AAUP Commission on
Governance and
Affirmative Action Policy
1012 Fourteenth Street, N.W.
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
(202)737-5900
Executive Summary
The Board of Regents of the University
of California on July 20, 1995, voted
to end affirmative action in admissions,
hiring, and the awarding of contracts.
In response to a request from faculty
members at the University of California
system, the American Association of
University Professors (AAUP) created
the Commission on Govemance and Affirmative
Action Policy in November 1995 to examine
the implications of this action for
faculty governance and affirmative action.
In the course of its inquiry, the
commission reviewed AAUP policy documents
pertaining to college and university
government and University of California
policies and regulations. It also interviewed
regents, administrators, faculty representatives,
and interested observers.
The commission concludes:
- Although the regents had the legal
authority to take the action they
did, principles and long-standing
practices of shared govemance were
nonetheless neglected in the process
which culminated in the July 20 decision.
- Because shared governance was breached,
the educational impacts of the decision
to abolish affirmative action were
insufficiently considered.
- In the absence of sustained and
careful consideration of the educational
impact both of affirmative action
and of the decision to end it, the
regents' action--though technically
correct--was ill-advised.
The AAUP commission recommends:
- The regents, administration, and
faculty ought to reaffimm their commitment
to the principles and practices of
shared govemance. Because shared govemance
is not simply the formal delegation
of authority, but also a shared commitment
to consult, communicate, and collaborate,
a regular program should be established
for new members of the regents, the
administration, and the faculty senate
to acquaint them with the principles
and practices of shared governance.
- Efforts must be made to avoid partisan
political activity in deliberations
about educational policy. The commission
found that "in this case the issue
was dealt with in a partisan political
manner that appears to have promoted
the interest of a particular candidate
and party."
- The regents should not implement
final recision of affirmative action
until a thorough review of the educational
goals and impact of diversity, and
of the educational effects such recision
may have, has been conducted by a
joint task force of regents, administrators,
faculty, and students.
Part 1: Shared Governance
AAUP's 1966 Statement on Government
of Colleges and Universities, widely
accepted throughout the academic community,
articulates the principles on which
shared governance rests. While recognizing
differing areas of responsibility for
various components of a university,
the Statement emphasizes the
need for mutual understanding and a
commitment of each constituency--governing
board, administration, faculty, and
students--tocommunicate, to consult,
to exchange ideas, and to negotiate
to resolve educational problems. Indeed,
the California legal code specifically
states that "joint decision-making and
consultation between administrations
and faculty or academic employees is
the long-accepted manner of governing
institutions of higher learning and
is essential to the performance of the
educational missions of these institutions."
The events surrounding the regents'
decision involved a breakdown in the
process of shared governance resulting
in a profound loss of trust on all sides.
This breakdown is particularly unfortunate
because it is widely acknowledged that
shared governance has been one of the
essential elements in making the University
of California the outstanding institution
it is today.
The regents acted to abolish affirmative
action at the July meeting. The meeting,
which involved fourteen hours of public
hearings, made it clear that except
for a slim majority of the board of
regents, all of the constituencies of
the university--chancellors, president,
and substantial numbers of faculty and
student representatives--opposed the
abolition of affirmative action. Had
there been any consideration of the
principles of shared governance, the
regents would have requested further
discussion and consultation. The commission
finds that requests for serious study
of the various positions in the controversy
were overruled, and this constituted
a serious breach of the principles and
spirit of shared governance.
Part 11: Affirmative Action
Affirmative action had been a policy
of the University of Califomia since
1964. It had been predicated on three
considerations: the university's public
responsibility to provide higher education,
in as inclusive a way as possible, to
the citizens of the state; a social
commitment to rectify discrimination
against minorities and women; and the
belief that a diverse and heterogeneous
campus provides important educational
benefits for all students.
To achieve these broadly representative
goals without compromising high academic
standards, the University of California
developed a number of criteria for selecting
students for admission. The admission
standards successfully diversified many
University of California campuses with
no compromise to the ability of students
admitted and in their performance as
undergraduates.
The commission notes the tendency
to highlight the problems produced by
diversity to the exclusion of positive
results. Thirty years of experience
suggest that there have been important
educational benefits. To the extent
that democracy is an active and inclusive
process requiring an educated and critical
citizenry. Affirmative action in the
university has been an important training
ground. In the absence of sustained
and careful consideration of the educational
impact both of affirmative action and
of the decision to end it, the regents'
action--though technically legal--was
ill-advised.
AAUP Comission on Governance and
Affirmative Action Policy Report,
May 29, 1996
This commission was created in November
1995 in response to a request from some
faculty in the University of Califomia
system concemed about the regents' decision,
on July 20, 1995, to end affirmmative
action in admissions, hiring, and the
awarding of contracts. The faculty members
who contacted the AAUP were opposed
to the substance of the decision, but
they were equally disturbed about the
process by which the decision had been
reached, a process they felt had violated
traditions of shared govemance in existence
at the university since 1920. The AAUP
is on record for its support of affimmative
action, but its help was sought in this
instance primarily on the issue of governance.
For eighty years the AAUP has been
engaged in developing standards for
sound academic practice, and it has
served as the authoritative voice of
the academic profession in this regard.
Its Statement on Government of Colleges
and Universities has, since 1966,
articulated the principles on which
shared govemance rests. These principles
stress the importance of mutual understanding
among the various components of a university:
its governing boards, administrators,
faculty, and students. Such understanding
requires an awareness of interdependence,
a commitment to communication and the
exchange of ideas, as well as a commitment
to joint action in the interests of
solving educational problems. Given
its long experience in articulating
principles of shared govemance and in
assessing practices in temms of these
principles, the AAUP was in a position
to provide a fair-minded account of
what had transpired in Califomia.
Following AAUP assessment procedures,
the members of this commission read
through masses of printed materials
and interviewed regents, administrators,
faculty representatives, and interested
observers on all sides of the controversy.
(A list of those interviewed appears
in Appendix B) We concluded that although
the regents had the legal authority
to take the action they did, principles
and longstanding practices of shared
govemance were nonetheless ignored in
the process which culminated in the
July 20 decision. The regents violated
the spirit, if not the letter, of shared
governance. We also concluded that,
because shared govemance had been breached,
the educational impacts of the decision
to abolish affirmative action were insufficiently
considered. Indeed, the striking fact
about the July 20 decision was that
it involved no sustained consultation
with faculty and administrators about
the educational issues at stake.
Our report has three sections. The
first deals with shared governance,
presenting a narrative of the events
leading to the regents' action. The
second considers the educational impacts
of affirmative action and of the regents'
decision to end it. The third offers
three recommendations.
1. Shared Governance
The University of Califomia was chartered
in 1868 and is one of the few state
universities to have been granted constitutional
autonomy. The regents were established
as the governig body of the university,
with the power to delegate authority
to administrators and faculty. One of
the goals of autonomy was to shield
the academy from political intervention
because, the founders believed, educational
and political goals not only might differ,
they also might conflict. Thus, the
constitution stated that "The university
shall be entirely independent of all
political or sectarian influence and
kept free therefrom in the appointment
of its regents and in the administration
of its affairs."
Over the years, the role of the faculty
in the management of the University
of California has increased, establishing
a tradition of what has come to be known
as "shared governance." Shared governance
involves both the formal delegation
of authority on certain educational
matters to the faculty Academic Senate
and the principled commitment by regents
and administrators to consult with faculty
on matters of educational policy, and,
when there is conflict, to exchange
views to ensure that the various opinions
are understood prior to action being
taken. Shared governance involves a
complex system of collaboration, communication,
and understanding among faculty, administrators,
and regents. The principles of shared
governance are recognized in the California
legal code, which specifically states
that "joint decision-making and consultation
between administration and faculty or
academic employees is the long-accepted
manner of governing institutions of
higher learning and is essential to
the performance of the educational missions
of these institutions."
Faculty participation takes place
through the institution of the Academic
Senate. All ladder rank and equivalent
faculty members at each of the nine
campuses of the University of California
system are represented on a campus-based
senate, whose chairs and committee heads
sit on the statewide Academic Council.
The chair and vice-chair serve as nonvoting
Faculty Representatives to the Board
of Regents. In 1920, a standing order
of the regents gave the senate the authority
to advise the president on budgetary
matters, the appointment and promotion
of faculty and deans, and educational
policy, including curriculum. This standing
order recognized that faculty had the
unique expertise on these matters that
was needed to implement an effective
educational system. The senate now oversees
the curriculum and sets conditions for
admissions and for the awarding of degrees.
A special committee of the senate, the
Board of Admissions and Relations with
Schools (BOARS), determines standards
for eligibility (in line with the broad
policy set by the legislature and the
regents), while campus admission committees
and the faculty of professional schools
set specific academic qualifications
for admission.
It is widely acknowledged that shared
governance has been one of the essential
elements in making the University of
California the outstanding institution
it is today. California is the model
on which many other academic institutions
base their own governance practices.
Faculty members in the University of
California system are important participants
in the formulation of educational policy
and in the articulation and maintenance
of high standards of admissions and
hiring. They provide information that
the regents and administration do not
otherwise have about the educational
process and about the workings of a
complex institution with a mission and
ethos different from that of other institutions
(such as factories or corporations)
of comparable size. Shared governance
has served to protect academic freedom
and to foster academic excellence making
the University of California system
one of the finest in the nation.
Although a clear division of labor
assigns ultimate authority for large
policy questions to the regents and
responsibility for implementing this
policy to the administration and faculty,
commitment to shared governance has
meant exchanges of information and opinion,
consultation, reflection, mediation,
and compromise. This deliberative, consultative
practice has mitigated the inevitable
political differences within and among
various university constituencies. As
a result, it has contributed to an atmosphere
of mutual respect and trust.
The events surrounding the regents'
decision of July 1995 involved a breakdown
in the process of shared governance.
Legally, of course, broad policy decisions
are the regents' prerogative. But the
assertion of such prerogative with very
little deliberative consultation and
in the face of objections from the president
and all the chancellors of the system,
from sub- stantial numbers of faculty,
and from representatives of the student
government, breached principles and
traditions of shared governance that
had long been observed. The result has
been a profound loss of trust on all
sides.
The history of the July 20 decision
seems to have begun more than a year
earlier, with a letter of protest from
a white student who had been turned
down for medical school admission. Data
submitted to support his claim suggested
that a differential system of admissions
to medical schools was in effect that
might be discriminating against whites.
Around the same time, a former Faculty
Representative to the Board of Regents
whose term had ended suggested the need
for a review of the effects of aff'rmative
action on different campuses in the
system. The regents, some of them declaring
hostility to aff'rmative action, asked
for information about procedures for
implementation. In the fall of 1994,
the president began scheduling a series
of presentations for the regents on
admissions and aff'rmative action. There
were twelve presentations made to the
board, some by faculty and campus administrators.
These meetings of the regents were public,
involving discussions of the materials
at hand. In addition, information related
to admissions was distributed by mail
between meetings of the board on twenty-three
occasions. Eight of the mailings were
initiated by President Jack Peltason;
the others were in response to regents'
requests for information.
The regents' attention to affirmative
action took place within a larger political
context in the state. A California Civil
Rights Initiative (CCRI) was being proposed
as a statewide referendum by opponents
of affirmative action. President Peltason,
with the support of the leadership of
the Academic Senate, sought to postpone
a decision by the regents on affirmative
action until this referendum had been
either passed or defeated. His actions,
whatever the motivation, were taken
as "stonewalling" by some of the regents.
As the regents' review of affirmative
action continued in the winter of 1995,
some problems were identified. The president
called for investigation of them and,
where appropriate, instituted corrective
measures. His position, and that of
the nine chancellors, was that the administration
of affirmative action might need to
be improved, but the policy itself was
educationally sound. No systematic,
documented overview of the educational
and administrative aspects of aff~rmative
action was offered or undertaken.
The growing sense of pressure led
the chair of the Academic Senate to
refer the question of affirmative action
to its Committee on Aff~rmative Action.
This prompted a series of resolutions
passed by the campus divisions of the
Academic Senate endorsing affirmative
action. Instead of provoking consultation
or requests for more information from
the regents, these resolutions seem
to have hardened the determination of
some of them (led by Regent Ward Connerly)
to abolish affirmative action. In the
spring, President Peltason convinced
Regent Connerly to postpone action on
what would be a controversial issue
until after the legislative budget negotiations
had ended. And Regent Connerly agreed.
At the June meeting of the Board of
Regents (by which time the budget talks
had ended), affirmative action was put
on the agenda for July. The resolutions
pertaining to affirmative action matters
were distributed to the regents only
one week before the board meeting. Regent
Connerly told the press that an effort
to end aff~rmative action was under
way. California Governor Pete Wilson
(also a regent), who had made the elimination
of aff~rmative action one of the planks
of his presidential campaign, had announced
his intention to attend the July meeting.
These public pronouncements politicized
an already polarized situation and linked
the regents' effort to Governor Wilson's
presidential campaign. The fact that
this issue was being considered in July,
when faculty and students were on summer
break, also seemed to indicate to many
observers that consultation was not
on the regents' agenda.
Still, the July meeting involved fourteen
hours of public hearings. In the course
of these hearings it became clear that,
with the exception of a slim majority
of the Board of Regents, all of the
constituencies of the university-president,
chancellors, and substantial numbers
of faculty and student representatives-opposed
the abolition of affirmative action.
Had there been any consideration of
the principles of shared governance,
this situation would have mandated further
discussion and consultation in a setting
and time frame more conducive to deliberation.
There were seven requests from various
regents for a postponement of the decision
so that such deliberation could take
place. The chair of the Academic Council
also asked for a delay. In addition,
suggestions for more discussion and
consultation came from a number of elected
officials, public figures, and invited
speakers. But the requests for serious
study of the various positions in the
controversy were ignored or overruled.
This, in our view, constituted a serious
breach of the principles and spirit
of shared governance.
A thorough and careful systemwide
examination of the practices, procedures,
and educational impacts of affirmative
action was never undertaken jointly
by the regents, the administration,
and the faculty. Instead, information
came in and was considered in a piecemeal
fashion. A thorough and sustained examination
would have permitted the regents to
tap faculty expertise and experience,
to gather the kind of information that
leads to considered and informed decision-making,
and to hear the many opinions that exist
about affirmative action on the campuses
of the university system. It also would
have permitted the formulation and consideration
of a range of solutions to problems
that had been and would have been identified
in the course of such an examination.
An examination of this kind is typically
undertaken either by existing committees
or by a special task force composed
of representatives of the regents, the
administration, the faculty, and the
students. A task force works slowly,
amassing and analyzing data and coming
up with recommendations, usually after
considerable discussion and debate.
A task force might well have come to
the same conclusion that the regents
did in their vote of July 20; it might
also have come up with alternative solutions.
Whatever the outcome, however, this
more deliberate process would have respected
the procedures of consultation and engaged
debate that historically have characterized
shared governance at the University
of California.
II. Affirmative Action
Affirmative action has been a policy
of the University of Califomia since
1964. In that year the Educational Opportunity
Program was established to provide access
to the university for promising students
from primarily, but not exclusively,
minority backgrounds whose economic,
social, and educational circumstances
othervvise prevented them from attending
the university. In 1974, the state legislature
effectively endorsed the principles
upon which aff~rmative action at the
university would be based: "Each segment
of California public higher education
shall strive to approximate by 1980
the general ethnic, sexual, and economic
composition of the recent high school
graduates." In 1988, the legislature
reiterated this recommendation for a
student body that was broadly representative
of the state's demography: "Each segment
of California public higher education
shall strive to approximate by the year
2000 the general ethnic, gender, economic,
and regional composition of recent high
school graduates, both in first-year
classes and subsequent college and university
graduating classes."
There were at least three motives
for aff~rmative action. The first followed
from the university's public responsibility
to provide higher education, in as inclusive
a way as possible, to the citizens of
the state. The second followed from
a social commitment to rectify discrimination
against minorities and women. The third
followed from an educational theory,
untested in 1964 and now widely subscribed
to as the result of thirty years of
experiment, that a diverse and heterogeneous
campus provided important educational
benefits for all students. Not only
would students experience a richer,
more dynamic intellectual environment,
but they would also learn how to negotiate
their differences as members of an academic
community.
To achieve these broadly representative
goals without compromising high academic
standards, the university developed
a number of criteria for selecting students
for admission. The California Master
Plan for Higher Education, which was
ratified by the legislature, provides
that all California residents in the
top eighth of the state's graduating
high school senior classes are eligible
for admission. At most of the campuses
of the University of California system,
eligible students were simply admitted.
At Berkeley and UCLA there was greater
competition for entry, and this led
to the use of additional criteria for
selecting an entering class from the
pool of those academically qualified
for admission. These criteria assessed
merit not only by numerical rankings,
but also according to individual talents
and achievements. At Berkeley, for example,
a certain percentage (roughly 50 percent
in the 1970s, at least 40 percent but
not more than 60 percent after 1988)
were admitted solely on the basis of
quantitative measures (such as grade
point average, SAT scores, and Achievement
Test scores). Another percentage (between
16 and 20 percent in the 1980s) were
reviewed on the basis not only of test
scores, but also of other criteria including
economic background, high school coursework,
and the quality of a written essay.
Still another segment was considered
because of special talents and achievements
(including art and athletics), geographic
origin, disabilities, and racial and
ethnic backgrounds. (In 1988 this segment
amounted to about 38 percent of freshmen
admitted.) Finally, a very small group,
no more than 6 percent at its highest
point, was admitted on a Special Action
basis. Because of unusual achievements,
talents (usually athletic), or experiences
of racial and economic disadvantage,
the eligibility requirement was waived
for this group. The controversy about
affrmative action was not just about
this small group of Special Action admits;
it was about the idea that merit among
those already determined to be in the
top eighth of high school graduates
could be assessed by anything but numerical
standards.
This admissions procedure successfully
diversified the Berkeley campus (and
other campuses in the system) with no
compromise in the quality of students
admitted and in their performance as
undergraduates. In fact, the quality
of students, by any measure (quantitative
scores, diversity of achievement and
experience, retention and graduation
rates), increased between 1964 and 1990.
A recent investigation by the U.S. Department
of Education's Office for Civil Rights
found that Berkeley not only was in
compliance with the law in its admissions
procedures (there were neither quotas
nor discrimination), but also that the
system offered a good example of how
to implement compliance with positive
educational consequences.
The method of balancing quantitative
and qualitative assessments of students
to determine admissions is the typical
procedure followed by admissions committees
all over the country. The University
of California adheres to national practice.
The process of admissions aims to be
fair and equitable, but it can never
be completely objective or neutral.
It cannot be for two reasons. First,
it must balance comparative assessments
of individuals with the collective good
of the university (defined as a diverse,
heterogeneous community). Second, in
order to achieve diversity, measures
are used that are not strictly comparable
and so cannot establish the absolute
superiority of one student over another.
Merit is, in any case, not a strictly
quantifiable characteristic.
This does not mean, however, that
standards have been abandoned in admissions
decisions. A great deal of thought has
gone into elaborating mixed standards
of admissibility to college. The system
is based on a belief-conf~rmed by years
of experience and systematic study-that
merit and potential cannot be assessed
solely on the basis of grades and test
scores. (Often-and this has been the
case at Berkeley-as many as 5,000 students
with 4.0 grade point averages apply,
and only 2,500 can be admitted. This
means that numerical standards alone
cannot be used to make distinctions.)
Depending on the size of the university
or college, the process is more or less
complex, but nowhere are grades and
board scores the sole determinants of
selection. Typically, admissions committees
seek balance with respect to geography,
socioeconomic background, race, gender,
ethnicity, alumni ties, parental wealth
and/or fame,academic interests, extracurricular
activities, and so on. This attempt
to ensure diversity is tied to an educational
philosophy that defines college and
university experience, inside and outside
the classroom, as broadening and transforming.
According to this philosophy, students
must be exposed not only to ideas they
have not encountered before, but also
to new perspectives and people. Such
exposure is practical because it prepares
students for the ever more global worlds
of business and the professions. It
also deepens their humanity by giving
them the ability to interact with and
understand others whose lives and experiences
are different from their own.
It is wrong to call this system of
selection a system of racial preference,
because many considerations go into
creating a freshman class. And race
is not given priority over these other
considerations. Since 1964, race has
been only one of the many factors taken
into account when admissions committees
assess the range of different experiences
they want represented on their campuses.
Race is only one of the factors taken
into account about an individual's characteristics
and achievements when he or she is under
consideration for admission.
Similarly, it is wrong to describe
this system of selection as one which
ignores or downplays the achievements
of individuals as individuals. The process
of selection takes into account the
qualities of individuals, and these
qualities are affected by socioeconomic
status, as well as by cultural background,
race, gender, and ethnicity. In a society
which regularly takes differences of
this kind into account and which treats
individuals as members of groups (whether
for purposes of negative discrimination,
community membership, or political mobilization),
it is wrong to say that these differences
are of no consequence in the experience
of individuals. While they surely do
not determine who a person is or what
he or she becomes, these experiences
are part of what individuals deal with
as they make their way in life. So the
fact that a talented dancer with an
interest in science and a desire to
become a doctor is black should be taken
into account.
Admissions procedures are complex.
They must balance the needs of individuals
and those of the academic community,
and they must select individuals for
admission according to noncomparable
standards. As a result, they are always
open to criticism and revision. The
history of admissions procedures at
the University of California, as elsewhere,
is a history of change and adjustment
in response both to internal and external
criticism. Indeed, a remarkable aspect
of the California admissions policy
is that it has been extremely sensitive
to the need for periodic examination
and adjustment. Not only did the California
Postsecondary Education Commission regularly
review the Master Plan for Higher Education
in the state, but each of the nine campuses
kept records that monitored the impact
of admissions decisions on such things
as the representation of minorities
as well as rates of student achievement
and attrition. Internal scrutiny and
recommendation for change came from
standing committees of the academic
senates, from special task forces, and
from admissions officers. While such
monitoring could not create a perfect
system, it managed to identify serious
flaws and to make the system responsive
to its critics. Two examples illustrate
this process. In 1989, a special committee
on Asian American admissions to Berkeley
recommended changes in 1984 admissions
procedures, which were found to have
had a disproportionately negative impact
on the enrollment of Asian Americans
at Berkeley. In 1990, also at Berkeley,
where increasing numbers of UC-eligible
students sought admission as a first
choice, a number of changes were implemented,
including a new emphasis on admitting
students from economically disadvantaged
backgrounds, a limit of 6 percent for
Special Action admissions and more careful
consideration of their potential for
success, and an increase in those admitted
solely on the basis of numerical criteria
to a minimum of 50 percent of those
eligible for the entering class. As
these examples indicate, the self-correcting
mechanisms have worked well for fine-tuning
the admissions process.
While this kind of self-correcting
mechanism worked effectively, it could
never resolve the tension created by
the need to balance judgments of individuals,
on the one hand, with the collective
goal of diversity, on the other. As
long as there was general commitment
to maintaining that balance, however,
criticism could be addressed through
established administrative, legislative,
and faculty channels. The political
climate of the 1990s changed this situation
by calling into question the need ever
to consider a collective good at the
expense of the presumed "rights" of
individuals. Affirmative action was
one of the collective principles attacked
in the name of individual rights.
In 1995, the regents of the University
of California voted by a narrow majority
that race, gender, and ethnicity could
no longer be a consideration in admissions,
hiring, and the awarding of contracts.
This ruling was justified in terms of
fairness to individuals, and, although
other criteria (including evidence of
strong character in the face of social,
economic, and physical disadvantages
or dysfunctional family situations)
were allowed to be used, they, too,
stressed the need to consider individuals
only as individuals. (The regents' resolution
began by citing Governor Wilson's Executive
Order to "End Preferential Treatment
and to Promote Individual Opportunity
Based on Merit.") When the regents also
raised to 75 percent the maximum proportion
of students to be admitted solely on
the basis of academic achievement, they
signaled their intention to give academic
assessments priority over supplementary
evaluations, thus reducing the complexity
of the process of selection and the
future makoup of the higher education
community. Diversity was redefined in
terms of the psychological attributes
of individuals rather than of the social
composition of the community. Evaluation
of merit was reduced to performance
on standardized tests. And the aim of
the university was now narrowly limited
to the education of those qualified
according to standardized measures to
enter it.
Affirmative action was described as
a failed social policy that was, in
any case, not part of the mission of
the university. The 1995 ruling effectively
rejected the idea that the university
had a public responsibility to reflect
the demography of the state and the
belief that it could have a role in
reversing social patterns of past and
current discrimination. Although the
regents' resolution expressed the hope
that new admissions policies would be
responsive to the diversity of the state's
population, statistical projections
from a university admissions task force
indicate that the regents' ruling will
result in an increase in white and Asian
students and a decline in African American
and Latino students, and that this change
will be especially apparent at the UCLA
and Berkeley campuses. A report from
the University of California in February
1995 indicated a drop in applications
from Latino students and a lower-than-anticipated
number of applications from African
Americans. The regents' new policy is
likely to have a racial impact precisely
because it refuses to take race into
account.
Surprisingly, the educational impact
of affirmative action was barely considered
by those who supported the regents'
decision. And yet some thirty years
of experience, in California and nationally,
suggest that there have been, on the
whole, important educational benefits.
First, at least one study has documented
increased cultural awareness and greater
sensitivity to race on the part of students.
Where concerted efforts have been made
to address racial tensions, students
have a greater sense of their own ability
to influence interpersonal dynamics
and social interactions. Second, students
have acquired familiarity with a range
of disparate cultures and styles; they
have learned that their perspective
is not the only way of understanding
a situation. The exposure to ideas and
attitudes fundamentally different from
one's own is never easy; these encounters
can be diff~cult, even painful. The
result, however, has been to prepare
those who will be the future leaders
of the state and nation to understand
the different perspectives of their
employees, students, and constituents.
Third, the curricular expansions that
have accompanied affirmative action
and the diversity of faculty hired have
given students the knowledge they need
to deal with an increasingly global
economy and an increasingly interconnected
pattern of world affairs. Fourth, universities
have provided important experiments
in democracy. The diversity of the population
has made the negotiation of differences
a fact of public life in the university,
and this has opened important discussions
about tolerance and identity and about
the forms of trust and mutual respect
required for the creation of democratic
communities.
This last point is often overlooked
in discussions of the impact of affirmative
action. The inevitable problems produced
by diversity (hostility among groups,
reluctance of individuals to be identified
in terms of group membership, the pressure
to choose one identity as more dominant
than others) have been emphasized to
the exclusion of the positive results.
And the ongoing discussions among faculty,
students, and administrators who have
addressed these problems and found innovative
solutions for them have been ignored.
Thus "identity politics" has been presented
as the necessary result of affirmative
action when, in fact, there has been
a strong critique of such politics from
those who support diversity. Within
the university, philosophers, historians,
anthropologists, and others have developed
a critical perspective on identity,
enabling students to distinguish between
those political pressures (such as an
attempt to create an organized response
to discrimination) that lead people
to make race or gender their primary
identities, and psycho-social influences
that make individuals distinctive and
unique beings. This kind of critical
thinking developed in the context of
the concrete experiences produced by
diversity: the need to balance individuals
and communities and to create a community
of people who can live together despite
their different assumptions and experiences.
To the extent that democracy is an active
and inclusive process requiring an educated
and critical citizenry, affirmative
action in the universi- ties has been,
and continues to be, an important training
ground.
Instead of urging more critical attention
to the problems of negotiating difference,
instead of recognizing that democracy
always requires a delicate balance between
individual and collective interests,
instead of upgrading the influence of
the agencies charged with monitoring
the balance in order to correct excesses
in one direction or another, a narrow
majority of the regents of the University
of California opted to end its thirty-year
experiment with affirmative action.
We conclude that, in the absence of
sustained and careful consideration
of the educational impact both of aff~rmative
action and of the decision to end it,
the regents' action--though technically
legal--was ill-advised.
III. Recommendations
- The regents, administration, and
faculty ought to reaffirm their commitment
to the principles and practices of
shared governance. We were surprised,
in the course of our investigation,
to discover that there were regents
who had never heard of the concept.
Because shared governance is not simply
the formal delegation of authority,
but also a shared commitment to consultation,
communication, and collaboration,
it is a difficult practice to uphold.
We therefore recommend the provision
of regular orientation on the principles
and practices of shared governance
for new members of the Board of Regents,
the administration, and the faculty
senate. Such an orientation is vital
if the University of California is
to preserve a method of governance
that has historically trained the
leadership of the California system
and provided a model for universities
in the rest of the nation.
- Many issues that come before the
university are unavoidably political,
but in this case the issue was dealt
with in a partisan political manner
that gives the appearance of promoting
the interest of a particular candidate
and party. We recommend that every
effort be made to avoid partisan political
activity in deliberations about educational
policy both in appearance and in fact.
No better formulation is provided
than the one in the Constitution of
the State of California: "The university
shall be entirely independent of all
political or sectarian influence and
kept free therefrom in the appointment
of its regents and in the administration
of its affairs."
- The regents should not implement
any recision of aff'rmative action
until a thorough review of the educational
goals and impact of diversity, and
of the educational effects such recision
may have, has been conducted by a
joint task force of regents, administrators,
faculty, and students.
Members of the MUP Commission on Governance
and Amrmative Action Policy
JOAN WALLACH SCOTT, Chair
Professor of Social Science
Institute for Advanced Study
Princeton, NJ
ROBERT ATWELL, President
American Council on Education
Washington, DC
LARRY GERBER
Professor of History, Auburn University
Chair, AAUP Committee on College and
University Government
A. LEON HIGGINBOTHAM, JR.
Public Service Professor of Jurisprudence
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
CANDACE KANT
Provost, West Charleston Campus
Community College of Southern Nevada
RONALD OAXACA
Professor of Economics
University of Arizona
SHIRLEY YEE
Associate Professor of Women's Studies
University of Washington
JAMES T. RICHARDSON, ex officio
Director, Center for Justice Studies
University of Nevada at Reno
Chair, AAUP Committee on Government
Relations
MARSHA NYE ADLER, Commission Staff,
AAUP |
