Vision of the future

Monday, February 23, 1998

Vision of the future

IN THE LOOP Chancellor Carnesale

talks about some of his experiences at UCLA and what lies
ahead

By Adam Yamaguchi

Daily Bruin Senior Staff

At the helm of a world renowned institution of over 35,000
students sits one man – Chancellor Albert Carnesale. He’s
responsible for leading the university into the next century, ready
to tackle the many obstacles set to challenge UCLA in the coming
years. Perhaps most prominent among them is life after Proposition
209. The university must confront a host of other issues, such as
securing adequate funds in the face of dwindling funding support
from the state and increasing costs of operating, and upholding and
improving the quality of education at UCLA. In a recent interview
with The Bruin, Carnesale discussed his view of the university.

When the UC Regents were in the process of appointing the next
chancellor for UCLA, two things were usually associated with you:
your previous position at Harvard and your fund raising capacity.
Fund raising was looked upon as one of the most significant things.
How important is it for UCLA to solicit funds from private donors,
and is privatization in line with the mission of a public
university?

Certainly it is in line with the mission of a public university.
Public universities, for some time now, have relied upon sources of
revenue other than the state in which they find themselves. The
extent to which public universities are soliciting private support
is greater than it has been in the past. Insofar as the fundamental
values of academic freedom are concerned, those values are held
just as deeply in private universities as they are in public
universities, and they do indeed constrain the kinds of gifts one
would accept and might not accept. There is a need to be willing to
say no to some gifts where you feel they might interfere with
academic freedom or with the ability of the university to perform
its mission, which for a public university is not only teaching and
research but public service as well. The state provides
approximately 20 percent of UCLA’s income. So we are more dependent
that in the past on alternative sources. Most of that money is
given for specific purposes that we deem to be important to meet
our specific needs.

Your previous experience at Harvard was looked at both
positively and negatively as far as your ability to fulfill the
duties expected at UCLA. Some were concerned that because of your
experience at Harvard, a private university, you were not equipped
to deal with issues confronting a public university. And others
pointed to your accomplishments at Harvard as proof of your
abilities to manage a university. What similarities and differences
have you encountered here?

My experience in the public sector is not as limited as it may
be perceived. I spent nine years at North Carolina State
University. My Ph.D. is from North Carolina State and I was on
faculty at North Carolina State and I was an administrator there. I
spent a few years in government. And most of my career at Harvard
was as professor in the school of government and my field was
public policy, and the chair that I held was the professor of
public policy and administration so what I studied was primarily
public institutions. And finally I became dean of the John F.
Kennedy School of Government, which was this broad spectrum of
public institutions and not-for-profit institutions. So while it’s
true that I was at a private university, most of my academic career
has been engaged in public policy and public institutions.
Secondly, major research universities have more in common than is
different. The vast majority of things are similar. To me the most
striking difference is the degree of public support for UCLA. The
people in Los Angeles care deeply about UCLA whether they went to
UCLA or not, whether their kids are in UCLA or not. They want to be
involved in it and they want UCLA to be more involved in the
community. Private universities’ alumni feel loyal to it but others
look at it primarily as an employer.

Do you feel the university has been politicized through regent
appointments? Is there a danger in entrusting power in a board
which isn’t reflective of students and their concerns?

Almost every university, public or private, has a board of
trustees or a board of regents. It is rare that the body is
reflective of the students. The idea of those bodies is the
long-term interests of the university, as opposed to students who
have the shortest time horizon. I consider it my responsibility to
have the long term in mind. I don’t believe that in itself is a
danger. But that’s to be separated from politicization. I think
that having a body of people who are not employees or students at
the university but care about the university having an oversight
function and also thinking about the future is quite valuable. What
we worry about most is three things that should be decided within
the university. First is what we teach, second is to whom we teach,
and third is who teaches it. That is the holy trinity of academia.
It is very rare that the regents have been involved – not never –
but it is very rare and it was where they felt a compelling
interest to do so.

As far as politics go, let’s go back to the regent meeting held
here last November, when Gov. Pete Wilson made last minute
appointments to try to swing the regents’ vote. There, politics
interfered with university policy.

That’s university policy. Notice it didn’t get at the holy
trinity. It didn’t get at the things that, as chancellor, are at
the forefront in my mind and the recommendation made by the
president of UC was upheld.

You’ve opened your office to students and invited them to town
hall meetings. Have students responded?

Yes, certainly. Each time we’ve had far more students show up
than we were able to accommodate. Generally we’ve made 10 minute
appointments. It’s extraordinarily useful to me. It’s very
important to know what’s on students’ minds.

You may not be able to handle everything on a case-by-case basis
but are these concerns brought elsewhere?

Most of the time students raise issues that are important on
behalf of students. A student who comes in to talk about the
university generally – that’s an opportunity for me to ask the
questions, ‘what do you like least, what do you like most? What are
the things you think I should be concerned with? What do you think
I should be doing?’

Do you having a working relationship with USAC President Kandea
Mosely and GSA President Andrew Westall?

We get together from time to time and any time they’ve ever
asked to see me I’ve always seen them and I’ve met with the
council. I asked both of them to serve on the advisory committee
for the selection of the executive vice chancellor and both
accepted.

UCLA’s always under construction. It may be necessary but it’s
disruptive.Where are the priorities?

It’s important to note that most of the construction is seismic.
The overwhelming majority stems from life and safety issues. The
second piece is of facilities for student living. The next big
project that’s coming up is the new medical center. It will be a
substantial project and you can see some of it already. The parking
facility is being built under the soccer field and we’re having to
knock down the parking facility where the hospital is going to be.
It’s important that we minimize the inconvenience.

UCLA is well-known for two things: diversity of the student body
and accessibility. With Proposition 209 taking effect for
undergraduates this fall, how do we maintain diversity and how what
can outreach programs accomplish?

Well we’ll soon find out. This is one of our very highest
priorities and I believe what you characterized about UCLA is
correct that it is known for its diversity and accessibility and it
is known throughout the nation and the world for that, not just
here. UCLA more than any other university destroyed the myth that
diversity is achieved at the expense of quality. Mostly we’re
working on the short run since this is, as you said, the first year
the admissions process for undergraduates is affected by
Proposition 209. There are three stages. The first part is doing
our best to ensure that minority students continue to apply to the
university, that they not feel suddenly unwanted here. The second
is the admissions process itself. Third will be recruitment of
those who are admitted – to do our very best to convince them that
not only are they wanted but needed at UCLA. The first part — the
applications part — is now behind us. The number of applications
to UCLA went up again and exceeded 32,000, the most of any campus
in the UC system and I believe of any university anywhere. Secondly
with regard to minority groups there seems to be virtually no
effect of Proposition 209. The trends that we were seeing before
209 continue. We do appear to have overcome any psychological
impact of 209 or SP-1 where minority groups might have felt
unwelcome. Next will be admissions which we have less control over.
The the law precludes us from using race, ethnicity or gender as a
factor but I want to make clear that we don’t simply use grade
point average and SAT score. We never have. We’ve always had two
people read every file and take into account what obstacles this
student has overcome, what leadership potential do they have and a
whole host of other factors and we will continue to do that and it
remains to be seen what it will do to admissions. The third part is
psychological again and that’s where we can work hard. All of us,
not just administrators – faculty, students, alumni, particularly
those with relationships with underrepresented minorities have to
convince those students who are admitted that we need them at
UCLA.

One of the keys to maintaining accessibility and diversity is
affordability. With dwindling state support what’s the priority for
keeping fees down?

I think the way of thinking about the priorities is financial
aid. That’s the key to accessibility, and it’s more the key than
the fees themselves. There are several ways to maintain
accessibility. One is to keep fees low for everybody, in which case
those who could afford to pay much more pay a very low fee, but the
university would be strapped for resources. Another way is to have
fees increase moderately and have the people who can afford to pay
it pay, and have financial aid available for those who don’t. That
assures accessibility but also provides the funds needed to have an
excellent university. If the fees get too low you have
accessibility to a university that is going to decline in quality.
We would love to be able is to provide full need aid that any
student who is admitted to UCLA would be able to afford to come
here, either because their family could afford it or because there
was adequate financial aid availability.

What are your goals for UCLA?

What I said on the day of the announcement of my appointment and
thereafter is that one of the things that excited me about coming
to UCLA is that I believe that UCLA is an excellent university,
clearly among the very top-ranked public universities and that UCLA
is well-positioned to be a great university, period. By a great
university I meant one that would be recognized around the world,
that when people name great universities, that list has got to be
more than five but it can’t be much more than 10 and that UCLA
should be on that list. I said I believed we were well-positioned
for three reasons. UCLA was already excellent, has great resources
and enormous public support. My time here has not only confirmed
those observations but has put a lot more flesh on the bones. I
know a lot more now and they’ve strengthened my view and sense that
the vision can be achieved.