The UC faculty's response to the July Regents' decision to restrict affirmative action proceeded along several lines in October. Statewide Academic Senate leaders worked with administrators to understand what the Regents' action would mean for the University's academic employment policies. Meanwhile, on the campuses, Senate divisions began to take formal positions on the Regents' vote. The first campus to take action was Berkeley, whose Senate division passed a motion on October 17 that called on the Regents to rescind their July resolutions.
At UC Santa Cruz, however, two faculty have called for campus-wide Senate votes on the issue, on grounds that the pro-affirmative action stance taken to date by UC' s Senate leadership may not be representative of faculty views.
Statewide Senate consideration of the academic employment issue resulted in October in a report, prepared by the University Committee on Academic Personnel (UCAP), that analyzed academic personnel questions relevant to the Regents' vote and provided a set of principles on the subjects of diversity and affirmative action. The report was approved by the Academic Council at its October meeting and was folded into an analysis the Office of the President is conducting on what changes the Regents' vote may require in academic employment policies.
The Regents' resolution affecting those policies, SP-2, says that, beginning in January 1996, "the University of California shall not use race, religion, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin as criteria in its employment and contracting practices." The resolution goes on to say, however, that nothing in it will prohibit any action that is "strictly necessary" to keep UC in compliance with federal and state regulations regarding affirmative action in hiring and contracting. To reconcile these competing mandates, late in summer the Office of the President convened a Task Force on Academic and Staff Employment.
As of early November, the task force had not reached a conclusion about the magnitude of change that will be called for in UC' s academic employment policies. There are indications that some changes may be necessary in UC' s faculty recruitment practices, but it is thought that the impact of the Regents' action on selection of faculty from among candidates will be minimal. With respect to the latter issue, the Senate' s UCAP report notes simply that "Race and sex have never been significant factors in the hiring of faculty at the University. SP-2, therefore, should have little effect on the hiring of minority and women faculty." Some faculty development programs may have to be modified if they are deemed to be "employment" practices, the report says, but a program such as the President' s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program, which offers special financial aid to minority and women scholars, is likely to be untouched as it does not fall into the employment category.
The UCOP task force will transmit its findings on these issues in November to President Atkinson, who then will approve a final report on staff and faculty employment practices for transmission to the Regents.
Whatever the specifics of the president' s findings, consideration of diversity and affirmative action by the Senate has allowed it develop a set of principles on these subjects. The UCAP report approved by the Academic Council says that such principles include equal access in employment, diversity as a component of academic excellence, and continued support for mentoring and development programs. Further, the report said, UC needs to "immediately make clear its legal and moral commitment to the principle of diversity and to the goals of eliminating discrimination and developing underutilized groups."
As this statewide activity was taking place, campus Senate divisions were undertaking their own consideration of the Regents' vote. Berkeley, with its early fall starting date, was the first to bring the issue to a full divisional meeting. On October 17, by a vote of 124-2, the Berkeley faculty called upon the Board of Regents to rescind their July votes. The Berkeley resolution had several parts to it, among them a "statement of principle," which said that UCB "takes pride in its admissions policy which has made it a national model for implementing diversity." In a section on procedural considerations, the resolution concluded that "The Board of Regents overreaches and puts University governance in jeopardy when, absent evidence of egregious and otherwise irremediable abuse, it disallows certain valued instruments for implementing admissions."
A resolution whose wording is nearly identical to that approved by the UCB Senate was scheduled to be put before a meeting of the UC Santa Barbara Senate on November 2.
At UC Santa Cruz, meanwhile, two professors have questioned the prevailing notion that the UC faculty generally support affirmative action. Professors Joel Yellin and John Ellis have requested that the UCSC Assembly consider authorizing a mail ballot on the question: "Does the Senate agree or disagree with the Regents' adoption of a policy terminating the use of race and other personal characteristics in hiring and admissions?"
In a July letter to UCSC divisional chair Michael Cowan, Yellin and Ellis said "faculty on our campus and across the UC system have many different ideas about affirmative action and should be given the opportunity to express their opinions and cast their votes accordingly before any conclusion is reached on whether the Academic Senate supports or opposes the Regents' actions." Last spring, the Senate leadership, systemwide and across the campuses, was united in calling for UC' s affirmative action efforts to be strengthened, not weakened.
Yellin and Ellis proposed that the results of any UCSC mail ballot be transmitted to President Atkinson as a Memorial to the UC Regents. Should a memorial be approved by three divisions of a given size, it must be put to a mail ballot of all Senate members. Divisional Chair Cowan expects the proposal by Ellis and Yellin to be considered by the division, along with other business, at a special meeting whose date has not yet been set.