----------------------------Original message----------------------------
July 25, 1995
To: The Association of Black Sociologist
From: Benjamin Bowser
California State University at Hayward
Ref: Recent UC vote to abolish affirmative action
After watching the recent meeting of the UC Regents, monitoring
the national and local press, and talking with several people on
and behind the scenes, there are several important things that
may not be apparent about the Regent's abolition of Affirmative
Action.
1. The groundwork for abolishing affirmative action did not begin
with the current governor, Pete Wilson, it started back with
governor Deukmejian. The idea was to get the UC Regents to do
whatever the sitting (Republican) governor wanted. Conservatives
argued bitterly in the 1960s and 10970s over radicals and
liberals politicizing the university and that the Regents were a
barrier to getting the radicals out. The Regents have continued
to be a barrier to not only doing something about affirmative
action but a host of other problems in the university that
conservatives would like to do something about. How has the
right-wing dealt with this problem? Just as Republican
Presidents have appointed marginally compete right wingers to the
Supreme Court, the Republican governors of California have
appointed the same to the UC Regents. The following is a profile
of all 18 Regents, 17 of whom were appointed by Republican
governors, summarized by the San Francisco Chronicle (7/20-21):
Name Qualifications/ Connection Against A.A.
Background Hiring Admissions
Bill Bagley Attorney, former ---?---- no abstain
Roy Brophy Real estate dev. ---?---- no no
Clair Burgener Rep Party activist Gov. friend yes yes
Glenn Campbell Conservative Hoover Inst. yes yes
Frank Clark Attorney Brown appoint no no
Ward Connerly Real estate dev. Gov. friend yes yes
John Davies Aid to Wilson Gov. friend yes yes
Tirso del Junco Chair state GOP Gov. friend yes yes
Alice Gonzales ------ Deukmejian no no
Sue Johnson ------ Deukmejian yes yes
Mer. Khachigain Adviser to Wilson Deukmejian yes yes
Leo Kolligian Attorney ---?---- yes yes
Howard Leach Business man $$ to Wilson yes yes
David Lee Business man Asian against yes yes
Velma Montoya ------ Wilson Appoint yes no
St. Nakashima ------ Deukmejian yes yes
Tom Sayles Heads state agency Wilson Appoint no no
Dean Watkins Business man Deukmejian/Wil yes yes
Only one Regent has a higher education background and that
background is with the arch-conservative Hoover Institute at
Stanford. All of the other white men are businessmen, attorneys,
aids and friends of the governor, Republican Party officials and
campaign people. The four women are all faithful Republicans,
and no one is certain what they do for a living-- only one works
and she works for the Republican party as an advisor to Wilson.
The two Asian appointees were consistent with Chinese and
Japanese middle class attitudes toward Affirmative Action --
against it. And of course, Ward Connerly, the African American
friend of Pete Wilson led the attack. The ONLY appointee of a
Republican governor who opposed the anti-affirmative action
initiative was the only other African American on the board, Tom
Sayles -- a utility executive who headed a state agency for
Wilson.
With these kind of appointments, this was an accident waiting to
happen. It took two things -- turning the UC Regents into a
political party patronage positions and getting people who know
nothing about higher education to serve as policy makers.
The Protest
At the high point of the protest there were close to 1,500 people
outside the building, in the corridors, and in the meeting room.
There was a distinct absence of young African Americans. The
vast majority of the student-aged people who attended in
opposition were Asian, Hispanic, and European Americans. The
African Americans present were for the most part over forty --
public officials, ministers, and UC staff managing programs that
would be effected by the UC vote. Rev. Cecil Williams of Glide
Church and several church members were the group that was
arrested in protest during the meeting. Jesse Jackson was with a
group of protestors after the meeting who attempted without
success to get arrested. The police redirected traffic around
them.
Where to From Here?
One might note their vote was only against affirmative action
hiring and admission, not programs. What the Regents did was
first let all of us know who they were and what power they have.
This first vote was a crossing of a symbolic and psychological
threshold -- a first kill. This board is going to wait out this
decision and then make some more roll-backs, especially after
they do not get the kind of results they expect from this first
vote. What will they vote against next? -- programs, academic
units, individuals, and eventually the most sacred cow of all,
tenure. Sources in Sacramento tell me that discussions of what
next to band are already underway in the Republican caucus
back-rooms of the California State legislature.
Use of Racist Symbolic Politics
While the UC Regents voted to abolish the use of racial
"preference" in both hiring and admissions, their vote was
non-specific and quite vague. There are no specific guidelines
on how to now hire and admit without "preference," there will
probably be no specific guidelines on what programs should be
abolished as affirmative action -- remedial courses, economic
opportunity programs, ethnic studies? Is this an oversight on
their part? Not hardly.
The obvious effect, if not conscious intention, of the Regents
vote and future votes is to first symbolically stigmatize and
render illegal ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that is generally regarded
as affirmative action. They gave a signal to the general white
public that the presence of people of color, especially African
Americans, on UC campuses and in any other setting is over.
Furthermore, academicians cannot be left to manage their own
affairs because they allowed affirmative action to happen and
continue to support it. Obviously, what faculty, the presidents,
and staff think and want, regardless of their political
persuasion, are irrelevant. It is now after the vote that the
real dirty work starts, and that is deciding what these votes
mean, what changes have to be made in practice, and eventually,
what programs and people will go and do not go.
Not So Obvious Local Impacts
If nothing is done to oppose these Regents, the front line of UC
officials who opposed the Regents will undoubtedly and eventually
be replaced. Another colleague tells me that there will be
covert warfare within the 10 campus administrations to go on as
they have, but under a different name. In which case, the
regents now have the task of enforcing their decision. Keep an
eye out for a new systemwide Chancellor who will supports the
dismantling of Affirmative Action and is at least as incompetent
as the Regents -- Bro. Walter Massey is getting in just in time.
Now faculty and administrators who have opposed affirmative
action from the beginning can come out of hiding and implement
the roll-back, and this is a virtual mountain of gold for African
American opportunists like Ward Connerly who are willing to be up
front in policing and dismantling.
A California State University regents spokes-person is reported
to have said that CSU does not have racial preference in hiring
and admission, so there will be no need for such an action. But
in the fall, look for a repeat performance of the affirmative
action symbolic vote from the California State University Regents
who are even more closely tied to the governor.
Why Is This Happening -- Why in California?
The most immediate reason is because over the last decade there
has been a progressive decline in African American, Hispanic, and
white moderate voters who go to the polls. This state's racial
and cutlural diversity is not reflected in voting -- based on the
California Field Polls, close to 80% of California voters are on
average over forty-five, white, and lower middle class. I would
add that this group mostly live in the suburbs, are experiencing
a decline in their standard of living, have children who are not
and will not do as well as they did -- cannot get into UC, are in
fear of loosing their jobs, and will soon be in declining health.
These are the people who vote regularly, and support conservative
Republicans who are doing something about "Whites being
discriminated against" by all this affirmative action. As the
plight of this class of whites gets worst in the coming years
(they are already in revolt over taxes and are buying guns in
record numbers), so will their willingness to engage in more and
more extreme politics. The only thing that can displace them is
for alienated moderates and people of color to get to the polls
in mass.
What about mobilization, protest, organized opposition, student
activism, new "Black Panthers" party, and all the rest of that?
At this point, forget it. The real story in this first shot
fired across all of our bows is that it has happened without
organized or effective opposition. The only hint of opposition
is from within the ranks of staff who are immediately effected by
this decision, Black elected officials, faculty and student
networks talking to each other, and from old line progressives.
There is no apparent community base of opposition (for good
reasons), students seemed baffled as to whether this is all T.V.
or is real and effects them.
Any governing board like the UC Regents that goes against the
expressed will of the entire community it is suppose to serve
needs to be dealt with. What we need to do is shut both the
University of California and California State University down
this fall, and again during the 1996 general elections, and then
use the spot light to educate the public, demand that the
politically appointed Regents step down, embarrass the governor
and show his abysmal record of governance to the rest of the
nation.
Rev. Cecil Williams has called for a re-call drive against Pete
Wilson and, I will add, a state referendum to mend affirmative
action, not end it. I not only support Rev. Williams call, I am
going to work closely with Rev. Williams to see that it happens.
Several things need to be done:
1. We need a complete analysis of Pete Wilson's record as
governor of California to use as content in informed pamphlets,
posters, fliers, and eventually television and radio commercials.
2. We need to identify people willing and ready to go out and
form political action support groups and get signatures once the
petitions are drawn up -- campuses and churches are a good place
to start.
3. The political action support groups can also serve as voter
registration and get-out-and-vote teams. If everyone in the
network gets ten signatures, and five of those persons get ten
more, we can have on the 1996 California ballet a recall of
Wilson and a counter referendum to the anti-affirmative action
referendum that conservatives are planning.
Those of you who are in California and/or can contribute with
analysis and information, please do so. Contact me asap. It
will take several months to get this campaign organized, and we
will need all the support we can get. Also you might consider
organizing research, action, and support groups wherever you are.
Why? Because this roll-back is not going to stop with
affirmative action nor is it going to stop in California. Maybe
a miracle will happen ... for those of you who believe in tooth-
fairies.
My only regret is that we did not start this counter-campaign two
years ago with the roll back of welfare benefits. Also there is
no reason why our efforts cannot go on and on from a reactionary
one to a major push in the coming years for advancements in
progressive measures beyond affirmative action.
