Burning Down the House: Politics, Governance, and Affirmative Action at the University of California

6. National Contest and Conflict

119 6 National Contest and Conflict On the eve of the July meeting of the Regents, it was becoming increasingly clear that absent some intervention, a steady march to a vote on affirmative action was inevitable. To many observers it appeared that the UC Office of the President was determined to continue on the path of mediation and articulation , hoping ultimately for something of a “mend it, don’t end it” compromise . President Peltason later explained his position: My debate with the Regents was not about their jurisdiction but about the merits of the issue. I’m for affirmative action. I also tried unsuccessfully to persuade them that this was a very divisive issue. I asked them to let me modify the worst parts of it, the parts they objected to most, and to not involve the university in the debate. Because no matter how it comes out, you’re going to make half the people mad.1 Other principals in the contest saw the Office of the President deferring to Governor Wilson in the interests of preserving the administration’s ability to make other kinds of policy for the good of the university. Then UCLA Chancellor Young reflected on that period this way: I think it was very clear that the Office of the President, the institution, generally, felt that they would be bringing harm to the university by taking a position that was blatantly anti-SP-1 and -SP-2, that its job was to try to convince rather than to argue, try to convince through information , and not say, “this is a political attack.” Indeed, I said that, and I was chastised for having done so. Improperly chastised.2 Student organizers had been having a hard time finding allies within the formal ranks of the policy process. Student Regent Gomez felt that only the students were willing to risk all to avoid a vote by the board that would end affirmative action at UC: I think that despite whatever will be written in the future, I really believe that in many cases the only people who put up a good fight for us were the students. The faculty had their interests and they had to protect them. They didn’t want to cross the line.3 120 Burning Down the House REVEREND JESSE JACKSON AND THE REDRESS OF INEQUALITY Many student leaders eventually decided they had no recourse but to turn outside the university system for support, to find someone who symbolized the fight for racial and political justice in America. Student Regent Gomez and the University of California Student Association invited Jesse Jackson to address the board as a guest of the students at the July meeting, to speak for their cause. The invitation to Jackson was a bold move that would ultimately have great influence on the contest and its aftermath. Jackson’s entrance further galvanized student interest and student support for affirmative action at UC, as it increased student organization, resistance, and protest. Given Jackson’s association with the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement, the invitation further shifted media and public perceptions of the contest from an institutional policy debate to a deeper conflict, one that encompassed America’s long and continuing struggle over race and equality. The invitation turned attention to the role of education in a national effort to redress racial inequality and to the ongoing linkages between education and income inequality. Reverend Jackson Mobilizes The day after the June meeting of the Regents, Reverend Jackson announced he would lead a rally at the July meeting designed to prevent any retreat from affirmative action. Governor Wilson promptly announced that he would attend the Regents’ meeting in his capacity as president of the board, his first appearance at a board meeting in over three years. The entrance of Jackson into the deliberations had a powerful impact on the governor’s role in the contest. For Wilson, it ratcheted up the level of national attention, and when Jackson threatened from Chicago to disrupt the meeting, the governor was able to cast himself as the defender of order. His response to Jackson’s threat was to go on the CBS News program Face the Nation to proclaim, “If he seeks to disrupt the meeting as he has announced, he will, I suppose, succeed in being detained.”4 With the national attention came higher stakes for the governor’s efforts...