One thing I have learned after over 13 years of fighting to bring my nation closer to its promise of equal treatment for every American regardless of race, sex, color or ethnicity is that politicians can triangulate more about this issue – and get away with it – than almost any other issue in the public policy arena.

A few days ago, Senator John McCain gave his support to our effort in Arizona to prohibit preferences through a constitutional amendment.  In explaining his reason for doing so, McCain said, “I have always opposed quotas.”  Instantly, Senator Barack Obama pounced on McCain’s endorsement. 

Speaking at a convention of “journalists of color” Obama said, “I am disappointed that John McCain flipped and changed his position. I think in the past he had been opposed to these kinds of Ward Connerly referenda or initiatives as divisive. And I think he's right. You know, the truth of the matter is, these are not designed to solve a big problem, but they're all too often designed to drive a wedge between people.”

Having now been thrust into a presidential campaign by Obama, it is appropriate for me to offer my thoughts.

Over the past ten years, no American president, Congress, legislature or governor has acted to eliminate preferences and to enforce the 1964 Civil Rights Act which commands equal treatment “without regard to race, color, national origin or sex” by our government.  In addition, the Supreme Court has handed down conflicting opinions about the matter.  That is why I have led the national effort to ask the people in various states to exercise their power to end such practices through ballot initiatives, wherever permitted.  I find it interesting that the only ones who consider such initiatives “divisive” are the ones who oppose them, such as Senator Obama.  But, they never seem to find preferences themselves as being “divisive.” 

Apparently, as long as those who are harmed by such policies and those of us who believe that preferences are fundamentally wrong keep our mouths shut and accept the status quo, sweet harmony will ring throughout the land.

While he acknowledged the resentment that affirmative action engenders in his March 18 speech about race, Obama now claims that our initiatives are not really all that important and are “all too often designed to drive a wedge between people.”  This is neither the tone nor the substance of what he said on March 18 when he was trying to appeal to white Democrats to get the issue of Jeremiah Wright off his back.

It is true that McCain has “flipped” about whether ballot initiatives are appropriate as a device for ending preferences.  It is NOT true that he has “flipped” with regard to the substance of this issue.  The record is clear that he has consistently evidenced disdain for preferential treatment based on race.  But, let’s assume that he has even changed his position substantively.

In truth, millions of Americans are at a different point in their thinking about race today than they were ten years ago when McCain opposed legislation to place an initiative on the ballot to end preferences in Arizona.  For this, Senator Obama should be thrilled and should thank God for race “flippers.”   Without them, he would not be the presumptive nominee of the Democrat Party for president of the United States.

While he criticizes McCain for changing his position, Obama evidences an equal readiness to change his from support of race-based preferences to one based on socioeconomic circumstances – a position with which I concur.

Asked if there would continue to be a need for affirmative action should he be elected president, Obama said, "I am a strong supporter of affirmative action when properly structured so that it is not just a quota, but it is acknowledging and taking into account some of the hardships and difficulties that communities of color may have experienced, continue to experience…”

 What he fails to say is that it is not only “communities of color” that experience hardships and difficulties.  Nor does he say how a president who professes the desire to unite the American people intend to do so by asking those who are not “of color” to look the other way when they are discriminated against.  

If Obama is truly concerned about divisiveness, why didn’t he speak out when his foot soldiers at ACORN were taking pride in blocking our petition circulators from gathering signatures in Missouri?  Their despicable tactics of harassment give new meaning to the term “divisive.”  

Until we reach the point that we are living out what Martin Luther King Jr. often called the “true meaning of our creed” that all men (and women) are created equal, how we deal with the issue of race will be a work in progress; and something tells me that deep in his soul Senator Obama knows this.  Certainly, he should.

One of the least-kept secrets in higher education is the fact that many colleges and universities, especially the more select ones, consciously seek to suppress their “Asian” student enrollment. 

During the first year of my term as a regent of the University of California (UC), a prominent member of the staff at one of the UC campuses remarked to me that at least two of the UC campuses could become “all-Asian” if conscious efforts were not pursued to “maintain diversity.”  It was at that point that I learned that “diversity” was the fig leaf to hide this pervasive system of discrimination against Asians.

The case filed by Jian Li against Princeton and the decision of the Office of Civil Rights to take this case, and to even expand it, is an extremely important one for those who believe that racial discrimination is morally wrong and that every American is entitled to equal treatment.  This insidious practice of Asian discrimination has largely gone unchallenged for a variety of reasons.  First, there is a prevailing view that “opportunities” granted to one group do not come at the expense of another.  This view was recently expressed by one of the presidential candidates.  It is a sentiment that enables institutions of higher education as well as others to get away with their Asian discrimination.  Few are aware that the percentage of Asians at the University of California at Los Angeles campus went from roughly 22% when preferences were being accorded to “underrepresented minorities” to over 40% once they were eliminated.

Second, Asian discrimination occurs because Asians – unlike black and Latino activist groups – remain silent in the face of discrimination against them.  Stepping forward as he has done, Li might very well trigger an attitude that “I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore” among other Asians.  And that would be a good thing.

Until recently, the unbridled pursuit of “diversity” has allowed public and private institutions to operate with reckless abandon based on their belief that the end of racial integration and “inclusion” justified the means of achieving it – a means that they failed to even acknowledge as constituting discrimination.  Hopefully, the Office of Civil Rights can unmask the consequences of this diversity gambit and restore the principle of individual rights to the decision-making process.

Have you ever gone on a family vacation – husband, wife and maybe two kids – with everyone excited about the trip except for one of the kids? A suggestion is made to stop at McDonalds, but the disgruntled one wants to go to Wendy’s. How about a movie? All think it’s a great idea, except for the one who is pouting. Why don’t we see a comedy? “I want to see a thriller.” Let’s go to breakfast at 8:00 a.m. “That’s too early; I want to go at 9:00.” No matter what is done to make him happy, he continues to pout and spoil the trip for everyone else.

This analogy, I believe, describes the attitude of a significant segment of black people with respect to the rest of American society. No matter what is done to demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of Americans have no tolerance for racial discrimination, this segment just won’t take accept that premise. They mope, pout and complain that no one likes them, and that everyone is out to get them. Some believe that a return to slavery is just around the corner, assuming you can convince them that it ended at all.  

In all of the discussion about Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his relationship to Senator Barack Obama, the political implications of the discussion about their relationship have caused us to ignore a far more important question: How much of the racial garbage that Wright delivered in his sermons is embraced by “the black community?”

Reverend Wright peddles a philosophy that is anti-America and anti-white and represents the most hardcore view of race in American life. His views about race are dangerous and terrifying, and evidence a level of racial paranoia that is deeply troubling, especially when paraded out in public for the consumption of young children and others who are equally vulnerable. But, our focus should not be on Jeremiah Wright; it should be on “the black community.”

When Reverend Wright urged God to damn America, his congregation responded with excitement. When he was introduced at a recent convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, he was greeted with a thunderous standing ovation. Were Wright running against Obama for president of black America, with only blacks voting and based on the professed views of each of them about race and about America, I believe the smart money would have to be on Wright.  If this assessment is accurate, then that says as much about a significant segment of black as it does about Wright himself. And, that is the issue that needs to be confronted by the American people, especially by blacks.

I frequently appear on college campuses throughout the nation to discuss the issue of race-based affirmative action. It is fair to say that, perhaps, 90 % of the black students at these events express strong opposition to my belief that race preferences are wrong-headed and ought to be abandoned. When asked to explain the basis of their opposition to my view, the general response is that America is the land of the Ku Klux Klan, that our nation is “institutionally racist,” that white males are in control of every lever of American life, and that they cannot be trusted to be fair to women and racial “minorities.”

No matter what I say or how much evidence I produce to substantiate that considerable racial progress has been made over the past twenty years or so, the typical collection of black students at these events will respond by calling me a “sellout,” “naïve,” and a “tool of the oppressor.” The views expressed by black students at these events are Jeremiah Wright writ large. These students are typically very negative about their country and don’t want to hear anyone say positive things about the American people.  

During his well-publicized March 18 speech in Philadelphia, Senator Obama artfully identified life in America from the relative perspectives of blacks and whites; and clearly, as he noted, there is a decided difference between those two perspectives.  Obama stopped short, however, of taking any position with regard to those two perspectives. For the sake of our nation, however, it is not prudent for the rest of us to ignore the issues that haunt us about race.

Disciples of Jeremiah Wright are to be found all across the land. Some are white and liberal, while most are blacks from all walks of life. They are not typically radical, in a political sense. In fact, most are “mainstream” people who just have no confidence in their country’s capacity for fairness.

I don’t suggest for one second that all racism has ended. It has not (although no group has a monopoly on prejudice and discrimination). But, if the political success of Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton tell us anything at all, it should confirm the character of the majority of the American people and their willingness to judge others not by the color of their skin but by “the content of their character.” We are not a perfect nation by any means, when it comes to our “racial” differences, but we will never get beyond the issue of race if we can’t start trusting our fellow Americans to be fair. I just wish more black people would abandon their anger and paranoia and enjoy the trip with the rest of the family.

What if I said that I would not vote for Senator Barack Obama for president of the United States because he is black (or multiracial); or Senator Hillary Clinton because she is a woman; or that I would not have voted for former Mayor Rudy Giuliani because he is Italian; or former governor Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon? Any of those statements would most assuredly result in revocation of invitations to a lot of dinner parties and probably would contribute to more than a few appearances on CNN to explain my “racist,” “sexist,” or otherwise “bigoted” comments. And, well they should!

But, what if I said that I won’t vote for Senator John McCain for president because he is too old?  There would be very little, if any, social ostracism for making such a statement. Why is this so? Obviously, when someone is voting for president or any other political office, they have the right to apply whatever standards they choose in making their selection. Yet, our society is rapidly evolving an antipathy toward the application of factors such as an individual’s skin color, sex, religion or ethnic background in virtually any aspect of American life. We profess to be an “equal opportunity” society. We believe that a person’s “immutable” traits – those things over which an individual has no control – should not play a part in how that individual is treated. Moreover, our belief in religious freedom deters us from openly practicing religious discrimination.

At the heart of each of these negative reactions to discrimination is the fundamental belief that our beloved nation is comprised of individuals, not representatives of “groups,” and that every individual is entitled to an equal chance to compete and to succeed on the basis of his or her merits. Why should this value not apply to “seasoned” citizens?  

When I pose this question, I often get a question in response: what if John McCain, God forbid, died in office? Well, the Constitution provides an answer to that question and it is the vice president. There is a succession plan for such eventualities; and it is unfair to apply the issue of mortality to a senior citizen when we do not apply the same factor to one who is not a senior citizen. History proves that age is not a determining factor for whether a president will live out the fullness of his or her term. Some who were elected when they were young and vibrant were tragically snuffed out at a relatively young age. Others lived to a ripe age while in office and served the country well. Thus, I would submit that age should not be any more relevant in our presidential decision-making process than the factors of race, sex, color, ethnicity or religion.

It is important to empathize that we are not electing a physical education coach. We are electing a chief executive officer of the most powerful public corporation in the world.  Relevant experience, sound judgment and the overall compatibility of the candidates’ beliefs and values compared to my own are the overriding characteristics for which I search in a presidential candidate. I do not ask whether I believe that the candidate will live for four years beyond taking the oath of office. Only God can answer that question and I doubt that He is prepared to give me His insight about the matter.

There is another factor to consider regarding this issue of age. As the projected life span of the average American increases, so must our thinking about the roles that “senior citizens” should be allowed to play in our society. Instead of consigning individuals to the pastures of retirement at 65, we should encourage them to remain productive, defer social security until a later age, forget about the senior citizen discounts at Denny’s and the theater houses, get rid of the old man’s shuffle, and live life fully and productively until one’s toes curl up. This is not to diminish those who make the conscious decision that they would prefer to abandon the labor force and to live life at a slower pace; it is simply to emphasize that the choice should be theirs and not one dictated by societal attitudes about age and the actuarial charts.

If we value individual merit and the principle of not judging individuals by the color of their skin, then it certainly seems to me that we should not judge individuals by the extent of their wrinkles or the number of calendar years they have lived.

I was taught that there are three branches of government – executive, legislative and judicial. That is an erroneous view. There is a fourth: the criminal justice system. It is accountable to no one; no one can influence what goes on within it; and it is wasting a lot of lives due to insufficient oversight, public inattention and a concept of “punishment” that belongs in the age of the dinosaur.

Clearly, the criminal justice system needs to be reformed, and efforts in that regard should begin with a strong awareness that there are individuals serving time for crimes that they did not commit. Currently, it is extremely difficult, if not virtually impossible, for anyone who has been convicted to prove their innocence. While “DNA” evidence is proving, increasingly, that a significant number of individuals have been wrongly convicted of violent crimes, there is no “DNA” to prove that someone has been falsely convicted of a white collar crime.

The area that is most ripe for reform is that of “white collar” crime. For example, it makes no sense to me that someone convicted of “bank fraud,” for the first time especially, should be institutionally confined. Doing so results in an annual cost to the taxpayers of anywhere from $40,000 to $60,000 for each inmate. These individuals are not threats to the physical safety of our society, which I believe is essentially the sole reason for confinement. Instead, we should subject such individuals to home confinement and require them to work and make significant restitution through what they earn from such work.

The facility which I visited and have reported on in earlier columns is a low security “camp” for women. Those confined there are NOT hardened criminals; their ranks include many young mothers and grandmothers. They can walk out the gate whenever they want, because the place is “low security.” One unarmed guard monitoring the behavior of nearly 300 inmates is testimony to how little of a risk these women are. Therefore, if they are no threat to society, why are they being institutionally confined and paid fifteen cents per/hour for their labor when they could be outside contributing to society, taking care of their children and families, and making restitution.

The idea that institutional confinement or “prison” is the only way to punish someone for a crime is foolish and not in the best interest of our society. That idea is responsible for the outrageous costs that have developed over the years with regard to administration of the criminal justice system. The Congress desperately needs to confront the question of what constitutes punishment appropriate to the crime and what is in the best interest of society, with safety and fiscal considerations in mind.

In addition to making fundamental reforms about appropriate punishment and sentencing, attention needs to be given to the matter of making “correctional” institutions truly correctional. Currently, many “camps” or prisons harden individuals who are incarcerated rather than socializing them and preparing them to lead productive lives in society. I should stress that this observation is intended to apply only to the type of facility that I visited, which is one of low security.

There is no opportunity to get a taste of normalcy once an inmate sets foot on the campus of one of these facilities. For example, would the world come to an end if women serving time in a low security facility were given a 24 or 48-hour furlough every six months to visit their loved ones, provided they earn this time off based on good behavior? I think not. The basic problem is that no one seems to be thinking about how to make the system better. Instead, the emphasis seems to be on how many more people can be convicted for crimes and how many more prisons need to be built to accommodate the increasing number of people who are being convicted. While it is obviously of considerable consequence to lie to federal officers while under oath, inasmuch as the entire criminal justice system depends on the “truth and nothing but the truth,” what purpose is served by incarcerating an individual for committing such an offense?

Presidential elections are supposed to enable candidates to identify and frame problems that cry out for solutions. Rather than telling us about “hope” and the need for “change,” I pray that the candidates will tackle a problem that is costing the American taxpayers billions, taking young mothers away from their children, and making women who could be productive members of society a burden instead. The candidates owe us their thoughts about this problem.

Visiting by family and friends at federal institutions is strongly encouraged by the Board of Prisons “to maintain the morale of the inmate and to develop closer relationships between the inmate and family members.” Despite this policy, however, the rules and the manner in which they are applied frequently discourages visitation primarily because the rules often make no sense. For example, inmates and their loved ones are not supposed to show any affection beyond the initial greeting and goodbyes.  How silly for a husband and wife who have been married for over thirty years being forced to behave like chaperoned teenagers on their first date.  

Visiting hours are from 8:00 to 2:00.  That is a long time to eat grub from vending machines which offer little in the way of wholesome food – any thought of hot coffee or a hot meal during this time period is a pipe dream; and the machines are virtually empty on the morning of day two (Sunday) of a two-day visit schedule.  And, would I like the franchise on these machines!  A lousy, cold ham and cheese sandwich is $3.75.  Bottles of Coca-Cola are a buck and three-quarters, and often the vending machines steal enough from their customers that the owners of those machines ought to be serving time for fraud and theft.

The rules seem designed to reduce grown women to children: “don’t touch the vending machines;” “don’t handle money to purchase items from the vending machines;” “don’t talk to fellow inmates in the visiting area;” “don’t wave to your family after they have signed out and are departing the premises;” “don’t talk with vendors when they make deliveries.” And these women are generally subjected to strip searches after each visit.  All of this seems aimed at dehumanizing human beings.  Instead of “correcting” them and making them more social, these rules seem to harden and make them more anti-social.  It is difficult to understand the rationale for most of the rules in what is classified as a low security facility.

The husband of one inmate was shot to death when someone demanded the keys to his car while he was out shopping.  The answer to his wife’s request for permission to attend his funeral was “no.”  Why?  Because the circumstances of the shooting “looked suspicious.”  What the hell difference should it make?  Her husband was dead, regardless of the circumstances, and she should have been allowed to attend his funeral.

The husband of another woman had flown from the Far East – a 14-hour flight – to visit. After renting a car and driving from the airport to the “camp,” it was approximately 1:00 p.m.  Well, as stated above, visiting hours are from 8:00 to 2:00, but for some inexplicable reason, he was not allowed to spend the remaining hour visiting his wife. 

Another visitor had flown in from Las Vegas wearing a hat.  He checked in at a local motel and was driven to the facility in the motel shuttle.  Little did he know that it was against the rules to bring a hat into the visiting room.  So, he had to walk in the rain across the street some 100-plus yards to check his hat into a locker.

One can understand rules, even if they appear to be foolish, that prohibit the entry of items into a “camp.”  But, what possible reason could there be for prohibiting visitors from taking items purchased in a visiting area vending machine out of the facility?  On my visit, I had purchased a bottle of water and a bottle of Dr. Pepper.  I had drunk about a third of the former and one small swallow of the latter but I was informed that it was a violation of the rules to leave the facility with my bottles of water and soda because they had been opened.  Huh?

Upon reading this, I am certain that many will say, “These are criminals who deserve what they are getting. They deserve to pay.”  Once upon a time, I was similarly inclined.  But, as citizens, we pay for this irrational and backward approach to criminal justice.  We pay dearly to support the prison system and we pay by not having those who are confined performing productive tasks in our society.  Moreover, as I watched 24-year-old mothers visit with their little children and grandmothers visit with their sons, daughters and grandchildren, I thought how hollow the call for “family values” sounds when we look the other way rather than correct this tragedy of human beings going to waste because of an irrational, expensive and backward approach to criminal justice.  Even worse, I am convinced beyond any doubt that a very substantial number of the women wasting time at this “camp” have been wrongly convicted because the system has now been perfected to convict people rather than to mete out justice.

These facilities belong to us – the American people – and those who work there work for us.  What they do in the form of their often ridiculous rules, they do with our tacit approval. If they abuse or dehumanize people, they do so on our behalf - the American public; and we should be ashamed of ourselves for tolerating this.

To be continued…

California State Government is projected to have a $14.5 billion deficit for fiscal year 2008-09. This is a chronic and persistent problem. Virtually everyone who has examined California’s fiscal circumstances readily acknowledges that this problem will not be solved unless the State makes structural reforms that lead to a significant reduction in annual expenditures.  

As part of his plan to reduce this deficit, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed the early release of about 22,000 nonviolent offenders from state prisons. Predictably, there is a hue and cry that the governor’s proposal will “endanger our communities” by exposing them to the “criminal element.” If horse manure were music, that charge would be a symphony. First, these are nonviolent offenders; and, second, they are set to be released anyway. The governor’s plan would only provide for earlier release than scheduled.

If the federal government did not have the authority to essentially print its own money and to operate with multi-trillion dollar deficits, the federal fiscal crisis would make CaliforniaState government’s fiscal condition seem like “chump change.”

As I have stated in another column, our federal and state criminal justice system is badly broken and needs precisely the kind of reform being proposed by Schwarzenegger. Not only is the current system costly; it is often foolish and contributes to a number of social problems that are worse than the so-called “punishment” that is being inflicted on the inmates. 

I dislike writing about anything of which I know little. Thus, I have used the opportunity to visit a correctional institution – federal in this case – to gain a first-hand profile of those who inhabit such a facility and to determine the conditions that exist. I am sure that this column is as close as many Americans would choose to get to a prison anyway. The specific facility shall remain nameless so that I don’t subject the individuals responsible for my visit to any possible retaliation for the things that I am about to disclose.

At the outset, it is important for me to stress that this was a low security “working camp” for women. As such, it should be obvious that those housed in this facility are not typical of the prisoners that would be found in a higher security institution. 

When I approached the gate, the sign proclaimed that it was a “Federal Correctional Institution.” This implied that the guards were involved in a project to “correct” the behavior of the inmates and to return them to society in a corrected form. I was about to learn how wrong that assumption is.

The feds should be charged with fraud for calling this a “correctional” institution. An institution…yes! But, there is little about the facility that can be even remotely described as “correctional.” The physical facility itself is decrepit, with dry rot, mold and probably asbestos. Most of the guards, it seems, have been instructed not to smile, either to inmates or visitors. And, their level of arrogance is astounding. This is not true of all the guards; in fact, I met several who conducted themselves professionally and with decency. But, those who evidence any hint of humanity are the exception rather than the rule.

On the day of the visit that formed the basis of this column, the temperature was about 42 degrees. Standing in such weather for nearly 20 minutes waiting to be admitted inside was a challenge even for a healthy “seasoned” citizen, let alone for elderly women and little children who were behind and in front of me. I guess the thought never occurs to anyone to let visitors come inside to form a waiting line rather than to stand outside.  

My initial and recurring question was why are these people here? Inmates are not dragged into the gates of this place and thrown in a cell with locked doors. These women “self-surrender.” The campus is completely open, with no gates. Any inmate can essentially walk out anytime she wishes – and some have. It is basically an honor system. All of this confirms that this is, indeed, a “low security” operation – as it should be. At night, there is generally only one unarmed guard monitoring nearly 300 inmates. The question that screams out, again, is: Why are these women here when they could be home with their families “correcting” themselves in less costly, more effective programs and making restitution for the “crimes” for which they have been convicted? Instead, they are being confined at a cost to the taxpayers of $40,000 to $60,000 annually for each inmate – a total waste of public funds.

It is unfortunate that federal camps don’t have “open houses” now and then. If they did, the public could get some sense of how their tax dollars are being spent at these facilities.

Because most citizens have never set foot on the campuses of these institutions, they lack any knowledge about what goes on. As I soon learned, tax dollars are not the only thing being violated at this specific facility – and others like it, I am certain. The abject loss of human capital is also wasted.

The next column will discuss some of the correctional rules that exist at “CampFed.”

I detest political and racial labels. More often than not, they lead to stereotypes and prejudicial thinking. Yet, I find little reason to quarrel with those who identify me as a “conservative Republican.” Certainly, on most things – not all – I fit into that category. Fiscally, I am generally tight-fisted with the public coffers, and when it comes to law and order, John Wayne and Clint Eastwood were my heroes.

A recent experience, however, has given me considerable reason to question the wisdom of my knee-jerk reaction to the issue of criminal justice. While it is not essential for the purpose of this column to recount that experience, it is useful to share some of my conclusions.

At the outset, all of us want to be safe and secure in our homes and our neighborhoods. It is reasonable for us to expect murderers, rapists, child molesters, drug dealers and violent offenders to be apprehended and removed from our midst so that they cannot visit harm upon society and fracture the civilized order. I certainly have no quarrel with that. In fact, were I living in an earlier era, I probably would be among the first to strap on a holster, carry a six-gun and join the posse to search for the bad guys. My voice would have been among the loudest to “String ‘em up!”

But, this is not an earlier era, and the “apprehend and hang” approach to criminal justice is not achieving the desired purposes. In fact, that approach seems to be doing just the opposite of protecting society and preparing the “bad guys” to live among us once they are released from their confinement. The “system” has become less about “justice” and “correction” than about conviction, punishment and the warehousing of a significant segment of our society. According to recent reports, there are more than 2.2 million individuals incarcerated in America - and that number continues to grow. At an estimated cost to the taxpayers of $60,000 to prosecute and confine every inmate, the costs become astounding once we do the math. And a very significant number of those individuals return for an encore after they are released.

Over the past twelve years as I have fought against race, gender and ethnic preferences, I have often been accused of indifference to the “institutionalized racism” that is purported to exist in American life. A flawed criminal justice system is generally mentioned as being at the core of that racism. I conclude that while the system is terribly flawed, it is not institutional racism that accounts for those defects. Much more fundamental and pervasive problems account for what is wrong with our current system.

Most importantly, it is foolish to believe that all of the millions of individuals serving time in our local, state and federal jails and prisons are guilty of the crimes of which they are charged.  The reality is that any system designed and administered by human beings is going to be only as just and infallible to human error as the imperfect humans who administer that system. In short, there are people doing time for crimes that they did not commit. Similarly, there those walking free who committed crimes but were able to manipulate the system to their advantage (the name O.J. Simpson comes to mind). But, if we assume that just 1% of those who are in confinement have been wrongly convicted, that translates into about 22,000 people who have been deprived of their freedom, and who are a burden on society rather than productive, contributing members. The social, economic, fiscal and moral costs of this injustice are simply astounding.

Unfortunately, once an individual gets caught in the web of the system, it becomes exceedingly difficult to extricate oneself from it and to prove one’s innocence. The cliché that one is “innocent until proven guilty” is little more than that: a cliché. In our society, the burden of proof often falls on the individual being charged to prove his or her innocence.  And, often, the system is rigged against the individual being charged. This is because those on the prosecution side have virtually unlimited resources to make their case while the individuals being charged rarely have comparable financial means to hire competent counsel and to conduct the research that is essential to good representation.

The system also has its share of bad apples, such as prosecutors who hold back evidence (Mike Nifong) or play other legal games. Then there are federal agents who lie, even on the witness stand.  When confronted with the prospect of a case going awry because the arresting officer failed to produce a search warrant, for example, there are some who have been known to lie to protect their case. The end justifies their means because, in their minds, they have established sufficient guilt to warrant a procedural violation. This is not to suggest that all in law enforcement fit this profile, because they certainly do not. I want it said that the men and women “in blue” have no greater fan than yours truly, but as with other areas of our society, there are some who do not deserve our praise. And, those who pay the price for the abuses are helpless to do anything about it.

As with education, the American taxpayers are expending far too much money on the criminal justice system and not receiving benefits that are commensurate with the expenditures. The reason is that it is far too easy to demagogue this issue and to frighten the American public into believing that we are safer and more secure by locking up a 60-plus year-old, first-time offending woman convicted of some white-collar crime (hello Martha Stewart).  

As our prison population bulges and the California and federal budgets bleed red ink all over the place, I suggest that the time is ripe for the public to more logically approach the issue of crime and punishment. We should begin by releasing those who are first-time offenders and who pose no threat to society. Instead, we should apply forms of “punishment,” such as restitution or community service, that allow them to continue as contributing members of society. Incarceration should be reserved for those who constitute a threat to society or who are repeat offenders of crimes that harm society.

John Moores is a friend of mine. When I was a member of the Board of Regents of the University of California, John was my closest ally. Occasionally, we found ourselves on different sides of specific issues, like student fees. But, more likely than not – and especially on other fundamental issues – our perspectives and our votes were in accord. I grew to respect John as one of the most dedicated and talented Regents with whom I had the pleasure of serving during my twelve-year term. 

On November 12 of this year, John tendered his resignation, nearly a year and a half before the scheduled expiration of his term. With the resignation of John Moores, California is losing an extraordinary public servant.  Because of his stature as an icon in the San Diego community, one of California’s most distinguished citizens, and one of America’s most generous and successful entrepreneurs, it is useful for us pause and reflect on the reasons for the early resignation of John Moores.

I have not talked with John about his exit from the Board of Regents and he gave no reason in his one-sentence resignation letter. In a true reflection of his no-nonsense style, John’s letter to Richard Blum, chairman of the UC Board of Regents, was one sentence: “Dick, please accept my resignation effective this date. Best regards.”

While many of the problems that have characterized the k-12 public education system for decades have not yet taken root in our colleges and universities, there are strong indications that serious trouble is around the corner for America’s system of higher education. For example, fees are spiraling out of control. Questions are being raised about matters relating to academic freedom. Administrative salaries are frequently viewed as unnecessarily high. Questions relating to academic quality are increasingly raised. At the core of many of these problems is a belief that ineffective governance is the culprit.

With very few exceptions – notably John Moores at UC and T. J. Rodgers at Dartmouth – university trustees seem to be rubber stamps of the administration. They are frequently more interested in the adulation that accompanies being a trustee, such as getting prime seating at football games and attending the lavish dinners sponsored by the university president, than they are about providing independent oversight of university operations.  This culture annoyed John.

In addition, it is my belief that John Moores became frustrated with the incessant attempts on the part of UC’s faculty and administration to reinstate some form of race preferences at UC, despite the public’s opposition to such practices as expressed by the passage of Proposition 209. There is no doubt that the John Moores I know is not one who walks away from an assignment unless he believes he is wasting his time. Were I now a Regent, I would be sorely tempted to do as John has done. There are some good people on the Board of Regents, but there are also many who fall far short of being good fiduciaries of a great institution. 

John was the first one to call attention to the fact that UC was violating its responsibility to admit only the top 12.5 percent of graduating seniors. He found that UC was admitting as much as the top 16 percent in some years. He and I were convinced that UC Berkeley was admitting significantly lesser qualified “underrepresented minority” students over more academically qualified Asian and white students. He financed out of his own pocket a substantial study that documented this fact. Long before the New York Times, just a few months ago, suggested that UC was probably “breaking the law” with regard to the use of race preferences, John shared his concern that the pursuit of “diversity” had assumed a position of supremacy in relation to the pursuit of academic excellence at UC. When he asked questions about this matter, UC administrators “stonewalled” and his colleagues on the Board of Regents (excluding yours truly and a few others) voted to censure him. He could rarely obtain timely answers to the questions that he raised about UC operations.

Recently, the UC faculty announced that it was seriously looking at proposals to eliminate the SAT I and to give less emphasis to honors courses – all of which is driven by the compulsion to increase “diversity.” Rumors are also circulating that the UC Berkeley Chancellor is leaning on the UC Berkeley Alumni Association to establish a scholarship program for “minority” students only, because he fears that too many talented minority students are being attracted to Stanford, “Hahvad” and other Ivy League institutions. What a pity!

Prior to the elimination of race preferences at UC, the general perspective was to take the best students who applied and lower the standards merely for a handful (perhaps 5-6 percent of “underrepresented minority” students) to “build diversity.” With the effort to give preferences based on race being severely restricted by Proposition 209, some Regents, including certain appointees of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, UC administrators and select faculty members have sought to craft policies that might serve as proxies for race. Finding that difficult to do, because there are no such factors, UC now seems determined to relax its standards across the board to achieve “diversity.”

“California is becoming more and more diverse, and we're worried we're not looking as representative as we would like,” said UCSD physics Professor Kim Griest, who chairs UCSan Diego's faculty senate committee on educational policy. 

This telling comment reveals the overarching desire and objective of UC decision-makers to make UC “representative” – an objective that begs the question of why the taxpayers of California are giving UC approximately $14,000 per/year to subsidize each UC student. It is not UC’s primary mission to be “representative.” The mission is to attract and admit the highest academically qualified students possible. That is why UC is supposed to admit only those students in the top 12.5 percent of their graduating class. California has a three-tiered system of higher education – UC, CSU and the community colleges. If UC wants to become a glorified community college system, then we should provide them only with the amount of money that we give to the community colleges, which is about a fourth of what we give UC on a per/student basis.

For those students who study hard to gain an edge that might qualify them for UC Berkeley, UC Los Angeles, UC San Diego and UC Santa Barbara, arguably the most academically competitive campuses in the UC system, the clear message is “stop studying so hard because it probably won’t make a difference.” The better course of action is to leave home, move in with a household that has social problems, acquire a few “obstacles” and pad your application with adversities to enhance your chance of admission to the UC campus of your choice. Don’t count on the governor, the Legislature, the Regents or others who are entrusted with the responsibility of defending the California Constitution (which contains a prohibition against using race preferences) to protect the academic quality of the institution. They are part of the problem, not the solution.

With the departure of John Moores, the people of California have lost a true guardian of one of their most cherished institutions, and high-achieving students have lost a champion. Over time, the results are likely to be an erosion of quality as well as a fast track to mediocrity and the academic degradation of a once-great university. A similar fate awaits other great institutions that elevate “diversity” over quality.

There is probably no institution that touches more of our lives, on a daily basis, than the University of California (UC). That tomato in the hamburger was likely influenced by UC agricultural research; the pharmacist who fills our prescription probably graduated from UC, as did the doctor who examined us and wrote the prescription. Our attorney might have a UC degree on the wall. The bridge that we crossed was engineered by a UC graduate, and the office building we visited was designed by a UC architectural graduate. Even our dog “Fido” is examined by a vet who graduated from UC.

We take all of this for granted, yet the influence of UC is profound. The people of California had the wisdom to understand this potential influence when they included the University of California in their constitution and protected it from political influence by granting it constitutional independence. Few government agencies enjoy such a status.

As a multibillion dollar entity, it is to be expected that there will be an occasional stumble somewhere in this mammoth enterprise and someone will do something that is viewed as questionable by a significant number of individuals. To think otherwise is unrealistic. 

In recent years, UC has done more than stumble, however. In fact, some of its actions rightfully raise the question of whether the people of California need to reexamine the level of constitutional independence bestowed on the institution. Although I am still inclined to personally support the status quo, the continuing missteps make it increasingly more difficult to defend the current arrangement. Consider the following:

• A couple of years back, the San Francisco Chronicle uncovered widespread abuses in the area of administrative compensation. While UC President Robert Dynes rightfully took the brunt of the blame, the Regents themselves deserve criticism for being asleep at the wheel while much of this occurred. Unfortunately, what the Chronicle uncovered is only the tip of the iceberg of a culture of excesses that would be unacceptable to most Californians if they had all of the facts.
• Recently, the Chancellor at UC Irvine hired, then “fired,” and then rehired a dean of the new law school. The way in which this was handled should raise serious questions about the kind of administration that would allow itself to get in such a pickle in the first place. Beyond the question of whether UC needed another law school is the larger issue of what kind of person should be the inaugural Dean. Some regard Erwin Chemerinsky (the man hired) as a “brilliant” legal scholar, albeit a very liberal one, while others rightfully raise questions about whether his reputation of brilliance is accurately deserved. What is indisputable is the fact that Chemerinsky has little in the way of administrative experience to compel confidence in his ability to build a new law school, which will require a great deal of community support from many of those who strongly opposed his hiring. The incident was not about academic freedom, although the supporters of Chemerinsky successfully argued that point. What was significant was the fact that Chancellor Michael Drake felt it necessary to apologize to the faculty for firing Chemerinsky after hiring him.
• The Regents of UC invited former Harvard President Lawrence Summers to their private September dinner and then withdrew the invitation after a number of UC faculty members objected to his appearance. This was not an official “meeting;” it was a dinner at which Regents often bring in guests to informally discuss items of interest that require no action by the Regents. It is doubtful that any UC faculty members would allow the Regents to suggest who should be allowed to speak to their class. Yet, they want and receive the right to veto who can dine with the Regents. What the Chemerinsky and Summers incidents reveal more than anything else is that UC is guided by very weak administrators and an equally weak Board of Regents that yields to the slightest pressure. There is no firm hand on the wheels of the institution.
• At its September meeting, the Regents adopted a report on “diversity” that seems to signal a willingness to defy the will of the people that “preferential treatment” on the basis of race, gender or ethnicity not be used in the admissions process or faculty hiring. No matter how one feels about race preferences, no public entity should adopt actions that appear to encourage their staff and faculty to break the law. To do so is to invite legal entanglements and a loss of confidence in the integrity of the institution. Yet, that is precisely the message that is being sent by the Regents.
• In a recent New York Times article about the admissions practices of U.C.L.A., the author makes the observation that U.C.L.A. is probably “breaking the law” and somehow using race in its admission process. The silence of the UC Office of the President and the Regents about this allegation is deafening. No denials! Nada! Nothing! Why? Because their obligation to “uphold and defend” the constitution of the State of California is not one that they view with much dedication when it comes to something with which they disagree. And, most Regents and UC administrators pay little thought to racial discrimination as long as it is not against those whom they believe contribute to “diversity.”
• Recognizing that something is amiss, the Regents spent $8 million on a consultant study to tell them something that could have been determined by a task force of regents with spine and guts.  A lot of low-paid UC employees could have used that $8 million for well-deserved pay raises. And, the story doesn’t end there, as more consultant activity has been approved to implement the recommendations that the consultants made.

The common denominator of all these incidents is not that UC has weak administrators. Rather, it is that UC has weak or ineffective governance. Where is the governor in all this? He is legally the president of the Board of Regents.  How about members of the Legislature, who decide how much funding UC is to receive in its annual budget?

State Treasurer Bill Lockyer has posed the question of whether UC might be eliminated from the State Budget to help save a few billion dollars. Such action is not likely to happen, but maybe it is time for the governor and the Legislature to use their budget leverage to bring about a stronger form of governance. In the alternative, perhaps the people of California need to reexamine whether the constitutional independence bestowed on UC continues to be warranted.

About four years ago, the electorate of California decided to take the unprecedented action of recalling their governor, Gray Davis, less than one year after reelecting him. While I thought that recalling Davis was the right thing to do, I never thought that such action alone would solve the considerable governance problems of “The Golden State.”

I worked alongside Davis while I served as a University of California regent. He is not a bad guy and was not as bad of a governor, overall, as he was portrayed. His downfall came, in large part, because a sizable share of the people of California had come to believe that his endless fundraising activities had compromised his ability to fairly govern California. Added to that perception was the fact that shortly after the election, Davis confirmed that California’s fiscal circumstances were considerably worse than he had represented during his campaign for reelection.

Despite our physical beauty from one end of our state to the other, California has a host of problems far too numerous to mention. But, at least some of them bear underscoring. First, we have too much government, as state and local governments and special districts abound. This government takes too big of a bite out of our personal incomes, not to mention our personal liberty. 

Our housing prices are unaffordable for a growing number of working households. Our infrastructure is deteriorating faster than it can be repaired or replaced. Unbridled immigration – legal and illegal – is occurring at a pace that makes it virtually impossible for us to properly plan to accommodate it and to assimilate those who come here with different cultures and speaking different languages. As a result, our hospitals, schools and prisons are overcrowded, and social tensions are always lurking beneath the surface. 

A growing number of businesses consider the business climate inhospitable and are headed for Nevada, Arizona and other more favorable business climates – or they are simply going out of business. Departing along with many businesses are many middle class families who fear the social and cultural changes that they see emerging in California, largely as a result of unbridled immigration.

The problems identified above – and many more – were prominent during the reign of Governor Davis, and they still haunt us. Now, many of our elected leaders tell us that “global warming” and the need for universal health care are also critical issues that must be addressed.  I must admit to being concerned about whether these later problems are as real as they are portrayed or whether they are part of the faddish character of political issues and politicians. But, that’s another story.

Regardless of the specific problems confronting Californians, and whether there is consensus or not about possible solutions, I think we can all agree that there must be a workable governance structure to address problems. That is where California is coming up most short – and that is being charitable.

The recent annual ordeal of adopting a State budget symbolizes the dysfunctional nature of California’s governance system. The solution is not to lower the threshold for budget approval, but to determine why it is that the legislature is so ineffective at performing arguably its most important task: adopting a budget. Perhaps, the entire system needs to be overhauled. I wonder whether a part-time legislature would be more motivated to get the job done on time, given less time to do its job.  Most of us seem to work best under pressure anyway. Has term limits produced the quality of legislators – “citizens from the real world” – that the concept promised?  I don’t think so; it needs to be reworked.  The basic problem is that the sum of the parts doesn’t equal the whole when it comes to the legislature. Most of them are individually decent, talented people with good intentions, but in the aggregate, their actions often are inconsistent with the overall views of Californians on a range of issues. The California Legislature can be grateful for public apathy and indifference, or there would be a revolution.

California ’s governance problems cannot be left solely at the doorstep of the legislature, however. Upon closer examination, we find that the muscleman from Hollywood has not lived up to our expectations either. The incumbent governor has been erratic in leadership style as well as substance. One year he has been a staunch proponent of smaller government; the next year he is leading the effort to expand government. I respect his desire to attract support from the widest possible spectrum of the California population, as long as that desire is not the cause for avoiding some of our state’s most pressing problems, such as how we the solve the issue of illegal immigration. 

Without doubt, things could be significantly worse without Arnold Schwarzenegger occupying “the corner office,” but contemplating how bad things might have been is not the definition of leadership.

In good times and bad, there is one thing that is as certain as death and taxes: the cost of going to college will continue its upward spiral. There are many reasons for this circumstance, a few of which come to mind.

First, there is inadequate fiscal oversight by those charged with the responsibility of governing our colleges and universities. The most frustrating aspect, by far, of my twelve-year term as a regent of the University of California (UC) was trying to understand the fiscal affairs of the institution and to assert some influence on them. It would be difficult to accomplish this objective with regard to any multi-billion dollar enterprise, but that difficulty becomes a virtual impossibility when it comes to a major university. 

For years, I worked as a legislative consultant and in areas that have required me to understand the fiscal activities of California State Government – an enterprise that is about 20-25 times larger, fiscally, than UC. That experience taught me that the State budget and related fiscal matters are a “piece of cake” compared to UC’s. I will not go so far as to suggest that this difficulty is deliberate on the part of UC administrators, but there were times during my stints as Chairman of the Regents Finance Committee when I thought that to be the case. Without adequate oversight, university administrators have no incentive to discipline themselves to be more efficient or resistant to the endless pressures, from all segments of the university family, to engage in activities that result in increased costs of running the institution.

Public universities are very unique institutions, the administrators of which can easily craft a structure that insulates them from outside influences, including their own governing boards. On numerous occasions, I can recall being told that we had to include certain items in the budget because the governor or some key legislator was insisting upon its inclusion as a condition of budget approval. Later, I would learn that the representation was not quite as it had been characterized. When administrators craft the budget and lobby what they have crafted to the Legislature, the governor and the regents, it becomes more than tempting to “whipsaw” the separate parties, especially when the regents are in little position to distinguish fact from fiction.

The second major problem is the fundamental culture of “selective” universities, such as the University of California. Such institutions get caught up in a “keep up with the Joneses” method of operation by comparing themselves to other “comparable” universities. When the University of Chicago gives its administrators a salary increase, for example, the UC administration gives its administrators an increase. The next year, the University of Chicago gives an increase because last year UC gave one – and “the beat goes on.” 

While there is something to be said about the need for universities to compete for top-notch scientists and other faculty “stars,” I have yet to see a compelling case made for UC having to compete with U-Chicago or Harvard or any other institution to recruit and retain some specific administrator. If the State of California can attract top people to be cabinet officers at salaries of less than $200,000 annually, why is it necessary for UC to pay double that amount? It is hard for me to understand why the requisite skills to be Senior Vice President of Finance in the Office of the President of UC, for example, are so significantly greater than that of being Director of Finance for the State of California. Counting beans is the same, no matter where you count them. Therefore, it seems to me that the salary comparison for administrative positions should be based on the California job market, not a national group of “select” universities.

Keeping up with national “comparison institutions” also accounts for what many would consider obscene “perks” such as housing and relocation allowances, low interest mortgage loans, jobs for spouses, and other benefits that are not common among most public agencies. Relocation allowances on the order of $25,000 to $40,000 often bear no relationship to the actual cost of moving; they are little more than a “signing bonus.” I am certain that Bekins or Starving Students could get the job done for a fraction of that amount.

The third factor is the attitude that everyone must go to college, an attitude that unquestionably contributes to escalating costs of higher education, because it helps to create a market for a product that is considered as essential as food and housing. As long as college administrators can convince our society that “college is the gateway to upward mobility,” a built-in pressure for rising costs is created, because the product they are selling us is considered indispensable to our future.

Finally, governors and legislators, both Democrat and Republican, also bear a lot of unwitting responsibility for the rising costs of going to college in California. And, this problem is not unique to the “GoldenState.” Here is how they do it. Every year, the university prepares its budget and adopts a fee schedule based on what it needs to provide a “quality education” (whatever that means). When the proposed fees (tuition) are announced, governors and legislators fall over themselves to “buy out” the fee increase in the form of a state subsidy to the university. Thus, they are able to say when running for reelection, “I kept college fees low.” In reality, they did no such thing. What they did was to allow the university to raise the fees, but not pass the increase along to students, and thereby escape the necessity of providing a product that the consumers (students) can afford.

Terms such as “accountability” and “transparency” are critically important with respect to public universities, but they are also quite elusive when applied to the fiscal operations of such institutions. That is why the cost of going to college continues its upward spiral and there is not much hope of that changing until fundamental changes are made with respect to university fiscal oversight.

Robert (Bob) Dynes is president of the University of California (UC) – and has been in that position since October, 2003. During my tenure as a member of the Board of Regents of UC, I worked with Bob while he was chancellor of the campus at San Diego and during his reign as president of the entire UC system. Bob Dynes has excellent credentials as a physicist and he is a very decent human being. But, in announcing his retirement from the position of UC president, Bob is doing something that should have been done the day after he was selected to head the UC system. In fact, it was a mistake from the outset, of which I am just as responsible as all of the other regents who voted to install Bob, for Dynes to have been selected to head one of the nation’s premier public university systems.

Some contend that Dynes was “encouraged” to resign by the regents because of his handling of administrative compensation and other “perks.” This is undoubtedly true.  Yet, while his departure is the right decision, mishandling of executive compensation or the perception of him as a weak administrator are the wrong reasons for “encouraging” him to ride off into the sunset. It would be useful to examine some of the problems at UC.

First, the California Constitution establishes UC as an independent, public entity governed by a board of regents whose members are appointed by the governor, subject to Senate confirmation, and who serve twelve-year terms. In addition, a number of constitutional officers serve as regents and the governor of California is president of the board. Herein lie some of the institutional problems: Twelve years is about two to four years too long, if one takes seriously the responsibility of being a regent. For most regents, burn-out, or senility (whichever comes first), occurs long before the expiration of a twelve-year term. And, putting politicians on the board is a sure-fire way to create endless opportunities for elected officials, such as lieutenant governors, who have little else to do, to use their platform as regent to engage in political grandstanding. Instances far too numerous to mention may be found where such has occurred. 

While some elected officials may accurately be accused of politicizing UC, such cannot be asserted about Governor Schwarzenegger. In fact, to my knowledge, the governor has yet to attend his first meeting of the Board of Regents after serving as governor for nearly four years. Obviously, perhaps the governor has too many other tasks to perform than to serve as president of the Board of Regents. But, this raises the equally obvious question of why the governor should be the president of the Regents if he is too busy to attend Board meetings.

In addition to structural problems of the Board, most of the Regents are generally not “hands-on” enough about the activities of the institution which they govern. Part of the problem can be traced to efforts on the part of several Regents over the years who sought to raise the threshold for transactions requiring the approval of the regents. The historical record will show that I reluctantly supported this effort. In retrospect, I believe the regents - and I included - made a serious mistake in establishing the threshold for the UC president to approve faculty salaries, moving and housing allowances, mortgage loans, and for other transactions at a level that allows the president too much authority. As a result, we achieved our objective of freeing the Board to devote more attention to policy, but we also gave the Office of the President far too much decision-making authority with inadequate oversight of their decisions.   Worst of all, however, I believe those decisions contributed to a culture of laxity and avoidance of oversight within the Office of the President.

When Regents are only minimally engaged in governing and approving transactions, their positions become largely ceremonial. Far too many Regents become enamored with their positions as regents but fail to provide the due diligence that the position commands of them. My good friend John Moores once described one crop of regents as “furniture,” meaning that they were there for the administration to sit on but to do little else in the form of giving matters their thorough attention.

Finally, when it comes to selecting a president, the Board relies on a system that is described as “shared governance.” This means that all segments of the UC family participate in the recruitment and selection of the UC President. This is sort of like designing a camel by committee. “Shared governance” also results in giving the faculty considerable deference in who becomes president; and the faculty invariably insists on someone who commands their respect as a scholar. Yet, scholars are not especially known for their administrative skills. UC and many of its campuses are often administered by someone who has distinguished himself or herself in the lab or the classroom but has little idea about how to effectively manage a major corporation, a term that certainly describes UC. A multi-billion dollar corporation needs a top flight administrator, not a scholar, as its president.

In short, Bob Dynes is not the major problem; he is only symptomatic of a deeper problem. Nothing short of a major restructuring of UC’s system of governance will right the course of this great institution. Something tells me that many other American universities are similarly situated.

In 1949, the United States Federal Communications Commission adopted a general policy which sought to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. This policy was based on the theory that station licensees were “public trustees” and, as such, had an obligation to give those with differing points of view an opportunity to be heard. The “Fairness Doctrine” was interpreted by many as requiring that those with contrasting views be given equal time whenever such controversial issues were being discussed. The “doctrine” was abandoned during the Reagan Administration when many government activities were deregulated. 

When the bill to reform the nation’s immigration policies, specifically those relating to illegal immigration, was recently being discussed, several Democrat members of the United States Senate called for bringing back the “Fairness Doctrine” out of a sense of frustration that the public was not receiving a fair and balanced discussion of the legislation on talk radio shows, which the Senate Democrats regard as universally conservative and which they thought was having an inordinate influence on the deliberations concerning the legislation.

Personally, I oppose the “Fairness Doctrine” for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it presumes the ignorance of the public and our inability to discern facts from horse manure. But, most significantly, broadcast stations are not owned by the government and should not be considered as government activity. With so many different sources of information – newspapers, major television networks, cable television and talk radio, for example – it is difficult for any one source to give us a “snow job.” But, there is one area of American life where I believe something equivalent to a “Fairness Doctrine” ought to be applied: the college classroom.

Despite the clamor for “diversity” on college campuses, one of the most homogenous facets of American life is the college faculty and the perspectives that they teach in the classroom with regard to controversial subjects such as “affirmative action.”  In fact, college professors have one of the most protected monopolies in our nation. They are protected by tenure, “academic freedom,” and our respect for their right to impart their knowledge without infringement by the trustees, the university president or anyone else responsible for university governance. 

I am not proposing to abridge the freedom that these classroom dictators enjoy. This would be an instance in which the cure would be worse than the disease. But, unlike someone sitting on the couch with a remote control in hand, a student has little choice but to sit and listen when his or her professor spews forth about the inherent evils of “American imperialism” and how our nation is responsible for many of the things that are wrong on our planet, or why “equity” and “social justice” are being denied to women and “minorities.” In short, it is widely acknowledged that there is little intellectual diversity among university faculties.

One thing I learned from my days as a member of the Board of Regents of the University of California is that solutions to problems of an academic nature are best solved internally rather than imposed from above, no matter how cumbersome the machinery of the academy might operate. Therefore, we should not expect governing boards or university presidents to solve this matter. The solution must originate from within the faculty itself.

For change to occur, the faculty leadership at universities throughout the nation must be urged to recognize the long-term harm that will result to them and to the faith that the American people should have in higher education from a continued public perception that the academy is intellectually monolithic of thought, goofy and out-of-touch with the American mainstream. When Ward Churchill becomes the face of the college professoriate, American higher education will lose the respect that it has among the taxpaying public. That perception is not far from reality. Little-by-little, the high esteem that we give to higher education is being eroded by the view that “they are out-of-touch” or intellectually intolerant.

After recognition of the problem, leadership within the ranks of the professoriate must actively recruit colleagues who can offer positions that are alternative to the prevailing attitudes and philosophies of their faculty departments, in areas such as political science or philosophy – areas where “controversial” views are more likely to be espoused.  A complaint often heard is that few, if any, Republicans or “conservatives” are to be found in the faculties of virtually any university in the nation. This is a complaint that must be taken seriously.

If the desire for “diversity” is to have credibility – and not be hypocritical – university faculties MUST concern themselves with diversity of thought and recruit more intellectually diverse faculty members to fill their ranks. In the interim, the very least they can do is to bring experts into their classrooms to offer differing perspectives and points-of-view when controversial subjects are being discussed. Such a “Fairness Doctrine” in higher education could go a long way to strengthening the confidence that all of us should have in our universities. Certainly, if those who want broadcast stations that are privately financed – and which the consumer has a choice to listen to or not – to be “fair and balanced,” the same expectation should be held for taxpayer-financed universities where all choice is abandoned once the classroom door is closed.

I have been silent, publicly, about the war that is ongoing in Iraq. The reason is that I don’t get daily briefings from the Central Intelligence Agency or the Department of Defense. Therefore, my knowledge about circumstances in that part of the world is extremely limited; and I find it imprudent to mouth-off about something so important based on my set of facts, which is so limited.

That which limits me does not impose the same limitation on many of my fellow Americans, however. I encountered one such individual while stuck in traffic in my hometown of Sacramento, California. The car immediately ahead was a “vintage” Honda that didn’t appear to have been washed since it rolled off the assembly line a few decades ago. Its driver was a throwback from the hippie days gone by who, at a glance, hadn’t seen water for as long as his car. Each bumper and virtually every inch of space on the car’s body was tattooed with stickers evidencing the driver’s social and political philosophy.

What struck me was how well-informed, based on his bumper stickers, this individual seemed to be compared to yours truly. Obviously a recipient of daily CIA briefings, this individual knew that “Bush Lied” and “We can’t win this war.” How else could a person tell others to “Honk if you think it is time to bring the troops home” without access to confidential information about the status of conditions in Iraq? Although I saw no sticker questioning President Bush’s parental legitimacy, the absence of such a message must have been a mere oversight or a result of inadequate vacant space on his car to spot such a sticker. 

Next to “Bush is an idiot!” were the proclamationsthat “Only humans warm the globe” and “Corporate CEOs are a bunch of crooks.” But, the sticker that fascinated me most was “Protect the environment: Don’t pollute.” This one was very hard to see through the exhaust pipe muck that was caked on the bumper from years of billowing smoke that emanated from the tailpipe.  I wondered how the driver could overlook his obvious hypocrisy. But, for the ten minutes or so that I was stuck behind this moving testimonial to free speech, my thoughts returned to the war and the fact that the driver ahead had formed such hard-and-fast opinions while my own were considerably more ambivalent.

It is not that I am ignorant of the social, economic and political toll that this war is having on our nation. And, I am devout believer in democratic principles, including the right for my friend up ahead to have strong opinions – and to be able to express them. But, I believe democracy obliges us to be well-informed as we form our opinions and articulate them to our fellow Americans. I am a voracious reader and try as hard as I can to be a good citizen. Yet, as hard as I might, I have not become sufficiently comfortable that I know enough about the war to render an intelligent opinion about when the troops should come home or whether our president “lied” to us.

There are some things, however, that will forever flash across the screen of my mind: seeing that airplane flying into a tower in New York City, as I stood in the bathroom shaving on the morning of September 11, 2001 and watching the “Today” Show while I prepared to go to the airport to catch a flight that was about to be canceled; my intuition that America had just been terrorized by someone(s); my profound anger at the unknown source of that devastation and human tragedy occurring on American soil; the intense feeling of insecurity and vulnerability that had just been visited upon my nation and me by this cruel and despicable act; and, yes, my unbridled desire to strike out and get even with the bastards who might be responsible for what had just happened. Although I didn’t know who was responsible, I was among the millions of Americans who wanted President Bush to take firm and decisive action to let “them” know that they wouldn’t get away with what they had done.  In retrospect, I was part of that national consensus to “get even” and stop before they did it again. The overwhelming majority of Americans reacted as I did.

Almost six years later, the driver ahead represented the solid majority of Americans who now serve as “Monday morning quarterbacks” who prefer to lay the full responsibility for what is going on in Iraq on Bush. To me, this seems to be unfair and, perhaps, shortsighted. What if Bush has access to more information than the driver ahead about the intentions of those who were responsible for killing roughly 3,000 human beings on September 11, 2001? Do we want foreign policy governed by the president of the United States, whomever he or she might be, or do we want it governed by a bunch of people who spend their life’s earnings on bumper stickers?

My final thought was that the cost of all those stickers might be put to better use: like a better car that doesn’t spew exhaust fumes that pollute the environment. Now, I would honk my horn for that.