UC, From Any Angle, Is a Political Entity

Maybe every few years a California governor just needs to forcefully remind the university president who really is in charge. Put this governance thing in perspective--and the president in his place, to use a working-class idiom. Re-educate scholars about the state Constitution.

The state Constitution says nothing about “shared governance” among the University of California president, chancellors and faculty.

It does say the university shall be “administered” by a board of regents, “with full powers of organization and government . . . all the powers necessary or convenient for the effective administration of its [public] trust.” This includes the power “to delegate . . . such authority or functions as it may deem wise.” The key word here is “may.”

The Constitution also contains this much-cited sentence: “The university shall be entirely independent of all political or sectarian influence and kept free therefrom in the appointment of its regents and in the administration of its affairs. . . .”

As a reporter who has covered politics for a few decades, I’ll admit to not having the foggiest idea what that last sentence is supposed to mean as it applies to a public university.

UC, from any angle, is a political entity. The Constitution says the governor shall appoint 18 of the 26 regents. This is political spoils, pure and simple. The state Senate must approve those appointees. Four other regents are elected state politicians, including the governor and the Assembly speaker. So both political branches of government not only have a duty to “influence” UC, but to help rule it.

UC gets most of its money from the politicians in Sacramento. This fiscal year, these tax dollars total $1.9 billion. UC spends some of that on a lobbyist to influence politicians. He helped lobby onto the March 26 ballot a $3-billion bond issue for school construction, which contains nearly $1 billion for higher education.

Perhaps it’s one of those things where if you agree with a policy, it’s the product of leadership; if not, it’s “political influence.”

*

Rarely is cited the final part of that sentence in the Constitution about political influence. It reads: “. . . and no person shall be debarred admission to any department of the university on account of race, religion, ethnic heritage, or sex.”

Somebody else will have to explain how that differs significantly from an edict the UC regents adopted last July. That directive, which led to the present turf war, states that “effective Jan. 1, 1997, the University of California shall not use race, religion, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin as criteria for admission. . . .”

There must be a distinction between the constitutional language and the regents order, but to an ordinary reader of English it seems an esoteric distinction without a real difference. Certainly their intents appear identical--to ban racial, religious and gender discrimination.

And it was the view of Gov. Pete Wilson and a majority of regents that UC’s affirmative action program, with its system of race-based preferences, amounted to discrimination.

“This isn’t micro-managing,” the governor asserts, responding to critics. “We delegate day-to-day administration. . . . Determining whether race and gender will be criteria for admission is not day-to-day administration. It is a fundamental policy decision and it is the regents’ decision.”

*

It also is the regents’ decision when a new policy will become effective, Wilson insists. UC President Richard Atkinson now agrees, after 10 days of brinkmanship that nearly put his 4-month-old, $243,500-a-year job in jeopardy.

We don’t know all the details. We do know Atkinson initially sent a letter to UC chancellors announcing the new admission policy would take effect for students entering in fall, 1998. He did not formally ask the board’s permission for the delay. It is unclear how much he informally consulted.

Regent John Davies, a longtime Wilson friend, says Atkinson informed him of the 1998 date. But in Davies’ relaying the message to the governor, Davies says, the start-up date got misinterpreted to fall, 1997. Wilson tentatively, reluctantly sanctioned fall, 1997, then was shocked and angered when Atkinson announced 1998.

But regent Ward Connerly says Atkinson talked to him about 1997. And Wilson doesn’t buy the theory that it was all an innocent screw-up. The governor, advisors say, believes Atkinson was pulling a fast one--possibly, egged on by chancellors, trying to delay the new policy until Wilson is almost out of office.

Meanwhile, UC has taken a refresher course on being a public university. It is controlled by representatives of the public. That means the ugly “P” word--politicians, not professors or even presidents.