduate
director of admissions at UCLA. "It’s unfortunate that this ruling
has set regents and faculty at opposite ends."

Siporin added that having a variety of perspectives is necessary
in deciding criteria for admissions.

Another concern for faculty is some regents’ lack of knowledge
about the tenets of shared governance.

At last week’s meeting, faculty members held a discussion on the
topic to remind the regents of their mutual authorities. Some
faculty worried about the regents’ apparent unfamiliarity about
shared governance.

"If the regents don’t understand shared governance, how can we
preserve it?" Smith said. "If we didn’t have shared governance, we
wouldn’t have a university. It’s what makes the University of
California different from other colleges."

Indeed, shared governance is used in only a few universities in
the country, such as Stanford, University of South Carolina and
University of Wisconsin, Madison. Within the UC system, it is meant
to impose partial responsibility on faculty for certain university
operations.

Yet it exists not without its share of criticism – including
that it gives faculty too much power, and faculty input leads to
delays and inefficiency in decision making.

For several months, academic senates have petitioned the regents
to withdraw their affirmative action rulings. UC Berkeley’s faculty
approved a letter stating that the regents’ action represents a
violation of shared governance, and criticized the regents for
"defaulting upon their solemn responsibility to protect the
university from the realm of partisan party politics."

At UCLA, the Academic Senate approved the resolution by a vote
of 54 to 9 with four abstentions, which called on the regents to
rescind their affirmative action ruling for the same reasons cited
by Berkeley. Senate bodies at Davis, San Diego, San Francisco,
Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz each passed similar resolutions.

Many administrators support shared governance and stress its
importance in the decision-making process of the university.

"There are many things that would have been done faster in my 27
years as chancellor," said Chancellor Charles Young in a speech to
regents at last week’s meeting. "But in the overwhelming amount of
issues I had to deal with, the final decision has been the right
decision in large part because of shared governance."

Some regents were responsive to the administration and faculty
emphasis on shared governance.

"I agree with (Chancellor Charles Young) entirely," said Regent
Roy Brophy, in response to Young’s speech. "We need to reinvest our
beliefs in shared governance."

Though some faculty think the regents’ meeting on shared
governance is a sign that it will be respected in the future,
others are not as optimistic.

"This was a major encroachment on shared governance," Lewis
said. "Until the regents change their mind, it is going to be
difficult to reach a resolution."

Yet other faculty members disagreed.

"I don’t think the regents’ ruling is going to weaken shared
governance," Smith said. "I see it as an isolated event … Shared
governance is not perfectly healthy, but still has a firm
foundation within the university."Comments to
[email protected]