Whatever disagreements UC's faculty and Board of Regents may have about shared governance and affirmative action, it's clear that the Board is now at least aware of faculty views on these issues. For more than two hours in January a succession of UC faculty made presentations to the Regents about the votes the board took in July to limit affirmative action at UC. Then, in actions scheduled separately from the presentations, the Regents voted twice to put off indefinitely any reconsideration of their July votes.
The faculty presentations fell overwhelmingly on the side of criticisms of the Board's actions; the entire first hour of addresses was given over to speakers from members of the Systemwide Faculty Committee to Rescind SP-1 and SP-2, (FCRSP) and only two of the 17 speakers in either hour of the faculty presentation were supportive of the Regents' July votes.
The presentations, arranged by the Senate's Academic Council, included scholarly analyses of shared governance, personal testimonials on the value of University's former affirmative action policies, and requests, on logistical grounds, for a postponement of the implementation of the Regents' July resolutions. (Adaptations of two of the presentations before the Regents are included in this issue of Notice. See Conkey and Trow articles.)
Having heard the faculty, the Regents then proceeded to consider motions that sought to reverse or soften their July actions. Student Regent Edward Gomez proposed rescinding both SP-1 and SP-2, while Judith Levin, president of the UC Alumni Associations, proposed making both resolutions advisory rather than binding. In a 12-4 vote, the Regents Joint Committee on Educational Policy and Finance voted not to consider the resolutions submitted by Gomez, a move which neither killed his motions nor tabled them, but rather postponed consideration of them until some indefinite, future date. Regent William Bagley seemed to speak for the majority of the Regents present when he said, "It is simply untimely for us to sit here and debate" this issue when it is unlikely that the board would veer from the stance it took in July. Perhaps sensing the same fate for her own resolutions, Regent Levin then moved to postpone action on the proposals indefinitely, citing what she called "continuing and blatant political interference into the proceedings of this Board."
Levin's reference was to Gov. Pete Wilson and his alleged influence on the Board. Wilson attended the meeting and defended both the substance of the Regents' July actions and the the board's prerogative to take them.
"It is the responsibility of the Regents to adopt a clear policy on this matter -- not to delegate our responsibility to the University administration or the Academic Senate," he said.
Speaking to reporters after the meeting, Levin said she would be coming back to the Board at an upcoming meeting to ask for reconsideration of her proposals. Meanwhile, Regent Roy Brophy has said he intends to ask the Board to reconsider its actions if the proposed California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI) fails to qualify for the November 1996 ballot. Affirmative action thus appears to be an item that will remain on the Board's agenda for some time to come.