Affirmative Action at UC

Re “The UC President Is Out of Line; Fire Him,” Commentary, Jan. 30: Lance Izumi’s perspective on the problem indicates a concern only for the ideological goal of eliminating affirmative action and little, if any, understanding about how the institution works.

The primary point of the faculty is not necessarily that considerations of race and gender should be part of the admissions process, though many would agree on the value of these criteria. The primary point is that the policy was put in place without adequate consultation with faculty and was politically motivated. The former point regarding shared governance is important because it is the cornerstone principle in university life and is one of the factors that has made the University of California the prestigious and accomplished institution that it is. The latter point is critical because the state Constitution establishes the regents as a buffer for the university against partisan politics.

Izumi embellishes his commentary with a standard propagandistic technique. He takes a published quote which was simply reported, “Wallack said,” and presents it as “said gloatingly.” The faculty across the UC system are involved in a struggle to exercise their responsibility and right to participate in the governance of the university. No one is gloating over the embarrassing public attention being brought to the university as a result of the regents’ violation of the principle of shared governance or their failure to protect the university from political intrusion.

LAWRENCE WALLACK

Professor, UC Berkeley

*

While Izumi extols the “democratic” nature of the UC Board of Regents by describing regents as “appointed by the democratically elected chief executive of the state,” he has conveniently neglected the criteria with which the regents are appointed: political and personal ties and campaign contributions to the governor.

The regents have carried out Gov. Pete Wilson’s political bidding despite the unanimous call from the faculty academic senates, student governments and offices of the chancellor of all UC campuses. As a response to this overwhelming call to reconsider, our “House of Lords” has instead limited its access from university personnel; the hard-line regents have arrested students for exceeding the ridiculous 60-second limit on student testimonies, they have told faculty members to “shut up” in open regents’ meetings.

It’s high time we democratize our regents, as have Illinois, Colorado, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

BRIAN CHIU

Graduate Student, UC Irvine

*

The regents, and especially Ward Connerly, overstepped the bounds of reasonable interaction with the president, chancellors and faculty of the university (Jan. 27). Threatening to fire the recently appointed president for his announcement of administrative delays is like bringing a howitzer to bear on someone for being out of step.

Would the regents really want to repeat the lengthy process of searching for a new chancellor? Do they really think this presidency would be attractive under the siege conditions they have created?

Affirmative action has helped to make UC a model of diversity as well as of excellence, as recent educational rankings confirm. Citizens of our state, to whom the university is ultimately answerable, must consider whether they want to interfere with this success.

NANCY M . HENLEY

Professor Emerita, UCLA

*

Re “UC Affirmative Action: War’s Far From Over,” editorial, Jan. 22: Defending affirmative action, you criticized Wilson for failing “to acknowledge . . . that excellence is also measured by qualities other than SAT scores.” Are you trying to say that race and gender have anything to do with excellence? Many, if not all, good and respectable colleges and universities, to get the best students, make sure that they have top academic scores plus other qualities pertaining to excellence. For example, leadership qualities, social activism, or involvement in sports are viewed favorably. It is the consideration of race and gender that evokes so much opposition because it adds nothing to assure excellence of candidates.

With its faulty premise, it would be hard for affirmative action not to cause discrimination and injustice.

URSZULA OLEKSYN

Fullerton