Last Wednesday, the Berkeley Faculty Association, the Latinx Faculty Association, UC-AFT (representing lecturers and librarians), and the Academic Senate sponsored a Town Hall to discuss the choosing of the next UC President.
The meeting was opened by invited speaker Christopher Newfield of UCSB, and author of The Great Mistake (2016), who delivered a brilliantly ironic script about the impossible demands, coming from all quarters, that the new President would face – demands resting on half-truths, misunderstandings, ridiculous expectations and a narrow vision of the university. He also proposed a set of responses the new President should be prepared to make in order to preserve the integrity, quality, and public mission of UC.
This set the stage for a wide-ranging discussion of how we should choose the next President. We agreed on the following prerequisites:
The new President should have experience in higher education, but, more than that, be cognizant of the challenges and realities of teaching and research. He or she should be a strong advocate of the public character and mission of our 10-campus university, be committed to diversity both in access and in personnel, work with the legislature to increase state funding, and disseminate the accomplishments of our community.
The meeting turned to how we might influence the search process, since faculty input to the Special Committee of Regents is confined to consulting with an Academic Advisory Committee on which sit two of our faculty, John Powell and Barbara Spackman. We will urge them to consult widely on the Berkeley campus. Apart from that, we decided that the most meaningful way of influencing the decision would be through performance art–staging a public debate among popular candidates, chosen on each campus. The purpose of the debate would be to draw public attention to:
- The importance of the university’s public mission, its contribution to California, and the downward path UC is taking.
- The problematic character of the search for a new President, a largely secretive process that excludes any serious input from the very people who will be most affected by the choice, whether it be the campus community or the California public at large.
- Faculty views as to who is fit to govern us – our exclusion should not be interpreted as silent assent.
We are a public institution with public concerns and we intend to remain so. As a case in point, just last week Chancellor Christ declared her unequivocal support for DACA students on our campus. Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, a member of the litigation team defending DACA students before the Supreme Court will be presenting the history and arguments of the case today between 1p.m. and 2p.m.
Wendy Brown, Michael Burawoy, Celeste Langan, Leslie Salzinger and James Vernon for the Berkeley Faculty Association