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.