UCSB Academic Senate Faculty-wide Mail Ballot On November UCSB Senate Legislature Resolution (March 1996)

Pro Statement

The resolution before the faculty inseparably links three crucial issues that pertain to the Regents' affirmative action decisions: 1) the violation of a long-standing tradition of "shared governance," 2) the violation of California's Constitution wherein it is stated that "the University shall be entirely independent of all political or sectarian influence," and 3) the elimination of any consideration of race or gender in admissions, contracting or hiring processes at the University of California. In November, when this resolution was put before the UCSB senate legislature, much discussion was devoted to the linking of these issues. The strong vote from that meeting (35 for, 2 against) reflected an understanding that the Regents' actions required a response which spoke not only to the substance of the decisions, but also to the process by which the decisions were reached.

When the senate legislature voted to table the move for a mail ballot this January (28 for, 2 against), it did so because it was clear that the proponents of the mail ballot wanted a measure of affirmative action divorced from these other issues and the current resolution simply would not allow this. At that meeting, it was suggested that new language could be offered that would accurately measure faculty opinion regarding affirmative action itself. However, because no changes have been made to the original resolution, what we have before the faculty now is actually a reconsideration of the senate's November action, an action which addressed all three issues together. Votes against the current resolution will therefore likely be seen as a rejection of the principle of shared governance that the legislature was trying to uphold, and an endorsement of the use of the University for partisan political ends. If there is a significant desire to have a faculty vote on affirmative action, a resolution should be formulated that can give an accurate measure of that issue itself.

Affirmative action policies need to be addressed in candid faculty forums--something that has yet to happen. Despite the oppositional rhetoric that has been fostered by politicians eager to capitalize on UC's turmoil, it appears that almost all UC faculty would eagerly engage revisions of these policies. However, the political gamesmanship that has accompanied SP-1 and SP-2 has been injurious to this project in the extreme. AS a result, a narrow majority of the Regents has been persuaded to adopt a highly debatable notion of color- and gender-blindness that ignores decades of research on race and gender.

The Regents have also set out politically-motivated schedules for implementation, schedules that leave our decision-making bodies inadequate time to formulate alternative policies and responses. To take but one instance, UCSB had exactly five days to formulate a response to the final draft of the hiring and contracting recommendations, recommendations which were in many cases wholly new to us. A concern for proper consultation alone calls for a reopening of the Regents' decisions which mandated these schedules.

In addition, the Regents' decisions have significantly affected how UC competes for its most important resource, faculty. In terms of how UC is perceived, preeminent national conferences are turning into feeding frenzies as non-UC schools are predictably taking advantage of UC's situation in attempts to lure away the most promising Ph.D. candidates as well as current UC faculty. These schools claim at every opportunity that they will nurture a diverse, depoliticized environment even if the UC will not. In terms of our position, UC is not leading the country, it is being isolated. Resolutions like that passed by the Council of Colleges of Arts and Sciences verify this fact. With this resolution, key representatives of more than 300 universities came together to unanimously denounce UC's stance on affirmative action and the manner in which it was reached.

Our competitors understand all too well the inextricable links between what the Regents' decisions say, and how they were produced. Now more than ever, the University of California needs to clarify exactly how it purports to achieve diversity, a mission it has long held and a mission reaffirmed in the Regents' decisions themselves. But UC also needs to repair the damage done to one of the truly unique aspects of our institution--its attempt to improve decision making through 75 years of respectful consultation. These working relationships are in crisis. The American Association of University Professors recognizes this, and as a result has launched an investigation into questions of political influence. Other groups have likewise raised serious legal allegations regarding the manner in which the Regential vote was affected by partisan politics prior to the public meeting in July.

In this context, focused as it is on questions of proper procedure, it is doubly important that we recognize the resolution before us as a careful response to the Regents' actions as they occurred in the midst of a presidential campaign. Many of us came to UC because of the partnership we found here among faculty, administrators and Regents. Many of us hope to recuperate this partnership. It is in this spirit that we ask you to vote yes on this mail ballot.


AGAINST THE RESOLUTION

One hundred years ago, Supreme Court Justice John Harlan enunciated the principle that "our constitution is color-blind." There are constructive ways to promote diversity while hiring the best-qualified person available regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or national origin, and without resorting to racial and sexual discrimination in admissions. According to the policy adopted in July, the University will encourage diversity in part through outreach and by giving consideration to admission applicants who have suffered socio-economic disadvantage. The resolution before us condemns the Regents' decisions on two issues: (i) shared governance and the intrusion of partisan politics; and (ii) the elimination of preferential treatment on grounds of race, ethnicity, or gender in hiring and admissions. A vote for the resolution is a vote for both criticisms. Logically, disagreement with either entails disagreement with the resolution.

Many believe that the Regents violated the University's tradition of shared governance and were primarily motivated by partisan politics. If we wish to object to the Regents' methods, this resolution is not a proper vehicle, since it combines that message with an independent message concerning one of the most contentious issues of our time. Backers have claimed that the resolution primarily concerns shared governance and is neutral regarding preferential treatment. It is not. The section on admissions explicitly argues that since diversity is highly desirable, discrimination in favor of applicants with "diversity attributes" should be reinstated. The section on hiring makes the same argument that the end justifies the means, relying heavily on the euphemism "equal opportunity" when what is meant is the University's former policy of discrimination in favor of women and minorities. (The Regents explicitly support equality of opportunity, requiring that "all persons have equal access to job competitions, contracts, and other business and employment opportunities of the University.") Do not be misled by smoke screens and euphemisms. The intent is clear. The resolution argues for preferential treatment as a preferred means to achieving diversity, and calls for a return to discriminatory policies. The secret ballot is, in large part, a referendum on this issue.

The argument that an effective means to a desirable end is itself, therefore, desirable is notoriously fallacious. Some means to desirable ends are wrong. Most would agree, for example, that a public university has no business favoring applicants of one religion over another to foster diversity. Preferential treatment is the easy way to achieve diversity, not necessarily the right way. The resolution fails to make any case that some forms of racial and sexual discrimination are acceptable (let alone desirable). Justice Harlan's celebrated dictum is no less fundamental than the First Amendment. Do not allow your anger or resentment toward the Regents--justifiable though it may be--to cloud your judgment. If you remain unconvinced by any of its arguments for reinstating preferences (or are unconvinced that confrontation is the wisest course), then you should vote against the resolution, even if you agree with the objections to the Regents' politics and procedures.

Nathan Salmon


AGAINST THE RESOLUTION

Many of us were dismayed by the Regents' failure to accommodate the expressed views of the Faculty in its momentous decision of July last. The question, however, is whether the "Resolution on Affirmative Action" passed by the Faculty Legislature in November correctly represents the Faculty's views on that decision.

The resolution blends two distinct messages: support for the old Affirmative Action policy and criticism of the Regents' procedure. When the resolution was put before the Legislature its supporters stressed the procedural objections; but the Legislature's vote for the resolution and those of the other campus divisions on similar resolutions have regularly, and entirely predictably, been understood by the public as powerful endorsements by the Faculty of preferential treatment of women and minorities in hiring.

That is wrong, if understandable given the artful blending of issues in the resolution: it has become clear that some who voted for the resolution actually rejected its endorsement of Affirmative Action (Jan. minutes of the Legislature), while the recent Roper survey of UC Faculty, with an impressive 80% response rate, shows that the Faculty is deeply divided about preferential treatment. The problem of interpreting the message of the resolution does not lie with the press or the public but with the text itself. If Shared Governance and the intrusion of partisan politics were the real concerns of the authors of this resolution, they could easily have drafted a clearly focused resolution that reflected a Faculty consensus on these points. They opted instead to add an endorsement of Affirmative Action. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the two issues were mixed precisely in order to translate the predictable enthusiasm among Faculty for a rebuke of the Regents into the appearance of near-unanimous support for Affirmative Action. That, at least, was the actual result; but if that was not the intent, then this resolution should be withdrawn and another should be proposed that does not speciously suggest a consensus among the Faculty on Affirmative Action.

Supporters have maintained that the two issues of UC governance and Affirmative Action are inextricable. That is clearly false: it is logically and politically consistent to criticize the Regents' procedure in its July meeting without supporting the old policy of preferences, or even the reverse. Supporters also claim that agreement with only one of the resolution's objections to the Regents' decision justifies a vote for it. That i8 false by the standards of common sense and logic, but also highly misleading in practice. This resolution contains not merely a request that the Regents rescind their action but statements of principle on Affirmative Action and university governance: and press coverage of the votes at UCSB and other campuses shows that a yes vote will be interpreted as an expression of assent to both -- or rather, primarily to the resolution's endorsement of Affirmative Action. Finally, the failure of supporters to make any attempt to ascertain the views of the Faculty on the resolution before approving it and representing it as the Faculty's view, together with their overwhelming rejection of a motion to put the question to a mail ballot (Jan. meeting of the Legislature) even after the Roper poll had shown that the resolution did not accurately reflect Faculty views, casts considerable doubt on their dedication to the principle of Faculty empowerment in University governance.

I urge you to reject this poorly drafted or manipulative resolution.

Robert Kallet-Marx

Carl Gutierrez-Jones,

Department of English

University of California

Santa Barbara, CA 93106

E-mail: carlgj@humanitas.ucsb.edu