Carl’s Jr. Fails to Win Approval for Fast-Food Outlet at CSUN : Franchise: Foundation trustees deadlock 7 to 7 on the plan, which drew protests over the conservative political views of the chain’s founder.

Cal State Northridge on Friday again rejected a campus franchise for a Carl’s Jr. fast-food outlet, the target of protests against the conservative politics of the company’s founder.

Apparently ending an 18-month controversy, the CSUN Foundation’s board of trustees deadlocked 7 to 7 on a motion to contract with Carl’s Jr., following by one day the release of a campus poll in which student voters narrowly opposed the franchise.

University President James W. Cleary, also the foundation’s president, abstained from voting but declared that the motion had failed for lack of a majority, the second time the franchise has been rejected.

Cleary said a decision in favor of Carl’s Jr. might have sparked demonstrations that would have added to political tensions on the campus, citing the current series of protests against anti-homosexual flyers discovered there last month.

The campus divisions were exemplified, he said, by the non-binding referendum in which 2,100 of the school’s 30,000 students voted. It produced only a 48-vote margin against a Carl’s Jr. franchise.

The trustees’ vote “indicated precisely the feeling of the campus--split down the middle,” Cleary said after the meeting.

The foundation, which runs many of the university’s eateries, originally proposed bringing a Carl’s Jr. to CSUN 18 months ago but abandoned the idea because of student protests against the political views of the chain’s founder, Carl N. Karcher.

The proposal was revived this spring because of the success of Carl’s Jr. franchises on other campuses, including USC and Cal State Fullerton.

In addition, a survey of 2,700 students, faculty and staff members showed Carl’s Jr. to be the top choice among a variety of hamburger franchises. On May 9, trustees voted to authorize the foundation management to negotiate with other fast-food outlets. As a result, Taco Bell and Subway outlets already are operating on the campus.

But the political controversy delayed a decision on Carl’s Jr. until Friday.

In more than two hours of debate Friday, opponents argued that Karcher would use profits from a CSUN franchise to support anti-abortion and anti-homosexual campaigns. “We’re talking about alienating many students on this campus,” said Faith Manon Haaz, a senior in religious studies who has spearheaded opposition to the proposal.

Haaz pointed to Karcher’s support of a state initiative in the late 1970s that would have banned gays from teaching in public schools, a boycott by Latino groups that contend the chain discriminates against them and a recent chicken-sandwich commercial that critics said trivialized American Indian history.

But supporters said that a Carl’s Jr. franchise would earn an annual profit of $150,000 for the foundation, which raises funds for educational programs, and that Karcher has a right to his political views.

David Weiss, student body president and a foundation trustee, and other student trustees appealed for recognition of student opposition as reflected by the referendum. “I would prefer to have a franchise where every student would eat those hamburgers,” said student Trustee Sal Damji.

But Trustee John Golich argued that the student referendum was not valid because the results were split almost evenly. “We must look at what makes sense from a financial standpoint,” he said.

Other trustees warned that the foundation might face legal action if it discriminated against a franchise on political grounds.

Paul J. Mitchell, assistant to the chairman of the board of Carl Karcher Enterprises, said he knows of no plans to sue the foundation. Asked if he was disappointed by the trustees’ vote, he answered, “Hell, yes.”

During the meeting, Mitchell said that many charges against Karcher “have been unfounded.”

Lew Herbst, associate foundation director, said Carl’s Jr. would have been more profitable by far than other hamburger chains because it is the only franchise the foundation could have purchased outright.

Plans had been in place to begin operating a hamburger outlet by Feb. 1, but “now we won’t be able to get started until next fall,” he said. Herbst said another option is for the foundation to operate its own hamburger stand, an alternative Cleary said he endorses.