Vanity: UC Opposition to Ward Connerly's Prop 54

U N I V E R S I T Y O F C A L I F O R N I A , A C A D E MI C S E N A T E BERKELEY ° DAVIS ° IRVINE ° LOS ANGELES ° MERCED ° RIVERSIDE ° SAN DIEGO ° SAN FRANCISCO SANTA BARBARA ° SANTA CRUZ

Office of the Chair Assembly of the Academic Senate, Academic Council Telephone: (510) 987-9303 University of California Fax: (510) 763-0309 1111 Franklin Street, 12th Floor Email: gayle. binion@ucop. edu Oakland, California 94607-5200

Over the past year, the Academic Council, as well as its constituent committees and divisional campus Senates, have held numerous in-depth discussions of the initiative, Classification by Race, Ethnicity, Color, or National Origin (hereinafter referred to as CRECNO). 1 These discussions were occasioned by the concern that the State constitutional amendment that would result from the passage of this initiative could have serious implications for the scholarly, pedagogic and public service pursuits so central to the mission of the University of California. After much discussion and consultation on the matter, the Academic Council 2 voted unanimously on January 29, 2003, to oppose CRECNO and to call upon the Board of Regents to oppose it on behalf of the University of California. The formal action of Academic Council, the body authorized to act on behalf of the 13,000+ members of the University of California Academic Senate, was informed and supported by all Senate committees that reviewed the matter. 3 We understand that CRECNO will appear on the next statewide ballot and that this is currently scheduled for March 2004. 4 If the University is to take a position on the matter, and is to be able to engage in a public dialogue on it, it is important that the initiative be addressed by the Board of Regents at its next meeting. The

1 The initiative has been popularly known as the Racial Privacy Initiative, the name suggested by its proponents. The Office of the California Secretary of State concluded that this name did not accurately reflect its terms and entitled it "Classification by Race Ethnicity, Color and National Origin."

2 The Academic Council's 17 voting members include the Chair of each campus Division of the Academic Senate and the Chairs of six of the systemwide Academic Senate committees, as well as the Chair and Vice Chair of the systemwide Academic Senate.

3 The Academic Senate, systemwide, is composed of Academic Council per footnote 2, as well as ten additional committees (not represented on Academic Council). As noted, all of the committees that reviewed CRECNO have communicated their opposition. These include: Committee on Planning and Budget, Committee on Academic Personnel, Committee on Educational Policy, Committee on Faculty Welfare, Coordinating Committee on Graduate Affairs, the Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools, Committee on Academic Freedom, Committee on Privilege and Tenure, Committee on Research Policy (non-voting member of Council), and the Committee on Affirmative Action and Diversity. The committees that did not review CRECNO have charges that do not intersect with CRECNO-related matters. 4 The measure is scheduled for the next statewide ballot, which will be March 2004, unless the effort to recall the Governor occasions a statewide election at an earlier date, thereby, moving up the electorate's consideration of CRECNO.

Senate's action is, therefore, being formally reported to you at this time with a request that you transmit this letter to the Regents for their consideration at their meeting on May 14-15, 2003. Before I outline the nature of the concerns that weigh heavily on my colleagues, let me note that it is rather extraordinary for the faculty to take a collective position on a political matter. This resistance to entering the political fray rests on two foundations. In general, the Academic Senate relies on the UC administration to represent the institution's interests, including those of the faculty as educators and researchers, when expressing the University's positions on proposed legislative acts or administrative regulations. Second is the Senate's respect for the political independence of each of its members and a widely shared belief that we best serve our collective mission when we avoid allowing divisions over public policy to influence our relationships or undermine our mutual respect. We believe, however, that CRECNO represents a rare instance when our general reluctance to take a political stand must give way to our shared responsibility as a faculty to oppose a measure that we believe is injurious to UC and to the State of California. General concerns CRECNO directs that neither the State nor its subdivisions and instrumentalities (including public institutions of higher education) may "classify" persons on the basis of race, ethnicity, color or national origin. This proposed amendment to Article I of the State Constitution, in §32 (a) governing public education, contracting and employment, covers current and prospective students, contractors and employees, and in §32 (b) governing all other state operations, applies to all persons subject to these state operations. It is, therefore, assumed that the operations of the University of California would be covered under §32 (a) as to "classifying" students, prospective students, contractors, and employees and under (b) as to all other operations and persons. 5 The Academic Senate's concerns about the potential impacts of CRECNO are of two types. 6 As scholars and educators, the faculty believe that public policy ought to be informed in all ways that may enhance its quality and effectiveness. This commitment to the importance of knowledge pertains whether or not a particular policy affects, or has involved, the University or its employees. As scholars committed to the fundamental value of knowledge, and to the necessity of developing and analyzing empirical data, we believe that CRECNO, with its ban on the State collecting data on race, ethnicity, color or national origin, contravenes an essential element of good public policy. Data on race and ethnicity allow policy makers to understand the differential situations and needs of different communities as well as the potentially differential impacts of the policies that they adopt. These data also allow the state to target policy in manners most effective in meeting the needs of various population groups. While exceptions to this ban (discussed below and in footnotes) are included in CRECNO, the exceptions not only raise more concerns than they ....

If UC is to be able to identify, recruit and retain an excellent faculty and student body, and if we are to retain our status as the premier public research institution in the country, if not the world, it is essential that we be able to collect and analyze any data that allow us to serve these goals. Because we have concluded that the amendment that CRECNO would add to the California Constitution threatens the educational, research and public service missions of the University, we call upon the Regents to oppose it and to convey this opposition in all appropriate ways to the State's electorate.

"Crecno" and "information ban" are terms opponents use to refer to CA's Prop 54 (www.racialprivacy.org).

It is also worthy of note that Gayle Binion is a former Executive Director of the ACLU, which strongly opposed 209 and strongly opposes Prop 54. That former role causes one to wonder whether Professor Binion has used her role as Chair of the Academic Council to advance a personal position.

Professor Bunion. ....yet another in the long line of looney leftists who consider Ward Connerly one of them "right wing crazies."

This opinion operates from the assumption that a person's skin color is pertinent to those goals.

It is blatant racism.

Join Us…Your One Thread To All The California Recall News Threads!

Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin

What will they do without the wedge?

What will they do?

Yours:...leftists who consider Ward Connerly one of them "right wing crazies."

... or... the Exorcist.

This opinion operates from the assumption that a person's skin color is pertinent to those goals. It is blatant racism.

You are right. And the left keeps hoping no one notices this...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.