Regents to discuss admissions policy
By Michael Howerton
Daily Bruin Staff
Despite their efforts to move past the mire of affirmative action, the UC Board of Regents will meet today to discuss and vote on the future of admissions and hiring practices at the university.
One proposal, by Alumni Regent Judith Levin, would set a one-year postponement on the regents' repeal of affirmative action so that faculty could add their input to the process. The other proposal, by Student Regent Ed Gomez, seeks to overturn the July decision and keep affirmative action at the university.
Both proposals came before the board at the January meeting, but they were both postponed until this month's meeting.
"Ed and I are the conscience of the board, reminding them that this issue is not going away like they want it to," Levin said.
"I hope (the other regents) see our proposals and say 'uh oh, here we go again,'" she added. "They did not go about this in the right way."
One of the reasons her measure was postponed at the January meeting was that Levin suspected she did not have enough votes in her favor. However, with the retirement of two of the most conservative members of the board last month, the distribution of votes might fall more evenly this time, Levin said.
But more than trying to overturn the board's decision last July, Levin said her proposal is an attempt to get the board to acknowledge that they made a mistake by not consulting the faculty in their decision.
The long standing university tradition of shared governance, in which the regents have deferred to the faculty on all past admission policy decisions, was violated when the regents decided to end affirmative action policies without consulting the faculty, Levin said.
"More than affirmative action, I want to bring attention to shared governance," Levin said. "The Board of Regents needs to be reminded on a continuous basis that they need to honor the philosophy of shared governance. They need a little tickle."
The California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI), if passed in November, will make the regent's decision obsolete, Regents Chair Claire Burgener said.
He downplayed the importance of today's discussion in San Francisco.
The discussion at the meeting today will be minimal, he speculated, since the California Civil Rights Initiative, which probably has enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, will put the issue in the hands of the voters.
"There really isn't much point (to the proposals)," Burgener said. Even if one of the proposals passes, he said it would not affect the implementation.
Since the language of the intiative would eliminate any public hiring and contracting policies that were in any way determined by race or gender, the university would be under its mandate if it passes.
"We're waiting for the public to give us consul and advice," Burgener said.
If the public votes down the bill in November, he said, then the board will be under heavy pressure to repeal their elimination of affirmative action. If the bill passes, then the regents would be forced to eliminate affirmative action practices, he added.
In light of the initiative, Levin said it was even more important to heal the schism between the faculty and the regents.
"If we are stuck with CCRI, I would like to see accord between the regents and the faculty so we can deal with that," Levin said.
Comments to webmaster@db.asucla.ucla.edu