Shared Governance at UC: An Historical Review

John A. Douglass
University of California - Santa Barbara
10.23.95

Two major features in the historical development of the University of California distinguished it from other major public research universities. The first is the university's unusual status as a constitutionally designated public trust -- a designation shared by only five other major public universities. The second is the University of California's tradition of shared-governance: the concept that faculty should share in the responsibility for guiding the operation and management of the university, while preserving the authority of the university's governing board, the Regents, to ultimately set policy. Both of these organizational features of California's land-grant university, combined with a massive investment by tax payers to expand enrollment and academic programs, has resulted in a university enterprise of international distinction and vital service to the people of California. As in so many other aspects of the university's operation, the concept of shared governance has evolved over time, often in reaction to significant internal and external challenges, and revolving around the development of the Academic Senate. Reflecting the dynamics of decision making within a growing and multi-campus university, the root of the contemporary notion of shared governance has emerged not only from the formal delegation of authority to the Senate, but also from informal modes of involving faculty in the management of the nation's largest land-grant university. The following briefly outlines four periods in the evolution of shared governance in the University of California. The intent is to provide context to the contemporary debate among faculty, Regents, students and administrators, regarding the role of faculty in university governance and management.

The Establishment of a State University in 1850, California's first state constitution provided the legislature with the ability to create a state university. It was not until 1868, however, that California passed a statute establishing the University of California -- just in time to benefit from the largesse of federal land-grants under the federal Morrill Act. California's charter. Like all American universities and colleges, provided for a lay board that would have authority over the activities of faculty and students. The American innovation of the lay board provided a public authority that removed sectarian influences, linked the operation of the university with the community it served, and provided a means to both reward and garner benefactors. But the device of the lay board also created an organizational structure that promised tension: with the rise of a professional class of academicians, there would be long and continuing debate over the proper domain of faculty.

Based on the organization of several relatively new state universities including Michigan and lowa, the University of California's 1868 charter also called for the establishment of an "academic senate" consisting of all faculty and deans, presided over by the president. The Senate, stated the 1968 Organic Act, was "created for the purpose of conducting the general administration of the University." The organization of the Senate and its relationship to the university president and the governing board, however, was the prerogative of the Regents.'

In an era before the rise of an administrative class now crucial to the operation of the university, faculty played the role of both teacher and administrator. Yet their authority was extremely limited. The Regents, not the faculty, played a decisive role in creating educational policy. Throughout the early years of the University, the Regents focused on micro-management of the university, and gave little direct power to the university president. Persistent funding problems, political battles between the Regents and lawmakers in Sacramento -- particularly in the 1870s with proposals by the State Grange that the university be converted to a polytechnic -- led to a revolving door of university presidents and the slow development of academic programs.

By the 1890s, the Berkeley campus was, as one Eastern paper derisively stated, "a weak institution with plenty of land, a college of broken-down buildings, [and] beggarly endowments.''1 While it had emerging programs in agriculture, it lacked the reputation, research prowess and funding of American's new breed of research universities such as Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

California's state university, however, had gained a new status that would eventually provide tremendous flexibility in the institution's internal management. In 1879, key Regents served as delegates to California's second constitutional convention, helping to draft an amendment that designated the university as a public trust. University supporters gained this victory by noting a similar status given three decades earlier to the Michigan's state university, and by insisting that such autonomy would save the University of California from the partisan politics and rampant corruption that marked perhaps California's most turbulent decade. "The university," stated the new constitution, "shall be entirely independent of all political or sectarian influence and keep free therefrom in the appointment of its regents and in the administration of its affairs." In essence, convention delegates, many of whom were harsh critics of the university, distrusted the legislature more than they distrusted the Regents.

President Wheeler and the "Berkeley Revolution"

The appointment of Benjamin Ide Wheeler as the president of California's state university in 1899 marked a new era in the expansion of funding, enrollment and academic programs. Wheeler agreed to come to Berkeley only if the Regents provided him with direct powers to manage its affairs. The Regents agreed, setting into motion a transformation of the University of California into one of the premier universities in the nation.

On his arrival, Wheeler faced dire financial problems upon his arrival: Growing enrollment demand among a quickly expanding California population, the decline of federal land-grant income, and meager state appropriations brought the first real consideration of establishing tuition. "The situation here at present is, I sometimes think, pathetic, and sometimes ludicrous," Wheeler wrote to the governor. "There is nothing comparable to it in the United States today. The students have come down like an avalanche. We have no elasticity in our budget by which to provide for them."2 Wheeler proceeded to gain the financial support of much of San Francisco's wealthy elite. But, perhaps more importantly, he succeeded in convincing lawmakers to provide the first major infusion of state funding for the university. Public investment in the university allowed for a dramatic expansion of enrollment, and the hiring of new and talented faculty from across the nation. It also provide the context for major internal organizational changes.

Wheeler, reflecting his training in the German university system, elevated the role of research in the hiring, promotion and dismissal of faculty. He also integrated greater faculty involvement in managing university affairs. Previously, the Academic Senate and the faculty of the university had been limited primarily to routine matters, such as recommending degrees and acting on student discipline cases. In 1881, for example, a committee of the Regents drastically reorganized the curriculum of the university, and declared several professorships vacant.

Wheeler convinced the Regents that faculty were not simply employees of the state, but members of an academic community engaged in a free-market of teaching and research. They should, he argued and recalling the role of faculty at the University of Heidelberg, be primarily responsible for setting educational policy. Wheeler turned to the expanding numbers of faculty to make major changes in the administrative structure of the university.

Working with faculty and with the general approval of the Regents, Wheeler created some twenty new departments, revised the university's curriculum which resulted in the relatively new idea of lower and upper division courses, created matriculation agreements with the state's normal schools and with the emerging and pioneering system of junior colleges, and adopted a system of peer review for hiring and promotion of faculty. Wheeler also created a faculty committee for the allocation of research funds, and a faculty editorial board to oversee the university press to elevate the quality and quantity of its publications.

The expanding role of faculty in management of the university depended on Wheeler's relationship with the Regents, and was not a fixed policy of the university. The most important change in the role of shared governance and the responsibilities of faculty came at the end of Wheeler's tenure, under difficult circumstances, and resulted in a formal statement regarding the organization and authority of Academic Senate.

Several factors led to what is known by historians of American higher education as the "Berkeley Revolution." Wheeler's commanding presence during the first fifteen years of his tenure began to fade. For one, his sympathies with German institutions, and his open regret of the America's entrance into World War 1, garnered considerable public criticism from Regents and faculty. A significant decline in Wheeler's health also led to a decline in his prestige and leadership abilities. In this context, ambitious faculty, many of whom had engaged in the founding of the American Associate of University Professors in 1915, sought an even greater role in university affairs.

Reacting to Wheeler's decline and to a formal proposal offered by the leadership of the Academic Senate, the Regents then took an unusual path: during Wheeler's last year in office (1918-19) the Regents placed the actual power of the Presidency in the hands of an "Administrative Board," consisting of three faculty members who where all elevated to the title of dean.

The Administrative Board proved to be a disaster. The onset of a post-war recession, combined with a surge in enrollment by returning veterans and disarray among the board brought confusion regarding the future of the university. In reaction, the Academic Senate convened a special meeting, and by a vote of 132 to 13 passed a memorial for submittal to the Regents. It asked that the faculty be given direct authority to organize the Senate and choose its leaders, that the Senate then be given more formal powers regarding educational policy, and that the Senate be consulted in the selection of a university president.

A subcommittee of the Regents chaired by James K. Moffit, a graduate of Berkeley, lawyer and major university benefactor, negotiated an agreement which was endorsed by the board as a whole, and placed in the Standing Orders of the Regents in June, 1920. This new and historic agreement formalized the role of the president and his/her relationship with the Regents and the faculty. It also provided both direct and indirect powers of shared governance to the Academic Senate. Subject to the approval of the Regents, the Senate was to determine the conditions of admissions, for certificates, and degrees -- aspects of the previous powers held by the faculty. But there were also numerous new responsibilities vested in the Senate, and more specifically in the faculty, that are today the keys to our current system of shared governance. The Senate was to:

*Advise the president on all "appointments, promotions, demotions, and dismissals" of professors, and on the appointment of deans.


*Advise the president regarding "changes in the educational policy of the
university."

*Advise the President regarding budget issues.

*And to, perhaps most importantly, choose its own committees and organization "in such a manner as it may determine."

The agreement marked a major transition point in the general development of American higher education, creating an organizational structure that would be mimicked by other major public and private institutions. California, however, was not only the first to formalize this structure in the United States (one that had antecedents in British universities), but took it the farthest.

The so-called "California Plan" created a "remarkable democratic system of academic government in which California faculty," once explained historian Walton E. Bean, "acquired a greater influence in the educational aspects of university administration than any other faculty in the United States. Indeed, the faculty virtually became a part of the administration."3

An Evolving Relationship

From the base of authority granted in 1920, the Regents and the president increasingly came to rely on the Academic Senate to build a university of international recognition. The Senate proved a critical component to maintaining quality academic programs as
the university grew in enrollment and the number of campuses. In times of crisis, the Senate also became an important vehicle for reform.

In the midst of the Depression, university President Robert Gordon Sproul (1930-1958) sought Senate advice on dealing with a 26% decrease in university funding from the state. A budget committee and assorted other committees had been established shortly after 1920; Sproul called for a new Committee on Educational Policy to help establish methods to cut costs, raise revenue (primarily through increases in student fees), and to assist in his and the Regent's effort to contain the regional college movement.

During World War 11, Sproul convened the first "All-University Faculty Conference" to consider the challenges of the post-war era for the university. This conference, Sproul later noted, was intended to "pull together a war-scattered and war-torn teaching staff, and to enable it to give unhurried time and undisturbed thought to intelligent planning."4 The meeting of faculty representatives from the various campuses became an annual event for some four decades, organized by the Senate, and focusing on such issues as the role of the university in the state economy, the growth and direction of federal research funding, the future of liberal arts education, the value of university autonomy in the constitution, and the role of shared governance in university affairs.

Reflecting the decentralized nature of decision-making within a growing and multi-campus university community, the creation of an independent and self-governing body also led to significant conflicts between the Senate and university presidents and the Board of Regents, and within the ranks of faculty. A major example is the 1949 inclusion by the Regents of a loyalty oath as a condition of employment.

During the post-World War 11 Red Scare, the Regents, on the advice of President Sproul, attempted to include an oath in anticipation of a similar requirement for all state employees. Most faculty had few qualms over signing an oath. But many faculty objected vehemently to the segregation of university faculty under a special oath before it was made a requirement of state employees: it would, stated a special Senate committee, reinforce the stereo-type of the university as a haven for subversives. For others, it appeared to be an initial salvo against the idea of academic freedom and the hard fought system of tenure.

The Regents ignored the advice of the Senate and invoked the oath. Some faculty charged that the concept of shared governance had disappeared under the weight of political expediency. The following year, thirty-two faculty were fired for not signing the oath, and numerous faculty resigned. There was antagonism not only between faculty and the Regents, but among faculty leaders and their nonsigning colleagues, recalled David Gardner in his study of controversy. Morale was low.5 "The whole sorry story of the oath is one of confusion and repudiations, acerbity and bitterness," asserted Russell H. Fitzgibbon in his brief history of the Academic Senate, with "more concern at times with procedural than substantive aspects .... The scar tissue was hard and durable."5 Faculty participation in the Senate declined significantly as faculty temporarily resigned themselves to the thought that their role in university affairs had been diminished.

Shared Governance in the Modern Era

The history of the University of California has included many serious internal debates over the operation, role and future of California's land-grant institution. The election of Governor Ronald Reagan was based, in part, on a campaign promise to "clean-up Berkeley." In his first months as governor, he and other Regents agreed that president Clark Kerr should have taken stronger action against protesting students. Reagan also proposed a 10 per cent cut in university funding and the imposition of tuition. Kerr opposed both proposals. At the his first meeting as Governor, Reagan and the other Regents voted 14 to 8 for Kerr's dismal.

Faculty stood strongly behind Kerr who had, despite the difficulties of the free speech movement, negotiated the 1960 Master Plan, garnered huge increases in state funding, and helped to reorganize and decentralize the Office of the President giving greater management authority to chancellors and the campus divisions of the Academic Senate. The circumstance of Kerr's ouster, and the tumultuous politics of the 1 960s, did not directly threaten the concept of shared governance. Most faculty clearly understood the constitutional authority of the Regents to hire and fire the university president. But the Regents action did add to a general and strong sentiment of disunity within the university community.

By the early 1 970s, a legislative review of the California Master Plan recommended the addition of faculty and student representation on the Board of Regents to give "greater credibility with its constituency."7 A constitutional amendment in 1974 provided the Regents with the ability to appoint non-voting student and faculty representation -- the first change in Regent membership since the addition of an alumni representative in 1918. The tradition of shared governance has endured not because it has always generated consensus, but because it has proved fundamental to the full discussion of the university's role in society and in the management of its important affairs. Faculty are at the heart of the academic enterprise of teaching, research and public service. Their most important function is not only to maintain the quality and rigor of the university's academic programs, but to also advise the president and the chancellors.

As recognized by the Regents in 1920, it is essential that the Regents understand the position and advice of the faculty (through the Senate) on important issues. But shared governance has its greatest meaning not in the relationship of the faculty to the Regents, but in their relationship to the university president and the administration .

Despite his domineering management style, President Robert Gordon Sproul understood that shared governance was crucial in creating effective university leadership. "No function of the university president [or chancellor] is more important than maintaining close relations with the faculty," he wrote in 1953. The Senate, he remarked, became more important as the university grew in size and in the complexity of its role in society. Without strong faculty input, opinions and advice, "the titular head of the organization often suffers from something like oxygen starvation, with such characteristic symptoms as failing vision, and gait slowed down to a shamble, and weaving from side to side with little forward motion."8

Beyond the applied and direct benefits of shared governance lies another important benefit: maintaining a high level of morale within the academic community.
"The process of consultation," wrote John J. Corson in 1941, "strengthens the allegiance to the institution and their individual zeal and satisfaction."

In retrospect, there have been great disparities in the effectiveness of shared governance over time: sometimes it has provided the context for great harmony over the future of the university and a catalyst for reform; at others times it has been a focal point of disagreement within the university on key issues of an era. The recent controversial, at least within the academic community, decision by the Regent's to eliminate gender, race and ethnicity criteria in admissions and faculty hiring is a case in point.

Certainly, shared governance has added to the complexity of decision-making. Foremost, it has proven an important and evolving tool established by the Regents for management of the University of California -- a tool that works best in an atmosphere of respect and understanding of the differing roles of faculty, students, administrators and the Regents.

Notes

1 An Act to Create and Organize the University of California, California Statutes, March 23, 1868. Utica Observer, October 4, 1901 .
2 Cited in Clark Kerr, "Remarks by President Kerr: Ninety-Second Charter Day Ceremonies," March 21, 1960, University of California, Berkeley, UCA.
3 See Eighth All-University Faculty Conference, "The Two Structures: Faculty Self-Government and Administrative Organization," April, 1953.
4 Ibid.
5 David P. Gardner, The California Oath Controversy (Berkely: Univesrity of California Press, 1967) 169.
6 Russell H. Fitzgibbon, The Academic Senate of the University of California (Berkeley: Office of the President, University of California, 1968) 41.
7 Report of the Join Committee on the Master Plan for Higher Education, California Legislature, 1 973. a Robert Gordon Sproul, speech before the Eighth All-University Faculty Conference, "The Two Structures: Faculty Self-Government and Administrative Organization," April, 1953.

Carl Gutierrez-Jones,

Department of English

University of California

Santa Barbara, CA 93106

E-mail: carlgj@humanitas.ucsb.edu