----------------------------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.