• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Calls for the resignation of UC President Robert Dynes by state legislators earlier this month was not the first time that state government officials have tried to influence the UC’s decisions.

Though under different circumstances and much more state pressure, major and controversial decisions by the board have been heavily influenced by state politicians in the past.

Governors and state legislatures were crucial to the 1967 firing of UC President Clark Kerr for not doing enough to stop student protestors at UC Berkeley, as well as the ban of affirmative action in the UC admissions process in 1995.

Earlier this month, three state senators called for the resignation or firing of Dynes, after a state audit of the university found that he and other UC officials were involved in several severe policy lapses in compensation over the past several years.

Dynes, who is scheduled to speak at the UC Board of Regents meeting today, told the Los Angeles Times last week that he has no plans to step down.

“I’m not going to. It would be less stressful, frankly, but this university is worth the effort,” he said.

If the regents do not vote to fire Dynes, the only way for the legislature to directly fire a UC president would be to strip the UC of its autonomy.

Though no legislation has ever passed for the state to directly fire a UC official, Kerr was fired partly due to pressure from the governor at the time, Ronald Reagan.

During the 1960s’ Free Speech Movement that emerged from student protests at UC Berkeley, Kerr was criticized by conservative government leaders for being too lenient on student protesters. The FBI was also tracking Kerr because he fought against the firing of UC Berkeley faculty who refused to sign anti-communist loyalty oaths required of UC faculty in 1949.

UCLA political science Professor Susanne Lohman said Kerr’s situation was much different from Dynes’ because of the political climate at the time. She said Kerr’s firing was due to a fundamental political disagreement that involved the whole state.

“McCarthyism and later the student protests really split society into left and right,” she said.

Lohman said it is also important to distinguish between the different pressures the government exerts on the university. What happened to Kerr is important because it was an example of the government interfering with the university for political reasons, whereas politicians are now calling for the resignation of Dynes because of administrative mistakes, she said.

Though popular with students and faculty, Kerr was seen as being too liberal by a newly elected governor representing a conservative-leaning public.

Kerr was fired by the regents in a 14-8 vote at their Jan. 20, 1967 meeting, which was the first meeting after Reagan was inaugurated into office.

At the meeting, Regent William Coblentz, who voted against Kerr’s firing, said Kerr had been an outstanding administrator and attributed his dismissal to Reagan.

“I am deeply saddened that a change in Sacramento has meant a change in the presidency of this university,” Coblentz said.

Then-Assembly Speaker Jesse Unruh told the Daily Bruin in 1967 that the principal reason given by the board was that Kerr had “lost the confidence of the regents and the people and was no longer useful to the university.”

Board Chairman Theodore Meyer denied that Kerr was fired because of budget pressure from Reagan.

In another instance of government influence on the UC, the regents voted in 1995 to end affirmative action during Gov. Pete Wilson’s term.

An opponent of affirmative action, Wilson appointed Ward Connerly, a vocal opponent of offering preferential treatment based on race and gender, as a regent in 1993. Connerly later introduced the issue to the board and led the regents in a 14-10 vote for SP1 and SP2, two anti-affirmative action policies.

During the debate at the regents’ meeting on Jan. 20, 1995, some state legislators alleged that the regents served as political tools in the hands of Wilson, and the governor was there to personally state his support of abolishing affirmative action at the UC, according to Daily Bruin archives.

“Students at the University of California should achieve distinction and will achieve distinction without the use of the kind of preferences that have been in place,” Wilson told the regents.

Prior to the vote, hundreds of students protested and sent letters to the regents in support of affirmative action by the UC president, all the campuses’ chancellors and other administrators.

Lohman said the situation was a “clear-cut case of the government not wanting affirmative action. ... The government wanted to do away with it and the regents caved into the pressure.”

She added that there is always going to be some political interference at the UC because it is a publicly funded university and must take into consideration what the people of the state want.

But unlike Kerr’s case, where the governor and most Republican legislators agreed on the firing of Kerr, there are only a few senators calling for Dynes to resign. Lohman said it would be hard for individual legislators to exert enough pressure to fire a president.

So far, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a de-facto regent member, has stood by Dynes, saying he should be allowed time to fix the UC’s compensation problems.

Sen. Jeff Denham, R-Salinas, who is calling for Dynes to be fired, said Dynes failed in his responsibility to see that university policies were followed.

“I strongly believe that firing Dynes would be in the best interest of the university,” Denham said.

In response to legislators’ concerns, Chairman Gerald Parsky said he believed it is in the best interest of the UC for the regents to have all the relevant information available before deciding on a plan of action for management and compensation practices.

“The regents will also determine, on a case-by-case basis beginning at our May meeting, how people should be held accountable for policy violations and other acts deemed to be inappropriate,” Parsky said, referring to the board meeting this week.