The requirement for students in the UCLA College of Letters and Sciences to take one course on diversity passed by a wide margin in an Division-wide vote. After faculty in the College passed the requirement earlier this year, a small group in opposition petitioned the Senate leadership appealing to an obscure provision in the Senate by-laws. Senate leaders upheld the petition over the protest of the College FEC and scheduled a vote of the entire UCLA faculty. That vote, held last week, yielded 916 in favor and 487 opposed. The requirement goes into effect for students entering UCLA in the fall of 2015.
Category: diversity
Diversity Requirement Debate Returns
The question of a diversity requirement for undergraduate students in the UCLA College of Letters and Sciences is back on the agenda, this time apparently heading for a vote of the entire UCLA faculty. Last October, faculty in the College of Letters and Sciences voted to adopt an undergraduate diversity requirement, and the measure was approved by the Senate Legislative Assembly. According to a January 26 email to Legislative Assembly members, in December, a group of 59 faculty members petitioned Senate Chair Joel Aberbach asking him to set aside the votes under a little used provision of the Senate Bylaws, which he did. The College Faculty Executive Committee has protested saying, among other things that Aberbach’s interpretation of Senate bylaws,
essentially renders meaningless any action taken by the Legislative Assembly since less than 2% of the faculty can overturn any and all of its actions and send them to a vote of the entire faculty; it also sets a troubling precedent, as it fundamentally undermines the long-held privilege of Faculties to determine the curricula for their students.
We’ve posted the entire email to the LgA members on the news feed: http://uclafaculty.org/2015/02/05/text-of-college-fec-letter-to-senate-lga-members/
Text of College FEC Letter to Senate LgA Members
The following is the full text of an email from the College Faculty Executive Committee (FEC) to members of the Senate Legislative Assembly (LgA) concerning the requirement for diversity-related courses.
From: FEC Chair
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 8:01 AM
To: FEC Chair
Subject: College FEC: Message to LgA Members
Dear Colleague,
Since you are a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Academic Senate, we wanted to inform you about a recent development related to a vote made by the LgA on November 20, 2014 to Amend Divisional Regulation A-458(C) in the College of Letters and Science, which would include a diversity-related course in the College undergraduate curriculum. The Academic Senate Office informed the College FEC Chairs on December 28, 2014 that on December 11, 2014, Senate Chair Joel Aberbach received a challenge in the form of a petition referencing Bylaw 155 and “asking for an electronic vote of all Senate faculty on the adoption of a diversity requirement for undergraduates in the College of Letters and Sciences.” (Memo from Senate Chair Aberbach dated December 16, 2014 to the Executive Board).
You may remember that the proposed College of Letters and Science regulation revision was included as a regular agenda item and opened up for a lengthy discussion at the LgA meeting on November 20, 2014. At the meeting, the LgA heard Pro and Con statements and entertained questions from the floor. The LgA meeting was well attended by at least 117 voting members, and a motion was made to approve the College diversity course requirement. The motion was seconded, and the LgA voted decisively to approve the regulation change (85 in favor, 18 against, and 4 abstentions).
You may also remember that after the vote passed, an LgA member who spoke against the Amendment to Divisional Regulation A-458(C) (also one of the faculty who signed a “con” email sent to College faculty on October 24) sought to immediately undo the favorable LgA vote by invoking a rarely used provision of the UCLA Senate Bylaw, Section 155 (B)(1), which states that “actions taken by the LgA shall be submitted to a…ballot of voting members of the Division if the request for the mail or electronic online ballot is made at the meeting at which the issue has been considered and one-third of the members of the LgA present join in the request.” A motion to compel a vote of the full membership of the Division was made, but it fell well short of the required one-third support from LgA members present.
Traditionally, a positive vote by the LgA is the final approval necessary for College curricular changes involving a regulation change. However the Academic Senate Office informed the College FEC Chairs on December 28, 2014 that on December 11, 2014, Senate Chair Joel Aberbach received a challenge in the form of a petition referencing Bylaw 155 and “asking for an electronic vote of all Senate faculty on the adoption of a diversity requirement for undergraduates in the College of Letters and Sciences.” (Memo from Senate Chair Aberbach dated December 16, 2014). In the document accompanying that memo, entitled “Extended Summary of Divisional Bylaws related to the Challenge to the November 20th LgA vote on the College Diversity Requirement,” it is explained that the petition was signed by 59 Divisional (rather than LgA) members (who asked to remain anonymous) “requesting that the issue of the Diversity Requirement for undergraduates in the UCLA College of Letters and Sciences be put to a ballot of voting members of the division” (Extended Summary accompanying memo from Senate Chair Aberbach).
This petition has been accepted by Senate Chair Aberbach. As a result, the favorable vote by the College faculty in October 2014 and the final vote of approval by the LgA in November 2014 are effectively invalidated by individuals who remained unknown outside the Academic Senate office. Instead, the proposal to establish a College of Letters and Science diversity course requirement has been scheduled to be put to a vote of the entire UCLA faculty (approximately 3,600 individuals).
On January 8, 2015, members of the College Diversity Initiative Committee and the College FEC Chairs submitted a formal appeal to Senate Chair Aberbach as well as the UCLA Rules and Jurisdiction committee on the grounds that Bylaw 155 has been misinterpreted and that a petition to take a vote to the full faculty must be made by one-third of the members of the Legislative Assembly. This interpretation is more consistent with the language of the entire 155 bylaw than the interpretation offered in Senate Chair Aberbach’s Extended Summary. Moreover, this interpretation preserves the fundamental principles underlying faculty governance. In contrast, the interpretation presented in the Extended Summary essentially renders meaningless any action taken by the Legislative Assembly since less than 2% of the faculty can overturn any and all of its actions and send them to a vote of the entire faculty; it also sets a troubling precedent, as it fundamentally undermines the long-held privilege of Faculties to determine the curricula for their students.
To date there has been no response to the appeal from Senate Chair Aberbach or the UCLA Rules and Jurisdiction Committee addressing concerns over the interpretation of Bylaw 155 or the decision to allow this petition action to proceed anonymously. Instead, individuals have had to resort to filing requests for a copy of the full petition through the Public Records Act, which was released on January 21 by the Records Management & Information Practices Department. Although the minutes of the LgA meeting have yet to be formally distributed, and Legislative Assembly and Faculty members have not been formally informed, the Senate leadership has already scheduled a campus wide vote based on this petition for February 25 – March 10, 2015.
As a member of the Legislative Assembly, it is critical that you are aware of the current situation because the integrity and legitimacy of the Legislative Assembly are at stake. For your information, we have also included an abbreviated version of the appeal that was submitted as a challenge to the petition.
It is our understanding that a formal letter raising concerns about the lack of transparency of the petition process, the unresponsiveness of senate leadership, and the precedent set by this anonymous petition action is being circulated. However, we are writing you as a member of the Legislative Assembly to inform you of the situation and encourage you to contact Senate Chair Aberbach and the UCLA Rules and Jurisdiction Committee to call for transparency and request that they provide a clear explanation to all UCLA faculty as to 1) their unusual interpretation of Bylaw 155 that has allowed this petition to proceed, 2) their decision to allow this action to occur in secrecy, and 3) why faculty of the College of Letters and Science should not have the autonomy to decide upon their own curriculum — decisions supported by a vote of College of Letters and Science faculty and approved by the Legislative Assembly.
Christina Palmer, Chair Mike Alfaro, Co-Chair
College Faculty Executive Committee College Diversity Initiative Committee
Joseph Bristow, Vice Chair M. Belinda Tucker, Co-Chair
College Faculty Executive Committee College Diversity Initiative Committee
Napolitano Responds to UCLA’s Moreno Report
 |
| Moreno |
UC President Napolitano issued a response to the (former California Supreme Court Justice Carlos) “Moreno Report” of Oct. 2013, formally titled “Independent Investigative Report on Acts of Bias and Discrimination Involving Faculty at the University of California, Los Angeles.” It includes directives to all campus chancellors:
1) Every campus should designate an official to serve as its lead discrimination officer. This official is responsible for ensuring that an appropriate response is made to all reports of perceived acts of discrimination, bias, and harassment involving faculty, students, and staff from all parts of the campus.
* The discrimination officer will designate the individuals responsible for carrying out such activities as advising complainants, accepting complaints, carrying out investigations, recommending informal resolutions, and referring cases to the Academic Senate or administrators as appropriate.
* The Chancellor should ensure that he/she regularly meets with and reviews the work of the lead discrimination officer.
2) Every campus should have an official who serves as an ombudsperson, responsible on his or her own or through other staff for providing confidential advice about perceived acts of discrimination, bias, and harassment involving faculty, students, and staff from all parts of the campus. The ombudsperson will remain entirely independent from the lead discrimination officer and will be located separately from the lead discrimination officer. He or she may carry out some investigations and seek informal resolutions of complaints, as well as contributing data to the annual report.
3) Every campus should have a “one-stop shop” website on policies, procedures, and personnel covering discrimination, bias, harassment, as well as diversity. The site will be able to accept complaints filed electronically, including anonymous complaints; provide information for an annual report of complaints and their resolution; and offer education and training, as well as the reporting responsibilities of various administrators and staff.
4) The Chancellor of every campus should continue to advocate for diversity, inclusion, and respect for all persons and deplore any acts of discrimination, bias, and harassment. Messages on these topics should be widely distributed throughout the campus, including on the website described above.
5) Every campus should compile an annual report that includes the number and types of formal and informal complaints about perceived acts of discrimination, bias, and harassment, including confidential complaints, how they were investigated, the findings, and the consequences should a complaint have been found to have merit.
Her full statement is at http://www.ucop.edu/moreno-report/index.html
The Moreno report is at http://www.ucop.edu/moreno-report/external-review-team-report-10-15-13.pdf
What a DC Fly on the Wall Probably Didn’t Hear
UC prez Napolitano attended her former boss’s conference on higher ed in DC last week. From the LA Times:
Obama encourages economic diversity in higher education:
The president and first lady are joined at a White House summit by others who have made commitments to help increase college accessibility for low-income students. California schools are well represented.
More than 100 colleges and universities, including several in California, promised Thursday to try to attract more low-income students by strengthening relationships with high schools and community colleges, increasing access to advisors and offering more remedial programs…
Each of the nine University of California undergraduate campuses will expand outreach to low-income high school and community college students and increased financial and academic support, according to officials…
What a fly on the wall at the event probably didn’t hear was discussion of the fact that the big jump in tuition at UC and other public universities was the result of the Great Recession and the sluggish economic recovery thereafter. State funding – not just in California – was cut back for public higher ed as tax revenues declined. There likely was little discussion of effective steps at the federal level to prevent a recurrence. So while more efficiencies in delivery of higher ed are always of interest, big negative macro shocks to the economy are much more a factor in threats to access. It’s a question of orders of magnitude.
Of course, yours truly wasn’t actually there, but it would have been interesting to hear:
The GSEIS “Problem” Continues
Inside Higher Ed continues its coverage of the controversy in a course at GSEIS involving… well, it’s not quite clear what is involved, despite the lengthy article. It does seem like the kind of development that needs some Academic Senate review. [Excerpt]
For the first time since graduate students staged a sit-in during a class they said exemplified what’s wrong with race relations at the University of California at [sic] Los Angeles, the course met again late last week. But in an apparent attempt at compromise between the aggrieved students and the instructor, its configuration was changed – raising concerns among faculty advocates and those students alike. Students previously had met as a group with Val Rust, professor emeritus of education, leading the dissertation course in the Division of Social Sciences and Comparative Education. On Thursday, following a last-minute announcement, three additional professors with varying scholarly backgrounds, including race and ethnic studies in education, joined Rust on a “panel” of professors to oversee the remainder of the course. Students will attend individually at scheduled times with select, assigned classmates to defend their dissertation proposals…
Rust declined to comment on the new course format. Douglas Kellner, the head of the academic division who sent some of the emails outlining the proposed course configurations, and who is serving on the new panel with Rust, did not return requests for comment. Louis Gomez, chair of the school’s Education Department, also did not respond. In an emailed statement, Ricardo Vazquez, a university spokesman, said that Rust, “in consultation” with Kellner and others, including the dean of the school, “has agreed to chair the mock oral examinations for students in the [course.] … Greg Scholtz, head of academic freedom, governance and tenure for the American Association of University Professors, said the peer review is the “key ingredient” to a recommended resolution following students’ complaints against a professor. It’s unclear exactly how much peer review there was in this case, given that some involved in discussions held leadership positions within the school…
Full article at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/12/09/ucla-adds-professors-class-had-sit
A previous post on this matter can be found at:
http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2013/11/sit-in-at-gseis.html
We noted in that post that the issue had been picked up in conservative websites because of a reported complaint by students that the instructor had corrected grammar, e.g.:
http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/11/23/professor-students-held-sit-after-complaining-grammar-and-punctuation-corrections-were
Advice to Whoever is Appointed Vice Chancellor for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion: Buckle Up!
You may have gotten today’s email from Chancellor Block: [excerpts]
Today I am announcing a significant step in our efforts to respond to incidents of bias and discrimination on our campus and to build an environment of inclusion and tolerance: the creation of the new position of Vice Chancellor for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion. The new Vice Chancellor, who will report directly to me, will provide leadership across the campus in these important areas. Although we have many dedicated individuals deeply committed to this work, I have come to see that we need a clear and powerful voice at the highest levels of the campus administration in order to advance our fundamental commitments to equity, diversity and full inclusion…
We also have begun to implement recommendations advanced by the independent committee chaired by former California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno…
All of this was precipitated by various incidents that led to the Moreno report on the climate on campus for minority faculty. Now we don’t know for sure what advice Justice Moreno might give to the new Vice Chancellor when he or she is appointed. But we do know what advice Judge Cunningham, recently stopped DWB* by UCLA police in Westwood for driving without a seat belt. (Faithful readers of this blog will know about that event but others can simply scroll back on this block.) The Cunningham advice is at the link below. And by the way, whatever happened to the campus climate survey for UC (and UCLA)?
*DWB? Google it.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq3cQVrnaWs?feature=player_detailpage]
Follow Up on Affirmative Action
Yesterday, we posted an entry about Prop 209 admissions data in preparation for the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on affirmative action in university admissions. Now that the decision is out, the media reports generally say it will have little effect. Since California has Prop 209 restrictions in place already, it is assumed that there will be zero effect in California. Your non-legal expert is unsure that zero is the right number. As noted yesterday, the decision had the potential to affect private universities – due to their acceptance of federal funding – and public ones outside California. Suppose it turns out that when the dust settles on this decision – a process that will apparently occur in lower courts – following affirmative action policies is made more difficult or in someway impeded in the privates and non-California publics. In that event, the UC disadvantage in attempting to follow diversity policies under Prop 209 could be lessened. If there are any legal types that would like to intone on this speculation, they are invited to do so.
The LA Times‘ version of the decision of the Supremes is at http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-affirmative-action-20130625,0,3357283.story
It might be noted that two other cases decided by the Supremes and involving employment discrimination claims happened to occur at universities. The decisions made such claims more difficult to pursue. A summary and links can be found at:
http://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2013/06/25/universities-play-role-2-supreme-court-employment-law-rulings
Prop 209 Data
Prop 209, approved by voters in 1996, banned affirmative action in university admissions and public contracting. It followed an earlier move in 1995 by the Regents to ban affirmative action and, in fact, made their decision redundant. (They later revoked the decision, an action that had no effect once Prop 209 was enacted.) The Contra Costa Times has a retrospective article on the subject because of the pending U.S. Supreme Court decision on affirmative action that could extend to private as well as public universities since the former accept federal funding. The chart above comes from that article and focuses on admission rates at UC-Berkeley.
The article is at http://www.contracostatimes.com/breaking-news/ci_23516741/affirmative-action-ban-at-uc-15-years-later
You can see a video of the Regents’ action at the link below:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBB1vM6RNZA?feature=player_detailpage]
UC-Irvine Gets Some Good Press
Warm welcome to University of California Irvine
By Anat Maor, Jerusalem Post, 2-17-13
When I first arrived at the University of California in Irvine, I didn’t know a single person there. To tell you the truth, I was feeling apprehensive about my new role as a professor in Israel studies here, especially given the reputation of the school. This was the same university which saw confrontations between student protesters and Israeli ambassador Michael Oren in 2010, which culminated in arrests and the Zionist Organization of America branding UCI as “a campus that permitted bigotry.” Yet after just one month I have already started to feel at home in Irvine. How did this happen? Contrary to expectations, I have had many positive experiences here…
Furthermore, I have been very active in a group called “Olive Tree,” which brings Israeli and Palestinian students together for dialogue, and every summer they go to visit the Middle East. I have developed a close personal connection with the vice president of this group. To conclude, although I have only been teaching at UCI for a few short weeks I can already see that I am going to have a great time here…