Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118564810
label
Issue Papers - Education (2 of 2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564810
contentType
document
title
Issue Papers - Education (2 of 2)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Issue Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564810
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
809b85e0510a725c
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: Issue Papers - Education (2 of 2)
Box: P30
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
Came
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE: 12 Noon
Sacramento, California
March 28, 1969
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
3-28-69
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY DR. ALEX C. SHERRIFFS,
SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE GOVERNOR FOR EDUCATION
BEFORE MEMBERS OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION COMMISSION
HILTON HOTEL, SAN FRANCISCO
MARCH 28, 1969
I am pleased to be one of those asked to speak with you concerning
some matters regarding higher education which relate to your important
mission.
I will begin by making some observations from the particular vantage
point of the Executive Branch of state government. My own thinking is
influenced also by over twenty-three years as a member of the University
faculty, with half of those years devoted in part to University
administration.
As we are all aware, considerations of constitutional revision at
this time take place within a climate of crisis in higher education.
For generations, members of the academy found self-esteem and high
purpose in dedication to pursuing the truth wherever the truth might lead.
Subjectivity in scholarship was highly suspect; evidence was demanded
The greatest status tended to accrue to those disciplines where objectivit
was the highest.
There was pride in an educational community within which all points
of view, even unpopular ones, might be heard.
The people of the state were educated to believe in the importance
of these academic values. The people learned not only to tolerate, but
to take pride in the open environment on the campuses. Why not? For
basic cultural values of free speech, fairness, and truth were
represented at the University almost in pure form. But recently, at some
of our most renowned institutions, the pursuit of personal ends has been
substituted by some for the pursuit of truth. There has been a silencing
of moderate and conservative voices and hostile response to these who
differ with the ideological posture of the day. There has been emotion
and even violence where before the rule of reason held sway. Though the
rupture in the fabric of academic values is the responsibility of only a
minority of the faculty and on only some campuses, the general climate
reflects the attitudes and the will of the few.
- 1 -
It cannot be surprising that many faculty members are disturbed
today. It cannot be surprising that a public, which founded and
generously maintained its institutions, is hurt, outraged, and now
demanding.
When correction is slow or absent and excuses are quick and plentiful
and when no solution is in sight, there may be a tendency for a demand
for change almost for change's sake.
This is a difficult time to contemplate revision of the Constituion
as it affects the University. You are to be commended on the care and
thoughtfulness with which you are carrying out your most important
responsibility.
In California, we have developed what has not only become a viable
University over the past century, but also a University that ranks with
the very best of public institutions of higher education in the werld.
Are changes contemplated in order to improve that situation, are they
technical, or are they intended to cope with present frictions, problems,
and unrest? I suggest and I hope that you agree with me that constitu-
tional changes will do little to help cope with current problems of
unrest. Rather, consideration of change is in order to ensure greatness.
There is, of course, a delicate balance of interrelated factors which
determine any final effect on higher education. The modification of any
one of these factors will likely influence others. I will briefly
indicate our thoughts regarding certain areas which you have under
consideration.
1. The Constitutional Status of Higher Education:
Not only is the history of excellence in higher education at
the University a testimonial to the wisdom of establishing a Board of
Regents within the Constitution, but it strongly suggests that the State
College Board of Trustees should have like status. The benefits of
essential autonomy and flexibility are clear, but further, as Chancellor
Dumke has noted in his remarks to you, "The fact that one of California's
great institutions of higher education is established in the Constitution
while the other is not, implies a differentiation and inequality of
dignity, stature, and equity." A consitutional definition of the state
colleges might profitably indicate a primary mission as different from
that of the University. The Board of Trustees has had its shakedown
cruise under statute. We believe that we are ready now to give a more
permanent statement of charge and authority.
- 2 -
2.
Terms of Board Members:
We believe that the terms of the members of the Board of
Regents are too long and the terms of the Board of Trustees too short
and suggest that both be set at either ten or twelve years. The sixteen-
year term for Regents presents two problems. Many fine citizens,
thoughtful and wise, dedicated to the welfare of higher education within
the values of our society are not considered for appointment to the
Board of Regents solely because of age. A vigorous person in the prime
of his life is often removed from consideration solely because in sixteen
years he will be of an age when energies, accidents of health, and
flexibility become unpredictable. It may also be true that a sixteen-
year term places those representatives presumably accountable to the
people in a position where even psychic accountability is absent. On
the other hand, an eight-year term for the Board of Trustees makes
possible the appointment of an entire Board by a two-term Governor.
Despite the wisdom of a particular Governor, and even though he acts
consistently to keep partisan politics out of his appointments, there
can result an attitude of dependence, or even the debilitating belief
that such an attitude exists.
3. Tuition:
It is clear that the cost of higher education continues to
increase and it is equally clear that there are extreme difficulties in
providing funds to take care of this increase. We have almost reached,
if we haven't already, the end of our ability to find adequate funds
without injury to other necessary state responsibilities. As it is now,
primary and secondary education and other state responsibilities are
suffering because of the financial needs of higher education. California
has long prided itself on "tuition-free" education. The time has ome,
however, when we must join other states of the Union in finding some of
the source for finance from those who profit most by the higher education
provided and by those whose life incomes are so improved because of it.
4.
Ex officio Members of the Boards:
In a body established to represent the public interest and
which was intended to remain free from partisan political influence, the
reasons for having a large majority of the members protected by long
appointments is clear. The need for a means for responsible expression
of immediate public concern is likewise clear. And especially is this
true when the structure of the Board includes the President of the
- 3 -
University as an ex officio voting member of the Board with all the
resources of his staff at his disposal. The Board has the important
responsibility to represent the interests of the public who founded and
maintain the institution and at the same time to understand and to work fc
for the best interest of the University so that it can be the institution
that the public desires. Usually these ends are one and the same and
there is no conflict,
I suggest that if the body politic did not have representatives
on the Board of Regents directly responsible to it, the public response
would have been more impatient, more from frustration, and considerably
more devastating then it has been during the past five years.
5. Coordinating Council for Higher Education:
There is a certain lack of coordination of higher education
in the State of California, There has been increasing concern regarding
the Master Plan, and the Coordinating Council itself. There is a growing
belief that the Coordinating Council, which is charged with the responsi-
bility for planning the orderly growth of higher education in California,
has not been as effective in its advisory role as it should be--this in
good part because its membership of eighteen includes only six
representing the general public while twelve represent institutions of
higher education. The Council is, by its makeup, and notwithstanding
the sincerity, the maturity, and the responsibility of the persons who
represent segmental interests, prevented from taking strong positions in
the public interest on such matters as duplication of high cost programs,
proliferation of programs, and the like. Though the Coordinating Council
is not a constitutional body (and as it is presently constructed I would
not suggest that it be so included), the strength of that Council and
its ability to provide an independent audit has bearing on determination
of other issues before your commission.
6. Political Influence:
All of us value a considerable autonomy for higher education.
There are those who ask for a strengthening specifically of the stricture:
against outside political influence. We should be clear on two matters:
-- 4 -
a. While there is agreement that partisan political influence
on the University would be destructive and counter to maintaining a
quality institution, we should recognize a vital difference between
partisan political influence and appropriate expressions of concern by
the body politic about their institutions. We should note that a
Governor who represented, in relation to a University, a single political
party would constitute a negative influence. However, a Governor who
represented all the people of the state is simply meeting his responsi-
bility to the society whose institution the University is.
b. Current problems in the relationship of the public to the
University did not come about because of "whatever social, economic, or
political philosophy is fashionable = as someone has suggested. Rather,
political and coercive actions on the campus and by members of the campus,
to achieve political objectives, exploiting the facilities and resources
of the public (including wages and tuition-free education), aroused the
public. The public is reacting to attempts to distort and disrupt its
institutions, and society.
Again, I suggest that if the public had no immediately
accountable representatives, their response would be heightened by
frustration and anger.
I suggest, then, that partisan political involvement of the
institution by its administration, faculty, or students should be avoided
as much as should outside partisan interference.
The long-standing Regulation 5 of the University of California
anticipated clearly the relationship between partisan activity within
the University and public response:
"The University of California is the creature of the State and its
loyalty to the State will never waver. It will not aid nor will it
condone actions contrary to the laws of the State. Its high function
and its high privilege, the University will steadily continue to
fulfill, serving the people by providing facilities for investigation
and teaching free from domination by parties, sects, or selfish
interests. The University expects the State, in return, and to its
own great gain, to protect this indispensable freedom, a freedom
like the freedom of the press, that is the heritage and the right
of a free people."
I thank you for this opportunity to share our views. We will be
happy to answer questions at any time that your commission shall desire.
- 5 -
####
1969 EDUCATION PROGRAM SUMMARY
I. Elementary and Secondary (K-12)
A. 1969-70 Budget ($105 Million)
Legislation will be introduced to provide for allocation
of the $105 million dollars included in the Budget.
Price increase funds are allocated to all districts,
including the basic aid districts. The balance is dis-
tributed through equalization and supplementary aid,
with heavy emphasis on the low-wealth elementary dis-
tricts. The minimum increase allocated is $8 per ADA.
Our approach is to move in the direction of greater flexi-
bility at the local level. Sufficient funds are allocated
to allow the districts to make decisions to fund special
programs such as the gifted, as they deem in their best
judgment.
B. School Finance - Tax Reform
It is proposed that the State assume responsibility for
80% of the school cost now financed by local school dis-
tricts. This will be accomplished through a Statewide
nonresidential property tax and by replacing $950 million
dollars now collected from the residential property tax
by levying the 1½% personal income tax on adjusted gross
income.
Approximately $1.10 rate on residential and nonresiden-
tial will remain for use by the local school districts
without requiring an override vote. School districts
choosing to levy taxes at a rate higher than $1.10 could
do so only with a 60% vote of the people.
C. Commission on Education Reform
A Commission on Education Reform will be established to
make a comprehensive review of many facets of our ele-
mentary and secondary education programs and problems.
Their attention will be called to:
a. School district organization.
b. Vocational education problems at both the
secondary and junior college levels.
C. Teacher preparation and certification.
d. Mandated code sections.
e. The Compensatory Education programs.
f. Urban school problems.
g. Tenure.
h. Non-certified professional staff.
This will not preclude other subject matter areas of
investigation.
D. Teacher Credentialing
The teacher certification structure is one of tremendous
complexity and involves every facet of education. Our
immediate goals will be to modify the structure and the
Fisher Act in such a fashion as to clearly indicate pro-
gress and yet, not jeopardize the entire program for
what may appear to be easy solutions. The initial pro-
gram will support eliminating the distinction between
academic and non-academic areas in credential requirements.
The bill of the Joint Teacher Credentialing Committee will
make a significant reform in existing procedures and
requirements. Among these are:
a. It establishes a Commission for Licensing
to assume the State Board's responsibility
for credentialing.
b. Limits the issuance of credentialing to four
types.
C. Issuance of credentials for junior college
personnel by their Board of Governors.
Finally, we should attempt to mitigate the five-year
problem by easing the requirements to allow for a ten-
year period rather than the current seven as the time
within which a credential must be earned.
Section 3100.7 provides that a unification election shall
be held prior to June 4, 1968 and subsequent elections
shall be held on the date of each Presidential Primary
if the districts are not yet unified. It is proposed to
do away with this mandatory election.
II. Higher Education
A. Coordinating Council on Higher Education
Legislation will be introduced to provide that the
-3-
Council shall be composed entirely of lay membership
and a member added from the State Board of Education.
Question still remains as to whether the Council should
have any authorities.
B. Junior College Problems
Steps must be undertaken to insure that Community
College transfer students are guaranteed junior level
entrance in four-year institutions. It is becoming
increasingly difficult for qualified Community College
graduates to transfer to four-year institutions.
Community College transfer students should begiven
first priority in admission procedures.
C. The Master Plan of Higher Education
The Master Plan became effective in 1960. Since that
time, there has arisen a tremendous number of problems
in higher education not contemplated at the time of
the original plan. The entire area should derive con-
siderable benefits from an updating and revision of
that plan.
D. Tuition
The costs of higher education have risen so precipi-
tously that it will be necessary to find increased
sources of revenue to assist in maintaining our high
quality programs. Legislation will be introduced to
direct the Regents and Trustees to establish a charge
for a portion of these costs. These charges should
be geared in such a fashion as to provide no economic
hardship on the students and would supercede the
existing student charges and fees.
E. The Board of Regents and Trustees
Provision should be made for ten or twelve-year terms
of the Board of Regents. This will facilitate more
frequent appointments to the Regents, thus insuring a
more consistent philosophy with the demands of newer
needs and problems. In addition, terms of Regents
and Trustees would be the same.
State of California
Educ.
Memorandum
To
:
WILLIAM P. CLARK, JR.
Date
--
January 24, 1969
EDWIN MEESE III
ALEX SHERRIFFS
RUS WALTON
PAUL J. BECK
Subject: STATE COLLEGES
From
: PAUL R. HAERLE
On Thursday, January 15, 1969, Governor Reagan met with representa-
tives of various groups representing faculty on the state college
campuses. The meeting commenced shortly after 10:00 a.m. and con-
cluded at approximately 11:45 a.m. Attached hereto as Exhibit A
is a list of those in attendance at the meeting. Attached hereto
as Exhibit B is a copy of a draft agenda prepared for that meeting
by the undersigned and which the Governor followed rather carefully
during the course of the meeting.
1. The first point touched upon during the discussion was the
statutory termination problem. The Governor asked for the reaction
of the group with respect to this. The first to respond was Tom
Jordan of CSEA. He said that his first reaction upon hearing of the
strike was that the strikers ought to be peremptorily fired. However,
he said that on further reflection he thought that the Governor's and
Trustee's best position was to go slow on this.
Mr. Peluso of CCUFA stepped in to comment that the Governor should
be aware of the fact that the AFT was in dire circumstances financial-
ly and morale-wise, and that there should be caution exercised lest
they be made into martyrs and further support come their way because
of this.
Roth of CCUFA specifically suggested that instead of firing them,
(because "this just provokes confrontation") they should be simply
docked in pay for every day that they are off without any formal
termination. This suggestion was seconded by Peluso, who added the
thought that they ought not to be assigned classes the following
semester.
Professor Comegys of the California Conference of the American
Association of University Professors remarked that the AFT was badly
divided, they were hurting on money, and that they ought not to be
given the opportunity of garnering more support.
continued
Memorandum
January 24, 1969
Page 2
In general, the group urged that the law be enforced (because there
is no alternative) but that there be a delay in the actual enforce-
ment because of the factual circumstances and that hopefully during
the period of delay the AFT would crumble.
2. The group agreed that further effort should be expended on
contacts with local central labor councils and convincing such
councils not to grant strike sanction, or in the event it had been
granted that it ought to be withdrawn. No specific suggestions as
to how this ought to be done were forthcoming, but general agreement
that it ought to be done was had.
3. All groups, particularly CCUFA and the AAUP California group
were adamant that more needed to be done to protect professors and
instructors against retribution for crossing the picket line. The
Governor noted some of the examples he had heard of threatened
retribution against non-striking professors, and the more the subject
was discussed the more agitated the group became at these AFT tactics.
Eventually it was agreed that both CCUFA, AAUP and CTA would send
out a bulletin to all faculty on this subject, offering their services
to protect faculty members against loss of tenure or other forms of
retribution.
4. At about this point Trustees Chairman Ted Meriam, who was also
in attendance, stated that he welcomed very much the opportunity to
meet with these groups, and wanted to arrange some sort of a forum for
continued meetings and cooperation with them.
Tom Jordan of CSEA interjected that one of the most important points
from the standpoint of the group was that neither the Governor nor
any other spokesman for the administration ought to be painting
instructors on the California state college campus with the same broad
brush as that that applied to the AFT. He felt that there was a bad
image being created of college instructors, and that this needed to
be corrected. No particular response was made to this point, however.
5. Roth of CCUFA said that one of the most important points in the
minds of the group was the erosion of authority of the individual
college presidents. There was not, he said, anywhere near enough
autonomy reposed in the individual college administrations, but
rather a centralization of authority in the office of the Chancellor.
Both Meriam and the Governor responded affirmatively to this sugges-
tion, indicating that they also were conscious of this problem, and
agreed very much with the group that this was something that had to
be solved.
continued
Memorandum
January 24, 1969
Page 3
Jack Rees of CTA brought up the subject of the Burgener bill, intro-
duced in the 1967 Regular Session (see Exhibit C attached hereto).
He said that it was the view of the assembled group that something
akin to the Burgener bill was badly needed at the present time.
The Governor and Alex Sherriffs promised immediate consideration
to the possibility of renewing such legislation.
6. Jordan concluded the formal agenda by stating that the group
proposed the creation of a commission to examine both the faculty
and student problems on the campuses, and said that if this would be
done immediately under appointment by the Governor that it might
cause a relaxation of some of the immediate tensions. I asked Jordan
whether or not this might have the effect of undercutting the Trustees,
and after some discussion on this point it was agreed that any such
commission ought to be appointed more or less under the authority of
the Trustees.
7. I recapitulated the "short term" points on which the group had
agreed upon as follows:
A. Enforce the law with respect to automatic terminations
but delay its enforcement somewhat, in the meantime
making sure that pay was docked.
B. Acquaint local membership of each group with the law and
that its enforcement was inevitable in some circumstances,
C. Increase contacts with local central labor councils in
an effort to avoid strike sanction.
D. Each group, and perhaps all of them operating collectively,
ought to increase their activities toward protecting member
(and even non-member) faculty personnel against retaliation
because of nonadherence to the strike.
8. The Governor concluded the meeting by saying how much he appreciated
the opportunity of meeting with the assembled group, and committed
himself unequivocally to continuing the dialogue with these groups in
a constructive manner.
9. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is Rus Walton's memorandum to
Ed Meese of January 17, with which I completely concur.
PRH;c
Representatives meeting with Governor Reagan
1/17/69
California College and University Faculty Association
Frank Peluso, President
Lester J. Roth, Past President
Robert Rees, Acting Executive Secretary
American Association of University Professors
Robert Comegys, President California Conference
Robert Wiggins, Representative
California State Employees' Association
Thomas Jordan, General Manager
Robert Carlson, President
Walter Taylor, Chief Counsel
George Feinberg, Chief, Operations Division
John Barley, CSEA Bell
California Teachers Association
Jack Rees, Executive Secretary
Exhibit A A
AGENDA
January 16, 1969
Meeting with representatives of
state college faculty groups
I. "Short term" issues
A. How to maximize teacher and student
attendence at San Francisco State
under present conditions
B. Necessity and means of getting across
to the public the following:
1. Lack of AFT support on campus;
2. Small percentage of faculty
involved in strike;
3. Absurdity of some of the demands;
4. Opportunism of AFT regarding timing.
C. How to vitiate Central Labor Council sanction
D. Handling of statutory termination problem
II. "Long term" issues
A. What basic problems do exist with regard
to working conditions which concern all
state college instructors and what can be
done regarding them
B. Possible means of providing for meaningful
bargaining representative for state college
faculty
Exhibit B
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE - 1967 REGULAR (GENERAL) SESSION
SENATE BILL
No. 1430
Introduced by Senator Clair W. Burgener
An act to add Chapter 10 (commencing with Section
24351) to Division 18 of Part 4 of the Education Code,
relating to the establishment of system-wide and local
academic senates in the California State Colleges.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 24351) is
added to Division 18 of Part 4 of Education Code, to read:
Chapter 10 Academic Senates
24351. It is the purpose of this Chapter to promote and
strengthen the traditional right of faculty members in great
institutions of higher learning to participate in policy
formation on academic and professional matters at such
institutions through the establishment of system-wide and
local academic senates. It is further the purpose of this
Chapter to make the system-wide and local academic senates
the voice of the faculty of the state colleges and to
establish the system-wide and local academic senates as the
representatives of the faculty in academic and professional
matters. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to super-
sede other provisions of this code or the rules and regula-
tions of the Trustees adopted under the authority of this code.
Exhibite
24352. As used in this Chapter:
(a) A "System-wide Academic Senate" of the California
State Colleges shall mean the representative body elected by
the faculties of the California State Colleges.
(b) "Local Senate" of each state college shall mean
the representative body elected at each college by the
faculty of the college.
(c) "Member of the System-wide Academic Senate of
California State Colleges" is a person elected by the faculty
of a state college as a representative to serve on the System-
wide Academic Senate of the California State Colleges.
(d) "Member of Local Academic Senate" is a person
elected by the faculty of each state college as a repre-
sentative to serve on the Local Academic Senate.
(e) "Faculty" means all academic and administrative
employees of a state college including the Chancellor and
President of each state college except that faculty shall
not include persons serving in management services, such
as, accounting, budgeting, plan management, management
analysis, personnel administration, or business services.
24353. A System-wide Academic Senate of the California
State Colleges shall be established for the California State
Colleges. The System-vide Academic Senate shall succeed
to the powers, duties and functions heretofore vested in
-2-
the Academic Senate of the California State Colleges created
and existing by virtue of the rules and regulations adopted
by the Trustees of the California State Colleges. The Con-
stitution of the Academic Senate of the California State
Colleges shall continue in effect as the Constitution of the
System-wide Academic Senate and shall be subject to amendment
in accordance with the provisions of that Constitution pro-
vided that no amendment shall be inconsistent with the pro-
visions of this Code.
24354. A Local Academic Senate shall be established for each
State College of the California State Colleges. The Local
Academic Senates at the existing State Colleges shall each
succeed to the powers, duties and functions heretofore vested
in the Local Academic Senate created and existing at each
State College by virtue of the rules and regulations adopted
by the Trustees of the California State Colleges. A Local
Academic Senate shall be established at each State College
hereafter established. The Constitution of each Local Academic
Senate that is now in effect shall continue in effect as the
Constitution of each Local Academic Senate and shall be sub-
ject to amendment in accordance with the provisions of such
Constitution, provided that no amendment shall be inconsistent
-3-
with this Code. The Local Academic Senate established at
each State College that may be hereafter established shall
be governed in the excercise of its powers and duties pur-
suant to a constitution freely adopted by a majority of the
faculty at such State College provided that no provision of
the constitution or any amendment thereto shall be incon-
sistent with this Code.
24355. The powers and duties of the System-wide Academic
Senate shall be as follows:
(a) The System-wide Academic Senate shall represent
the faculty of the State Colleges on all of the system-wide
academic and professional matters.
(b) The System-wide Academic Senate shall transmit
to the Chancellor and Trustees recommended policies and
procedures and opinions and positions of the faculties of
the State Colleges.
(c) Representatives of the State-wide Academic Senate
shall sit with the Trustees of the California State Colleges
in an advisory capacity and shall have the same right to be
recognized and to discuss the questions before the Trustees
as do the Trustees.
24356. Any proposal submitted to the Trustees of the California
State Colleges for action by an employee organization (as
defined in Section 3501 of the Government Code) relating to
-4-
academic or professional matters shall be referred to the
State-wide Academic Senate for its recommendations and
comments prior to the Trustees arriving at a determination
of policy or course of action, provided that nothing herein
shall affect the right of the Trustees to act in the event of
an emergency.
24357. The Trustees of the California State Colleges or such
administrative officer as they may designate and representa-
tives of the State-wide Academic Senate shall meet and confer
upon request of either of them with regard to any matter
relating to academic or professional matters. The designa-
tion of an administrative officer as provided herein shall
not preclude the representatives of the State-wide Academic
Senate from exercising their rights as provided in Section
24355 (c).
24353. The Trustees of the California State Colleges shall
provide sufficient funds for the operation and maintenance
of the System-wide Academic Senate to permit the System-wide
Academic Senate to perform the duties provided for under
this Chapter.
24359. All funds provided pursuant to Section 24353 shall be
available and used for such purposes. The funds SO available
may be drawn against by the Chairman of the System-wide
Academic Senate to perform the duties provided for under
this Chapter.
-5-
24360. The Trustees of the California State Colleges shall
grant released time to the officers, other members of the
Executive Committee and Committee Chairmen of the System-
wide Academic Senate and shall grant released time to
members of the System-wide Academic Senate to perform the
duties provided for under this chapter.
24361. The powers and duties of the Local Academic Senate
shall be as follows:
(a) The Local Academic Senate shall represent the
faculty at a State College on all local academic and pro-
fessional matters at a State College.
(b) The Local Academic Senate shall formulate policies
and procedures on academic and professional matters insofar
as such policies affect the individual State College. Such
policies and procedures shall be subject to the review of
the President of the college.
(c) The President of the State College and represen-
tatives of the Local Academic Senate shall meet and confer
upon request of either of them with regard to all academic
or professional matters.
CCUFA-CTA
4/18/67-cml
-6-
January 17, 1969
Ed Meese
Meeting with CSEA, AAUP,
CTA, et al
Rus Walton
I think the meeting with the CSEA, AAUP, CTA, et al was great!
I urge that we follow this up judiciously but boldly - with
bias, if any, toward leadership and action. It seems to me we
made a tremendous break through the communications gap and we
must keep pushing.
The obvious steps are:
1. to review the Burgener bill, perhaps discuss it with
Clair in light of our meeting, etc., and take the leader-
ship on this type of legislation. (Reference my memo to
you a few days ago anent the need for a proper vehicle
for legitimate communications between faculty, administra-
tion and Trustees.)
2. move immediately to consider and (if at all possible
and practical), form a Commission as suggested. Such a
commission might comprise leaders of the various groups
represented at the meeting this morning (the ( various
academic groups, CSEA, the Trustees and the Governor's
office). The question as to whether this should be a
sub-committee -- or report to the Trustees - can cer-
tainly be worked out. I would recommend, all things
being equal, that it should be a Governor's commission,
closely coordinated with the Trustees, but reporting to
the Boss. The time for leadership is now.
With the Boss' background and expertise in labor relations, etc.,
this is right in his bag. I urge that we move quickly and effectively.
115
RUS WALTON
Secretary for Program
Development
cc: Paul Haerle
Alex Sherriffs
RW:ky
EXhibit D
tdue
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
10-31-69
MEMO TO LEGISLATORS
from Governor's Press Office
The attached may be of interest to you and is provided for your
background information.
Remarks by Governor Ronald Reagan
In Answer To Questions From The Sacramento Bee
Published In The Newspaper's Forum Section
Sunday, October 26, 1969
1. ACCORDING TO VARIOUS ESTIMATES, BETWEEN 10,000 AND 40,000 STUDENTS
WERE TURNED AWAY THIS FALL BY THE CALIFORNIA STATE COLLEGES. FACULTY
GROUPS BLAME THE FISCAL POLICIES OF YOUR ADMINISTRATION FOR THE REJECTION
OF THESE STUDENTS. WHAT REASON DO YOU GIVE?
"If it were true that even one California resident who was a
qualified applicant was turned away from the state colleges, I think
it would be a crime.
"And, there is so far no evidence to show that any have been turned
away from the system itself.
"The fact is that while the Master Plan for Higher Education
specifies that a campus be available somewhere in the state for each
qualified applicant, the state college system has both the ability and
the responsibility to transfer available funds to meet the enrollment
requirements of individual campuses.
"Unfortunately, too many state college officials would apparently
rather push students around from one campus to another than to move the
money around to meet local enrollment needs.
"By refusing to be innovative, they are just not making effective
use of the reservoir of faculty members they been allocated, or the
classroom space which is available.
"To complicate the problem, students are being forced to apply for
enrollment at as many as five and six campuses in hopes they 11 be
accepted at one of them. Those campuses which refuse them entrance
still count their applications against the total received, mushrooming
the true picture all out of proportion.
"A report just released by the State Auditor General, in pointing
this out, says: 'There is no centralized processing of state college
applications for admission. This is an inconvenience for the applicants
and a waste of college administrative funds in the handling of several
applications for one student. Under the present system,' the report
says, 'it is not possible to readily determine how many applications are
turned away from the college of their first choice or from the system
altogether.'
"But, is it really necessary to turn them away from the college of
their choice? Let's take Sacramento State College, for example.
"The Auditor General's report says that right now, today, 'full
utilization of the present classroom and laboratory space at Sacramento
State College could accommodate double (yes, double!) the present
enrollment of 11,000 fulltime equivalent students.'
"It also says that next September, Sacramento State could handle
25,762 such students. It notes that 300 classrooms on the campus are
completely vacant for at least three hours a week during the day.
These classrooms, alone, could accommodate 2,700 students who are not
now being served. And, this does not include the empty chairs in
classes already underway.
"The report says that one in every 10 faculty members at the college
is not teaching, but that these non-teaching teachers are involved in
other things such as administration, research, counseling and testing.
- 1 -
"Isn't it time to ask, whatever happened to the idea that teachers
are supposed to teach? It's no wonder that students are upset! They're
at the very bottom of the priority list!
"Let me also draw your attention to one other key portion of the
Auditor General's report which says that the student-teacher ratio at
the state colleges is 16.3 to 1, which means 16 students to one teacher.
Yet, across town at Sacramento City College the ratio is 34-1. And, at
American River College, it is 36-1.
"The report also points out that at Hastings Law School, one of the
nation's leading professional schools, the student-teacher ratio is
budgeted for the current year at 35-1.
"As you can see, the student-teacher ratios at these three schools
are virtually twice the average in the state college system.
"There is no mystery as to why certain faculty groups and others
continue to try to put the blame on our administration. They would
rather protect their comfortable little niches than recognize that
students should get the first priority, and that teaching should be
the prime responsibility.
"It is for this very reason that, for the first time, we have asked
the state college and university systems to submit a budget for the
coming year which will place the needs of students first.
"And, speaking of the budget, I want to make it clear that this
administration has made, and will continue to make, education the top
budget pricrity.
"During the past three years, the total annual support budget for
higher education, not including the community colleges, has increased
from $414 million to $638 million.
"Three years ago, every man, woman and child in the state paid $28
toward its support. Today, it's $38 per person, or $154 for a family
of four.
"Over the same three-year period, higher education has received an
overall 54 percent increase. That's three times as much as the 18 percent
increase which all other agencies in state government received.
"Now, for those who say that this doesn't take into account the
factors of inflation and population increases, the figures if adjusted
for inflation still show that higher education has received a 31 percent
increase during the course of these three years, compared to a decrease---
yes, a decrease-- of 3.4 percent for those departments over which a
governor exercises direct control.
"Today, California taxpayers are spending more per student than ever
before: $3,114 per university student, and $1,500 for each student in
the state college system.
"And, none of this even begins to take into account the amount the
taxpayers are putting up to support California's extensive community
college system."
2. HOW CAN THE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA KEEP COSTS DOWN
WHEN BOTH ARE FACED WITH INCREASING ENROLLMENTS AND RAPID INFLATION?
"For one thing, they can begin to cut out a lot of the fat, which
is a fact, but which they are very reluctant to acknowledge or look for.
We have done it in state government for three years and we're continuing
to do it. There is no reason why they can't do it also.
"Nearly half of the employees in the state college and university
systems have non-academic jobs. Why should a clerk who works in a
department of the university not be subject to the same workload scrutiny
as the clerk who works in the Department of Motor Vehicles?
- 2 -
"There are many areas, totally unrelated to the quality of
instruction, where hard-nosed, rigorous standards of economy and
efficiency can and should be applied, just as in other departments of
state government.
"Why should it be too much to hope that by reducing the cost of such
operations and applying practical, cost-saving alternatives wherever
possible, that more students might get educated with the dollars saved?
"If the same members of the educational establishment who berate the
administration in Sacramento would take another look at their priorities
and work as diligently on behalf of students as they do to save their own
establishment we could be a lot further down the road to progress.
3. YOU HAVE SUGGESTED THAT FACULTY MEMBERS SHOULD TEACH LARGER CLASSES
AS A WAY OF CUTTING COSTS. WHY SHOULD CALIFORNIA FACULTY MEMBERS CARRY
A HEAVIER WORKLOAD THAN FACULTY MEMBERS AT COMPARABLE INSTITUTIONS
ELSEWHERE IN THE NATION?
"It is difficult, indeed impossible, for me to believe that by
teaching just one extra hour a week, faculty members in the university
and state college systems in California would be shouldering a heavier
burden than faculty members elsewhere in the country. As to teaching
larger classes, professors tell me that it is no more strenuous for them
to teach 40 students than it is to conduct a class of 36.
"In any event, the hours that faculty teach within the university
classroom would appear to approximate about five a week. If this is
'heavier' than faculty members 'elsewhere in the nation,' then I am
embarrassed for those faculty members.
"In the state college system, and without the responsibility for
research which is the university's, the number of hours of classroom
teaching is closer to nine than the 12 required.
"Education is, for me, the top priority. It clearly is not for some
of the people who are hired to teach.
"I only wish that more university professors would, in fact, teach
and not delegate this vital classroom function to teaching assistants
barely older than the students themselves. If I were a university
student, and I signed up for a course taught by a well-known professor
who made a single appearance during the semester, I think I'd feel some-
what neglected."
4. WITH THE DEFEAT LAST YEAR OF PROPOSITION THREE AND WITH CONTINUING
CONSTRUCTION FUND REDUCTIONS BY YOUR ADMINISTRATION, CALIFORNIA CAMPUSES
ARE FALLING FAR BEHIND IN THEIR BUILDING PLANS. HOW DO YOU PROPOSE TO
MAKE SPACE AVAILABLE ON THE CAMPUSES FOR THE THOUSANDS OF STUDENTS
WANTING HIGHER EDUCATION?
"If there was any message in last year's voter turndown of
Proposition Three, it was that the people of California, who have so
generously supported public higher education in the state for generations,
want these institutions to put their house in order. I think they're
concerned that their tax dollars for the university and colleges are not
being used as wisely or as responsibly as they should.
"The empty classrooms at Sacramento State may well reflect this
concern.
"A bond issue is a vote of confidence by those who make our higher
education system possible. When the voters are convinced that the
facilities in which they have invested are being used fully and
effectively, and that there is a need for additional facilities, I have
no doubt what their answer will be."
- 3 -
5. A STUDY COMPLETED LAST YEAR BY THE COORDINATING COUNCIL FOR HIGHER
EDUCATION SHOWED THAT 11.7 PERCENT OF STATE EXPENDITURES IN CALIFORNIA
GO TO HIGHER EDUCATION. ACCORDING TO THIS STUDY, THE NATIONAL AVERAGE
IS 15.2 PERCENT. IF CALIFORNIA IS ONE OF THE NATION'S WEALTHIEST
STATES, WHY CAN IT NOT AT LEAST MATCH THE NATIONAL AVERAGE?
"I don't believe that the study takes into account the enormous
sums of tax monies for the support of California's very extensive
community college system, by far the largest and most sophisticated in
the country. Hundreds of millions of dollars in state and local support
make it possible each year.
"The point is, roughly one out of every 25 Californians is now a
fulltime student at one of our institutions of public higher education
be it the university, a state college or a junior college. It is
something to be proud of, and I can't think of any other state which
could even begin to match us."
6. WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER TO BE OUR GREATEST ACCOMPLISHMENT IN HIGHER
EDUCATION?
"I would have to list several things, but I wouldn't know how to
put them in order.
"One would be that we have been able to provide literally hundreds
of millions of dollars considerably more than ever before in the
state's history to meet the swelling demands of growth in higher
education, at a time when there have been tremendous demands on our
tax dollars for other things such as welfare, Medi-Cal and mental
hygiene. Despite these and other pressures, education has remained our
number one, overwhelming budget priority and will continue to be.
"I am also pleased that with the creation of the Board of Governors
of the California Community Colleges we have been able to heighten the
dignity and status of this excellent system and its vastly underrated
contribution to higher education in California.
"Nor could I overemphasize the importance we attach to the
increasing role of vocational education for those of our citizens who
choose to limit their academic studies. Only through the kind of
training this provides will we be able to adequately fill the one million
skilled and semi-skilled new jobs which will be upon us by 1975."
"These would be several of the things I would have to list."
7. WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER TO BE THE GREATEST PROBLEM NOW FACING HIGHER
EDUCATION?
"I am afraid I would have to cite the growing distrust of the public
for the academic community and the growing hostility of some elements
of the academic community for the public.
"Unfortunately, there are too many in the academic community who
consciously, or unconsciously, bare their contempt for the ordinary
citizen who may not have had the benefit of a college education, but
who is sharing a very heavy tax burden, some of which goes to pay the
cost of professors' salaries and administrators' expense accounts.
"The same taxpayer who pays the freight at the university or college
campus is wondering why he can't ask how his money is being used and why
it can't be used more effectively, if not more sparingly in certain cases.
"He is asking why violence and disruption are openly encouraged,
or even tolerated, on the campus he finances in the name
of
academic
freedom.
"He is asking what has happened to the moral leadership and backbone
that campus officials used to show.
"He is wondering what has happened to professional ethics and why
some instructors are able to use their classrooms to indoctrinate and
propagandize his children against the traditional values of a free
society in this country.
"If the problem is to be resolved, it will have to happen on our
campuses.
"It will happen when administrators and faculty members take
responsive and responsible action to regain the public confidence they
once enjoyed. But, the patience of the people is not infinite."
- 4 -
EJG
file
November 14, 1969
PAUL:
This is Ed's contribution.
Dear Sir:
TIME's astonishing and completely irresponsible references
to higher education, in the November 7 Modern Living section on
California, demand a factual response.
Had your editors bothered to make even the most elementary
check they would have found that Governor Reagan has not decreed
a $88 million budget cut for the University of California. Indeed,
he has never cut the school's budget.
On the contrary, during his three years in office, the total
annual support budget for higher education in California, including
the state University and college systems has increased from a total
of $414 million to $638 million per year. The University budget
itself has gone up from $244 million to $330 million. Over the
same period of time higher education has received an overall
54 percent increase -- three times as much as the 18 percent
increase which all other agencies in state government received,
When the Governor took office, every man, woman and child in
the state paid $28 toward the support of the state University and
state colleges. Today, it's up to $38 per person.
Even if adjusted for inflation the figures still show that
higher education in California has received # 31 percent increase
over the course of the past three years compared to a decrease --
yes, a decrease -- of 3.4% for all other departments of state
government over which Governor Reagan exercises direct control.
- 2 -
Today, California taxpayers are spending more per student
than ever before: $3,114 per University student and $1,500 for
each student in the state college system.
This year, for the first time in the state's history, the
Governor requested all departments, including those representing
higher education, to set forth their own priorities in their
budget requests in order for his administration to make truly
meaningful decisions in the final allocation of funds for the
coming fiscal year -- a down-to-earth common sense approach.
His only "decree" was that the University and state college
systems put the interests of students at the top of their list of
priorities -- not last, as has been the case all too often in the
past.
TIME's charge that the Governor's policies may reduce future
enrollment and force one of the University campuses to close are
pure fantasy and have no relationship to the fact,
The charge by TIME that he has used "ridicule and money-power
in an attempt to cow University administrators into suppressing
faculty and students' dissent" is totally unwarranted, The Governor
has continually resisted strong pressures to reduce University
budgets, He has stated time and time again that the vast majority
of students and faculty members should not be punished because of
the violent and disruptive acts of an unrepresentative few,
San
Jose Merrury
More Than a Century of Service-1851-1969
118TH YEAR, NO. 183
SAN JOSE, CALIF., FRIDAY MORNING, JANUARY 17, 1969
CLASSIFIED 28
MA
OBSERVE THE RULES
OR get OUT"
GOV. ELECT RORALD REACAN
CRISIS PARLEY-Gov. Ronald Rea-
said they were "in basic agreement"
gan. and DPS SE 15 Hayakawa, acting
off the necessity of keeping SFS open.
president.of San Franciscos State Col-
Inc lower right is-plaque containing
Total shold foint conference
words from postorm Im
Thur day The acramento.al following
In 1966
first meeting between the pair, They
THE BY WITHIN
BUT JUST A TOUCH
south
Reagan Softens Stand
9.16
On Teacher Firings
By LOU CANNON
Dumke and colle ge trustee unrest including the legitimate
Mercury Sacramento Bureau
chairman Ted Meriam and rep
aspirations of the underprivi
SACRAMENTO - The state
resen tat Ky es of three non
leged ethnic minorities,'
college crisis apparently inched
striking faculty groups
Reagan said a commission
nearer to solution Thursday in a
Dr. Frank Peluso of San Jose,
should be named but added he
probably would ask- the state
series OF meetings with Gov
president of the California Col-
and University Faculty
college' trustees, to do it rather
Ronald Reagan
Assn:
said after the meeting
than appointing one himeself
Without abandoning his. po-
that he hoped the Governor
Any commission, he said, should
would name commission to
in ku die representation both
sition that the law requires
dismissal of faculty members study all causes of campus (Back, Page of Section, Col. 4)
absent for five consecutive
days, governor pledged
'due process" for striking
professors.
He also welcomed à sugges-
tion from non-striking faculty
groups that broad based com-
mission be named to study
causes of campus turmoil. Rea-
gan said this could best be
omplished in "an atmos
phere
of
goodwill.
were these develop-
ments in a day that the gover-
nor devoted largely tox discus-
sions of the student and faculty
strikes San Jose State and
Francisco State college
Dr. Eldred E. Rutherford,
president of the SJS the
American Federation of Teach
denied he had skipped
since Nov. 5. and ac
"circulat
OBSERVE THE RULES
OK GET OUT"
GGV BLECT RONALD BLACK
CRISIS PAREEY-Gov. Ronald Rea
said they were (in basic agreement"
gan and Dr. Hayakawa, acting
on the necessity of keeping SFS open.
president of San Francisco State Col,
In lower right is plaque containing
lege, hold joint news conference
words from a Reagan post campaign
Thursday in Sacramento, following
speech in 1966
first meeting between the pair. They
Wirephofo
BUT JUST A TOUCH
Reagan Softens Stand
On Teacher Firings
By LOU CANNON
Dumke and college trustee
unrest including the legitimate
Mercury Sacramento Bureau
chairman Ted Meriam and rep-
aspirations of the underprivi
SACRAMENTO - The state
resentatives of three non-
leged ethnic minorities,'
college crisis apparently inched
striking faculty groups.
Reagan said a commission
nearer to solution Thursday in a
Dr. Frank Peluso of San Jose,
should be named but added he
series of, meetings with Gov.
president of the California Col-
probably would ask the state
lege and University Faculty
college trustees to do it ráther
Ronald Reagan.
Assn. said after the meeting
than appointing one himeself
Without abandoning his po-
that he hoped the Governor
Any commission, he said, should
sition that the law requires
would name a commission to
in C lu de representation both
dismissal of faculty members
study all causes of campus
(Back Page of Section, Col. 4)
absent for fiye consecutive
days, the governor pledged
"due process" for striking
professors.
He also welcomed a sugges-
tion from non-striking faculty
groups that a broad-based com-
mission be named to study
causes of campus turmoil. Rea-
gan said this could best be
accomplished in "an atmos-
phere of goodwill.
"There were these develop-
ments in a day that the gover-
nor devoted. largely to discus-
sions of the student and faculty
strikes at San Jose State and
San. Francisco State college
campuses:
Dr. Eldred E. Rutherford,
president of the SJS local of the
American Federation of Teach-
ers, denied he had skipped
classes since Nov. 5. and ac-
cused the governor of "circulat-
ing a misstatement of fact" in
his news conference Tuesday.
Reagan met for the first
time with Dr. S. I. Hayakawa,
the famed semanticist who is
now the embattled president of
strike-torn San Francisco State
Hayakawa and Reagan held a
brief press conference after-
ward and declared they were
"in basic agreement" on the
necessity of keeping the college
open.
The governor also met with
Thomas Jordan, general man-
ager of the California State
Employes Assn, (CSEA), State
College Chancellor Glenn
BUT JUST A TOUCH
Reagan Softens Stand
On Professor Firings
(Continued from Page 1)
coed who is one of Rutherford's departure from classroom rou-
120 students.
tine.
from the colleges and from the
Some of the criticism directed
"It's provoked confusion and
general public and should con-
against him for this independent
some anxiety on the part of
sider long-term causes of cam-
study method came from facul-
students,' Rutherford said.
pus disturbances.
ty members antagonistic to the
But he defended the value of
The governor slightly softened
AFT, Rutherford said, though
the teaching method and de-
his oft-expressed declarations
he conceded that some students
clared he had done more work
that striking faculty members
had been disturbed by the
than he would have in a
m u st automatically be dis-
"stand-up lecture class.'
missed.
The joint Reagan-Hayakawa
When he was asked about
press conference dwelt more on
procedures under way at San
the student strikers than on the
Jose State to provide for rein-
faculty members. In a move to
statement of faculty on an
drive a wedge between the
individual basis, Reagan re-
student factions, the governor
plied:
said that insistence by the
"There is the problem of a
Students for a Democratic So-
very explicit laws But until
ciety (SDS) on continuing the
you know who/has actually been
San Francisco strike was block-
in attendance, you can't make a
ing Negro demands for a sep-
determination You are going to
arate black studies department
have torestablish that they (the
that Hayakawa has agreed to
striking professors) did neglect
create.
their duties for five consécutive
"I'm looking to the day when
days.
the BSU (Black Students Union)
Reagan repeated a statement
will realize that all of us seek
he made Tuesday that the AFT
the same aim," Reagan said.
was acting contradictorily in
Hayakawa and Reagan both
obtaining labor council sanction
expressed concern for profes-
for a strike and then attempting
sors who have been allegedly
to claim that union members
threatened or coerced into join-
actually- were in attendance at
their classes.
ing the strike. After the meeting
with the governor earlier in the
But Rutherford, who e.w.
day Lester Roth, a Fresno State
from San Jose to Sacramento
College professor, said teachers
for a press conference:arranged
who had declined to join had
by Assemblyman John Vascon-
been threatened with loss of
cellos (D-San Jose), disclaimed
tenure and promotions.
any knowledge of reports that
Hayakawa, who shrugged off
striking professors would at-
reports of the latest bombing at
tempt to collect their paychecks.
San Francisco State as the
Instead, he said, the AFT
kind of harassment we've al-
would insist on amnesty for all
ways anticipated," appeared
strikers as one of the conditions
tense as he faced newsmen with
of ending the walkout
Rutherford said it was "cate-
Reagan.
But he relaxed later after a
gorically untrue" that he had
failed to meet with classes since
courtesy call on Assembly
Speaker Robert Monagan
Nov. 5, an accusation made by
(R-Tracy) and whipped a yellow
some SJS professors and report-
tam-o' shanter out of his. brief-
ed in the San Jose Mercury last
case for Monagan.
Friday. Reagan, who did not
The new speaker posed for
mention Rutherford by name,
reporters alongside Hayakawa,
cited the Mercury story Tues-
who wore a multi-colored tam,
day at his press conference as
and then declared:
an indication of absenteeism by
think he's doing an out-
some college professors.
standing job in a difficult situa-
Rutherford, an SJS psycholo-
tion and he certainly has my
gy professor, said he had con-
ducted his three undergraduate
support."
classes on a project-oriented
basis," assigning individual pro-
jects to his 120 students
The SJS professor said he met
with students regularly to dis-
cuss their projects, a claim
supported by Terry Thorne, an
attractive blonde 21-y ear-old
State of California
File Educ
Memorandum
S.F. State
To
:
Edwin Meese, III
Date : November 15, 1968
Legal Affairs Secretary
Office of the Governor
From : California Disaster Office
Charles P. Samson, Director
Subject:
San Francisco State College Incidents
The series of incidents on the San Francisco State College
campus occurring during the past week and one-half involved a
number of related activities by students, faculty and non-students,
and a series of unrelated incidents during this same time frame.
This report will attempt to summarize quite briefly some of the
statistical facts and observations made by this agency and other
professional law enforcement personnel.
The report consists of news clippings and the teletype reports
of the Emergency Teletype System that relate to SFSC.
The most recent problems started Wednesday, November 6, in which
a rally was held on the campus wherein certain demands by the
militant students were again reiterated to the school administration.
Small groups of students, black and white, roamed the campus
starting fires, overturning desks and chairs in classrooms, and
generally disrupting the school's normal activities. The San
Francisco Police Department was called on to the campus to
break up the demonstration. Administration officials estimate
that about 200 to 300 students were milling around the campus
on that day. However, the total number directly involved is
suspected to be quite small. The noon rally earlier in the day
had about 1000 on-lookers.
The second day, Thursday, November 7, SF police put the tactical
squad back on the campus, hidden from sight, with one-half
remaining off campus, approximately one block away, hidden in
a public garage. There were many rumors of attempts to storm
the Administration Building and generally disrupt the campus
activities. A bomb was exploded on the campus in the early
morning, doing minor damage and one black student, a citizen
of Nigeria, was arrested when a second explosive device was
Edwin Meese, III
Page 2
found on his person.
SFPD had twenty plainclothes officers on the campus that day.
Numerous fires were started, basically small trash fires,
toilet seat covers and other types of fires in the various
buildings. No major damage resulted from the fires. A few
arrests were made. Due to the presence of undercover police
and the announced intention to keep the school open, by the
administration in spite of rallies being conducted throughout
the day, no major problems developed.
Friday, November 8, a relative day of quiet in which faculty
and students conducted meetings to discuss issues. No major
incidents were reported.
November 9,10, and 11 -- Week-end and Veteran's Day holiday;
no police involvement.
Tuesday, November 12-- The faculty again met in the auditorium
approximately 750 in number, to discuss censuring Chancellor
Dumke and other faculty demands were considered. A Channel 7
news reporter was assaulted by a small group of Blacks, pre-
sumably students; was knocked to the ground, beaten and his
camera was damaged. Upon his statement to police that he could
identify his assailants, the tactical squad again came on the
campus to effect arrests of the assailants. The people involved
were not found at the rally, where they were suspected to be in
attendance. However, the police did make three arrests of others,
for disturbing the peace and creating a scene on campus. In attempt-
ing to remove these arrestees, the squad was stoned by a large
number of students, among whom were a number of agitators from
off-campus. Jerry Rubin, head of the Yippies and others who
egged on the students, many of whom became involved in throwing
rocks and bottles at police officers. Additional police were
put on alert and eventually the situation stabilized, with the
arrested persons and the surrounded tactical squad leaving the
campus. Some additional windows were smashed and a few additional
fires were set.
Wednesday, November 13--Additional faculty meetings and student
rallies were conducted, and at the decision of the President
the campus was declared closed until the situation could be
resolved.
Edwin Meese, III
Page 3
Statistics available resulting from on-the-scene observations,
discussions with Inspector Lashkopf, SFPD, and Chief Berry,
Chief of Security, SFSC.
SFPD on campus: Maximum number of uniformed personnel: 32 men- Nov. 7
Plainclothes officers: Maximum number, 40 - Nov. 7 and 12.
Arrests made: Approximately 20. (no one seems to know exactly)
6 felony , 14 misdemeanor. Charges range from assaulting a
police officer, suspicion of arson, disturbing the peace,
possession of an explosive device.
Warrants outstanding: 5 felonies to be served upon identification
of suspects charged with assaulting a police officer.
Officers injured: 9 SFPD; cuts, bruises, back injuries resulting
from assault by crowd Nov. 12. One injury to SFSC campus
policeman, uniformed; assaulted by 5 black students. No other
reported injuries.
Bomb threats: 6. One explosion; one did not detonate; 4 false
alarms.
Fire settings: "About a dozen" (SFPD) "20-25" (Chief Berry, SFSC)
Nature of fires: Small fires, trash barrels, toilet seat covers,
toilet seats burned with inflammable liquid, upholstery of furniture,
waste baskets, etc. Four rooms in various buildings suffered
sufficient wall charring and/or smoke damage to need complete
repainting. One $7,000. concert grand piano (Steinway) case
charred and damaged beyond repair. Unknown at this time if inner
works damaged. If so, would be considered total loss.
Other damage: Three plate windows and "numerous other small
pane windows" in seven buildings. Some artifacts in the
anthropoligical exhibit damaged. Value unknown. Four type-
writers demolished. Two mimeograph machines damaged. The Chief
of Buildings and Grounds estimates that miscellaneous damage,
including small fires, will approximate $5,000. exclusive of the
possible loss of the grand piano.
Edwin Meese, III
Page 4
Professional police opinion: Discussions with intelligence
agents, SFPD, Department of Justice, and other knowledgeable
observers on scene with personal observation indicates:
Approximately 80 to 100 "hard core" militant are the
cause of the trouble. 35 Faculty, 15 from BSU, 30 SDS--PLP.
These 80 to 100, with certainly no more than 20 off-campus
members of BSU and Black Panthers were successful in their
activities in bringing sympathy and "hangers-oners" on campus
so that the rally attendance of several hundred was not a
true picture of the militant action. SFPD intelligence feels
that a firm policy with sufficient arrests for cause, could
resolve the situation. Unofficially, they expressed disappoint-
ment in that they were not consulted relative to the closing
of the campus on November 13. Closing, in their version, was
strickly an administrative decision of the campus staff. Their
opinion is that the closing will make it more difficult to
reopen next week without major concessions on the part of the
administration.
Personal observations by CDO staff on scene leads us to believe
that certain phases of the demonstrations were well organized
with groups harrassing school officials by going into buildings
at set times, rapidly dispersing in the buildings on the various
floor levels and starting small fires in restrooms, etc.
This necessitated constant surveillance by security and maintainence
personnel. These harassment techniques were used almost con-
tinuously during the week period of the incidents. The speech
makers harrassment teams were about equally divided between
blacks and whites. The more militant speakers were Caucasian.
The "hit-and-run" harrassment teams and classroom disruption
groups were predominately Negro.
Enrollment at the campus is around 18,000 with 600 to 700
being the number mentioned by the Dean of Students, Chief of
Security and SFPD as being black students. There is a large
Oriental enrollment; very few of whom seem to be involved in
this type of activity. The campus police force consists of
14 men. There are times when only 2 of these men are on duty,
due to shift work, vacations, etc.
The general feeling brought back from the campus is that until
sufficient arrests are made with a strong, no-bending policy
Edwin Meese, III
Page 5
adopted by the administration, they will continue to have
problems on the campus.
Edne
file
October 10, 1968
1. Mission of the radical faculty
To secure Academic Senate autonomy by eliminating Regental controll
over appointments and courses in order to exploit the University as an instrument
for revolutionary political change.
2. The Faculty Resolution of 10/3/68 is a confrontation, not a compromise.
Contrary to the Hitch-Heyns and radical faculty postures, the Faculty
Resolution of 10/3/68 (copy attached) is not a compromise. It represents
the most serious Faculty-Regent confrontational issue yet presented, for it
directly challenges Regental autonomy over courses and faculty appointments
under the guise that these have become a part of the Senate's "academic
freedom."
3. The issue of the credit status of Social Analysis 139X is a smokescreen.
The purported student confrontation issue regarding the credit status of
Social Analysis 139X is merely a faculty engineered smokescreen to sustain
student interest and support while the faculty exploits the autonomy issue.
One cannot reasonably assume that the Regents and Hitch will back off on the
non-credit issue because of the universal expression of public outrage engen-
dered by the Cleaver course. However, one could reasonably assume that Hitch
and the Regents will be hesitant to take as firm a stand with regard to similar
courses and appointments in the future lest they appear "harsh" and "authori-
tarian." Indeed, Hitch's speech to the Academic Senate on October 3, 1968,
(see attached) was an invitation to sabotage any participation by the University
administration in the course initiation power, contrary to the Regents'
Resolution which Hitch himself wrote. Such action by the radical left and
reaction by the President and the Regents has become so predictable that
reliance on it has become a fundamental of radical left policy.
The Cleaver course issue will be used to show faculty "good faith," i.e.
the Cleaver lectures are likely to be reasonably well prepared (probably by
Page 2
October 10, 1968
someone else), possibly published and four-letter words will be noticeable
by their absence. All this will be used as a basis for more and more future
courses of a like nature featuring lecturers as outrageous as Cleaver.
4. The Regents should use the Cleaver issue to assume the initiative by expressly
negating any concept of Academic Senate autonomy.
Ever since the Free Speech Movement, the Regents have been locked into
a position of merely reacting to the radical faculty's initiative. The
Cleaver issue presents a unique opportunity for the Regents to seize the
initiative with the complete support of the people and both houses of the
Legislature by asserting their autonomy in a strongly worded Resolution
correcting the false representation5 contained in the Faculty Resolution of
10/3/68 (a suggested resolution is attached).
5. The case for the Academic Senate autonomy made by the Resolution of 10/3/68,
is falsely reasoned from a false premise.
A. False Premise "In accordance with the delegation from the Regents
that 'The Academic Senate shall authorize and supervise all courses
and curricula,' the Senate's Board of Educational Development accredited
a student-initiated course
Social Analysis 139X.
"
(Faculty
Resolution Whereas Clause (1) )
Fact Neither the Senate nor the Board of Educational Development has
been delegated power to accredit such student initiated courses. The
Regents' delegation to the Senate is limited to all courses and
curricula in the departments, colleges, and certain of the schools
and graduate divisions of the University (Standing Order, Ch. IX 2 (b)
p.44). Social Analysis 139X is not given in any such department, school,
college, or division and hence cannot be authorized by the Academic
Senate.
The Regents have expressly reserved, from the course power delegated
Page 3
October 10, 1968
to the Academic Senate, authority to delegate course power to "other
University academic agencies." (Standing Orders, Ch.IX 2(b) p.44).
The only such other agency to which course and curricula power has
been delegated is the "Council for Special Curricula at Berkeley"
(Standing Orders, Ch.X 3(a) p.45). The Council is separate and
distinct from the Board of Educational Development. (Manual, Academic
Senate Berkeley Division, 1968 edit. p.6). Thus, no course or curricula
power has ever been delegated to the Board of Educational Development
by the Regents.
B. False Reasoning
(a) The delegation of course power carries with it the power to appoint
teachers and determine the conditions for degrees (Faculty Resolution
Resolved Clauses (1)(b), (2)(b), and (6)).
Fact The Regents have clearly differentiated the appointing power
which has never been delegated to the Academic Senate from the course
power (Standing Orders Ch. VI, 1(a) p.28) Thus, contrary to the
faculty assertion (Whereas Clause 2(a)), the Regents' action barring
more than one Cleaver appearance is clearly within the Regents'
appointing power. Even if it were not, only a Regent would have
standing to object to a deviation from the Standing Orders. Further,
the Regents' delegation to the Senate of power to determine conditions
for the award of degrees expressly reserves the power to approve such
determinations. (Standing Orders Ch.IX 2(a) p.43). Thus, the no-degree
credit action by the Regents was clearly within existing policy and
did not involve any infringement of powers delegated to the Senate.
(b) The delegated course power has existed for so long and has become
such a tradition of University Governance that its withdrawal would be
a violation of the Senate's academic freedom (Faculty Resolution,
Resolved Clauses (1)(a) and (5)).
Page 4
October 10, 1968
Fact Academic freedom is an individual not an entity concept and,
moreover, relates to classroom teaching, not University Governance.
(University Regulation 5 provides: "Essentially, the freedom of a
university is the freedom of competent persons in the classroon.")
(c) Academic freedom means Academic Senate autonomy (Faculty Resolution
Resolved Clause (4)).
Fact The only autonomous agency responsible for governing the University
under Article IX Sec. 9 of the California Constitution is the Regents.
In law, while power may be delegated, responsibility cannot.
RESOLUTION
Whereas, The people of California, in Article IX Sec. 9 of the California
Constitution, have invested the Regents with full powers to organize
and govern the University of California; and
Whereas, The Constitution authorizes but does not require the Regents to
delegate to the faculty such authority or functions as the Regents
deem wise; and
Whereas, The Regents are empowered by law to withdraw any delegated authority
or functions which the Regents deem to have been exercised unwisely
by the faculty; and
Whereas, The Resolution adopted by the Berkeley Division of the Academic
Senate on October 3, 1968, evidences many misconceptions regarding the
authority and functions delegated by the Regents to the Academic Senate;
and
Whereas, It is necessary that these misconceptions be corrected in order that
the people of California may be reassured that the Regents are exercising
and intend in the future to exercise their power to govern the University
Now Therefore Be It Resolved
(1) That the Academic Senate has no autonomous power to organize or
govern the University because such power resides, by law, exclusively
in the Regents.
(2) That the power to authorize and supervise the courses delegated to
the faculty by the Regents is limited and does not include all courses
and curricula.
(3) That the Board of Educational Development is not and never has
been delegated power to initiate courses such as Social Analysis 139X.
This resolution, although not intended to be retroactive in its
effect, is effective immediately.
(4) That the power to determine conditions for the award of
degrees delegated to the faculty by the Regents is limited in that
Regental' approval is necessary before such power becomes effective.
(5) That the power to make faculty appointments is not now and
never has been delegated to the faculty, but instead remains with
the Regents, the President, and the Chancellors.
This statement should not be interpreted as an attempt to interfere
with the long standing custom wherein the determination of who teaches
courses is considered a joint responsibility of the Academic Senate
and the administration.
The following statement made by President Hitch at the October 3
meeting of the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate covers this point:
"I sense some confusion in discussions of The Regents' first
resolution between the Senate's authority over the approval of
courses, and the determination of who teaches courses, which has
long been recognized as a joint responsibility of the Senate and
the administration. I think it is significant that not a single
Regent challenged the validity of a course with the subject matter
of 139X. Their action was directed at the question of the
appropriate role of persons without a University appointment in the
teaching of courses."
(6) That exercise of the power to scrutinize and approve appointments
is separate and distinct from questions of academic freedom and free
speech. The Regents note with approval in this connection the following
statement from University Regulation 5:
"Essentially the freedom of a University is the freedom of
competent persons in the classroom. In order to protect
this freedom, the University assumes the right to prevent
exploitation of its prestige by unqualified persons or
by those who would use it as a platform for propaganda.
It therefore takes great care in the appointment of its
teachers; it must take corresponding care with respect to
others who wish to speak in its name."
(7) That the Regents intended by their action on September 20, 1968,
and now reiterate that no University facilities shall be used for a
program of instruction following the substance of Social Analysis 139X,
whether for credit or not, in which Mr. Cleaver appears more than once
as a lecturer.
(8) Any faculty member who, by any form of strategem or subterfuge,
accredits work in Social Analysis 139X in violation of Regental
rulings shall be subject to disciplinary action and any units of
credit so received by students enrolled in the course shall not be
counted for degree purposes nor shall students in Social Analysis 139X
be allowed to graduate with less than the normal number of credit
units required for degree purposes.
Educ School Financing
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RONALD REAGAN, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
SACRAMENTO 95814
March 18, 1968
TO THE SUPERINTENDENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE SCHOOL BOARDS
OF ALL CALIFORNIA SCHOOL DISTRICTS
Gentlemen:
You probably have read of the erroneous estimate of the costs on Assembly Bill No. 272 adopted by the Legis-
lature in the closing days of the 1967 Session. With the figures of the first apportionment now in, it is apparent
that this legislative estimate was short by approximately $70 million for the current year. Depending on the
results of the second apportionment, it is likely that the increases called for by A.B. 272 will require approxi-
mately $82 million more in General Fund money than the revenue provided for the fiscal year 1968-69. This
revenue provision for 1968-69 was, in turn, based upon the Legislature's estimate.
We recognize that the school districts have made commitments on the basis of A.B. 272 and that it is too
late to suggest curtailments during this school year. Therefore, this is to advise you that the State administration
is seeking every means to pay for the increases in A.B. 272 for the balance of this school year.
However, it is essential that all concerned realize, as soon as possible, that the State Budget for the 1968-69
fiscal year was made up in January, 1968, on the basis of the earlier legislative estimate of the costs in A.B.
272. Therefore, revenues were not provided for the increases mentioned above. It should also be understood
clearly that the Administration believes the necessarily large tax increases passed last year are all the people
should be asked to pay, and therefore we are firmly opposed to any more increases in State taxes.
We are asking the Legislature to enact a bill that would, in effect, put a ceiling on the State aid for schools
that will not exceed the funds available for that purpose, which are $1,226,000,000. This means in effect a 6.7
percent decrease from the State aid you are receiving this school year. This, in turn, necessarily means that
school districts should recognize this reduction in State aid before incurring any contractual or other firm
commitments for the coming school year.
Neither the Governor nor the Department of Finance was consulted during the final stages of this legislation.
However, Governor Reagan was assured by the sponsors of the bill that its costs would not exceed the amounts
shown in the Budget. We deeply regret the fact that this error was made by the legislative committee, based
on some obviously incorrect advice. We do believe however that in the interests of your own school, you should
know, at the earliest possible date, that the State General Fund does not have the revenue for the fiscal year
1968-69, to pay the additional $82 million over the estimates made at the time A.B. 272 was passed.
If you have any questions at all concerning this matter, we would be glad to try to answer your inquiry.
Sincerely,
Saspar 10 Drinbergers
CASPAR W. WEINBERGER
Director of Finance
CWW :bn
Educ.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 272
(As amended in Assembly, June 9, 1967)
STATEMENT OF ASSEMBLY SPEAKER JESSE M. UNRUH
relative to
"The Property Tax Relief and School Improvement Act of 1967"
June 9, 1967
Assembly Bill 272 represents the major school finance and
property tax reduction proposal of this legislative session, as developed
by the Assembly Subcommittee on School Finance after two months of
exhaustive hearings on seven school finance bills. The amended bill
involves three major elements which I and the members of the
Subcommittee believe are both necessary and desired by the people
of California:
1. A significant reduction in local property
levies through mandatory reduction of school
taxes.
2. A massive increase in state-guaranteed school support
in almost every type of school program, to a
level approaching the actual costs of operating
the public schools.
3. Simplification of the governmental structure by
continuing emphasis on unification of small,
inefficient school districts, but eliminating the
major irritants in the 1964 school consolidation
law, principally by easing the rules for dividing
high school districts which have been interpreted
so harshly by the State Board of Education.
The bill, as amended on the 9th of June, contains many of the
excellent features of the six other bills introduced on this subject, and
in my opinion stands as a monument to the wisdom of the legislative
committee system. Our Subcommittee on School Finance, composed of
hard-working Republicans and Democrats, spent many hours in hearing
each of these bills and developed, I believe, an outstanding school
financing measure. I am proud to be its author.
It is a tribute to the Assembly that AB 272 now contains more
new money for local school districts for improved and new programs
than has ever been made available by any California Legislature.
Similarly, the bill will make major inroads in reducing the dependence
of our schools on the local property tax for financing, and it will do
so by applying the $200 million of tax relief funds to those poorer districts
with the highest tax rates, rather than by making it available across-the-
board, to rich and poor districts alike.
In broad terms, the bill appropriates $375 million in new funds
to our public school system. As amended, the measure sets forth no
revenue source. However, Assemblyman Veneman's major tax package
would reserve the amount made available by his proposed one cent increase
in the sales tax for the financing of this bill.
While $200 million of this money would be used for property
tax reduction, $175 million would go immediately to districts in the form
of increased school aid.
The actual effects on an individual school district - and the
taxpayers in that district - will vary according to financial status of
the district. For example, districts with excessively high tax rates will
- 2 -
receive the most tax relief. Most districts with very inadequate school
programs will receive most of the new aid in the form of new operating
revenue, although there is nothing to prevent the local school board
from using these funds for additional tax reduction. In some of
the school districts where property taxpayers are the most hard-pressed,
AB 272 will force school tax reduction of nearly 40 percent, in addition
to the new disposable state aid to the district.
The bill proposes that a basic school tax rate be established
at $2. 25 for unified districts - which is equivalent to $1. 25 for an
elementary district or $1.00 for a high school district. In many districts,
new state aid would be used to lower the present operating tax rate
down to this level. Under no circumstances would the district tax rate
be reduced below this point.
Secondly, we are proposing a major increase in the state
support guarantee, as follows:
STATE FOUNDATION PROGRAMS
Present
Proposed - AB 272
Elementary
H. S.
Elementary
H. S.
Level
Level
Level
Level
$249
$339
$435
$550
The foundation program for junior colleges would be increased
from $600 to $630 per student in 1967 - 68. All of the new state funds for
junior colleges would be allocated to improved program, in keeping with
the pledge contained within the Master Plan for Higher Education that the
state finance 45 percent of junior college costs by 1970.
- 3 -
In addition to these massive foundation program increases
(which for the first time place state support guarantees very close to
the actual average current cost of education per pupil), AB 272 in its
amended form contains the following increases in state aid:
1. An increase in spécial education reimbursements for
physically handicapped and mentally retarded children of approximately
$7. 5 million, with increases in per pupil allocations in every major category
of aid. AB 272 would also place these apportionments on a current year
basis, thus eliminating the so-called "excess cost reimbursement" programs.
Appropos of special education, the bill proposes an entirely new
form of state aid for special education day classes, with apportionments to
be based upon the classroom unit, rather than on a per pupil basis. This
concept, which is revolutionary and exciting in school finance, was sug-
gested to us by the California School Boards Association in that group's bill.
2. An increase in the state aid for primary class size reduction
of $5 per child in grades 1, 2 and 3.
3. A doubling of the unification aid, from $15 to $30 per pupil,
with the purpose of covering whatever increased costs are attendant upon
more efficient school district organization.
4. A $10 per student increase in state aid for adult education,
long the neglected step-child of state education finance, together with
inclusion of the permissive adult education tax presently in the law under
the new statutory maximum tax rates.
- 4 -
5. Increases in special state aid for programs for educationally
handicapped children.
6. A new program for financing kindergarten, estimated by the
Department of Education to cost from $10 to $15 million statewide. This
is made necessary by the fact that AB 272 now would mandate every
district to provide kindergarten education to every child whose parents
desire him to enroll, as proposed in the bill sponsored by the State
Department of Education. But, it should be noted that we not only mandate
kindergarten in this bill - we also obligate ourselves to finance it at
the state level.
Along with tax reduction and higher support guarantees, the bill
proposes a modification of the school unification law in two respects.
Insofar as the unification changes are concerned, my bill implements the
recommendations of former Assemblyman Alquist's Subcommittee on
School Efficiency and Economy report, made last January.
First of all, as I mentioned before, there is a recognition that
placing elementary teachers on a unified salary schedule is more costly
than is presently allowed for. Therefore, the incentive toward greater
organizational efficiency is doubled from $15 to $30 per student. All these
new state funds will be used for new program purposes.
Secondly, I propose a substantial relaxation in the rules surrounding
the division of very large high school districts. If it is determined that
such a division can support two or more unified districts with at least
10,000 students by 1970, and if several other conditions are met, then
the State Board of Education would be encouraged to allow the splitting of
a high school district.
- 5 -
The other conditions require that any split be nondiscriminatory
on several counts, including a fair division of assets, relatively equal tax
bases for future operations, and a finding that de facto segregation would
not be encouraged as a result of the split.
There are other reforms included in the bill, such as the
elimination of most operating tax rates not under the control of the voters
in school districts. The revenues from these so-called "permissive over-
ride taxes" would be included in the new maximum tax rate, and the district
would be required to maintain the special programs financed by these
special taxes for at least five years. After that, the local school board
would succeed to complete authority on the issue of maintenance of the
programs, and after that date these boards would set district tax rates. Thus,
"local control" will finally merge with local responsibility.
We are maintaining only those permissive tax rates that are
absolutely necessary for the fiscal solvency of the school district and for
maintaining necessary personnel benefits. After AB 272, local school
property taxes could be increased only by a vote of the local people.
The net effect of this bill is to establish a framework for relatively
equal taxation throughout California, for more equal educational opportunity
in every school district, and for ultimate resolution of archaic types of
school organization.
The problems we have had with school finance, property taxes and
district organization should be resolved at this session of the Legislature
so that we may get on to the job of dealing with other problems which will
certainly be with us during the 1970's.
- 6
There have been several other school finance measures before
the Legislature at this session, and some of these bills offer varying
degrees of property tax relief. The problem of attaining the proper
balance in such a bill between new school aid and property tax relief
is indeed a difficult one. I have no doubt that many school officials
would just as soon leave the property tax reduction aspects of the problem
out of major school financing legislation.
This, however, is simply not possible in view of the obvious
demand from the taxpayers of this state that property taxes be reduced.
As a responsible body, I believe it is the job of the Legislature to take
positive action in this regard. Well over 50 percent of the property
taxes collected in California now go to the support of local school
districts. Through the state aid formulas, we have a ready mechanism
available for providing both property tax reduction by substituting
state for local money, and providing actual new state aid for program
improvement.
I believe that in its present form, AB 272 provides a vehicle
for each legislator when this session ends and he goes home to face the
constituents in his district, insofar as the action he has taken on two
of the major issues on which most of us made campaign pledges: property
tax reduction and increased state aid for the schools.
The bill squarely faces each of these pressing issues, and I
believe it provides an equitable solution to them. It deserves the strong
bipartisan support of us all.
##########
Memorandum
To
:
Ed Meese
Date
:
May 20, 1970
cc: Alex Sherriffs
Mike Deaver
Herb Ellingwood
Paul Beck
Dick Turner
Ed Gillenwaters
Subject:
From :
John T. Kehoe Alin
The last ten years have seen a fantastic growth in the public
education system of our state. With this growth has come a high
degree of turbulence, both from within and without of the aca-
demic environment. At the present time we see the turbulence
reaching proportions equivalent to a disaster--a disaster in the
sense that the state colleges and university campuses are being
transformed into political bases for both political and social
action. There is no organized opposition to this from within
the academic community itself.
The growth of the public system in California has been dictated
by the Master Plan for Higher Education. Its tenets were designed
to achieve quality for the maximum number of students. Its emphasis
has been on acceleration for growth and maintenance of minimum
standards. The result has been the development of some great insti-
tutions which have an impersonality about them where the arrogance
of faculty and a penchant for faculty governance as a buffer to
a political governance by Trustees and Regents have led to iso-
lation of these institutions from their proper role to the state's
need.
The student's second-class status within this multi-versity envir-
onment has left an easy opportunity for anarchial exploitation
by a few bent on their own selfish motivations.
Academia always shelters itself in the cloak of academic freedom.
From the Middle Ages to this date, the educational institutions
of a democratic society have been the heartbeat of the society's
growth. The concept of academic freedom has allowed knowledge to
be transmitted from generation to generation. It has permitted
the wisdom of scholars to be shared with the hungry maturing mind
of the student to permit the student to expand this knowledge and
thus benefit the society in the student's post-university years.
Mr. Ed Meese
-2-
May 20, 1970
The growth of public universities seriously jeopardized the tra-
ditional view of academic freedom. The intrusion of mass public
money into such institutions brought with it an equally mass
need for accountability. This led to the politicizing of boards
of governance or the direct involvement of legislative bodies in
management. Reacting to this, faculties seized the opportunity
to buffer themselves from politics, and, through tenure, consulta-
tive rights on administrative appointments, control of research
and sabbatical funds, etc. have polarized the academic and
political participants in public institutions. The extreme
result of this is the current arrogance of permitting indoctrin-
ation of students and encouraging the transformation of these
institutions into bastions of political and social reform.
The Master Plan Survey Team of 1959 did not foresee this problem
nor did it address itself to the issue. A national group did
do this in 1959. This was a Committee on Government and Higher
Education which met in 1959. It was headed by Dr. Milton S.
Eisenhower. Its findings I would be happy to elaborate on on
another occasion, since they have a great bearing on our need,
but a point made in the study needs to be seriously reflected
upon now: "When free education degenerates into indoctrination,
it is no longer education at all. A school established as a
center of indoctrination becomes a partisan political institution,
subject to the capricious whims of those in power. Teaching and
learning are smothered and creative thought cannot flourish.
This is true whether the power is from within or from without.
The Master Plan for California has had much attention from the
Legislature. Jesse Unruh established a three-year $400,000
operation of review and re-review known as the Joint Legislative
Committee on Higher Education. This group came forward with a
recommendation of a super board. I am confident Unruh will give
us further news on this by Fall.
The efforts of this committee under the Republican leadership
has been minimal to date. They are currently considering a plan
to call for a new citizen-educator review of the Master Plan.
Mr. Ed Meese
-3-
May 20, 1970
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. In view of the foregoing, plus the fact that the public is
deeply distressed over the current new trend in campus use, I
would urge the Governor to sit down with Assemblyman Robert
Monagan and President pro Tempore Jack Schrade, as well as
Assemblyman William Campbell, to discuss a joint legislative-
executive effort to convene a 1970 Master Plan Re-Survey Team
charged with assessing the effectiveness of the Plan in the past
ten years and making recommendations for the next ten.
2. The Governor should urge the selection of a distinguished
national educational figure to head this study. I think he would
do much to gain recognition for the plan if he consulted with the
American Council on Education, the American Association of
University Professors, National Association of Land Grant Colleges
and Universities and the American Association of State Colleges
and Universities. He could ask each to recommend three names
and then he could choose the most acceptable of the three.
3. The committee should consist of a breakdown as follows:
3 Regents
3 Trustees
3 Community College Board of Governors
3 private university and college Trustees
3 distinguished faculty members
4 students (one from each segment)
6 members of the public
3 Senators
3 Assemblymen
4. The Coordinating Council should have no role in this because
after all, their performance is being evaluated.
State of California
Memorandum
To
:
Files
fite
Date :
October 14, 1969
CC: Governor Reagan
Ed Meese
Paul Beck
Herb Ellingwood
Subject:
Meeting with
John Kehoe
faculty members
Rus Walton
From :
Alex C. Sherriffs
On October 9, from three to six p.m., twenty-one faculty members
from junior colleges, state colleges, and University campuses,
and one former administrator from the University met with Alex C.
Sherriffs and John T. Kehoe. The Governor joined them from four
to six p.m.
The meeting began with the statement by one visitor to the effect
that public institutions cannot long survive without the confi-
dence of the public. In the long run, it was suggested, there
will have to be an objective public airing of the problems of
higher education to encourage the public, which will only under-
stand real progress towards the solutions of those problems.
From this beginning, the group moved on rapidly, discussing such
matters as campus police and community police relations and
jurisdiction; the necessity for administration to keep out of the
judicial process and to stop protecting students from civil and
criminal law; the basic crisis of personnel, especially the fact
that the institutions do not have people in leadership who can
solve the problem; the basic fact that the faculty will make or
break the future of higher education; the related fact that an
instructor will not stand up to be counted if he is not pro-
tected by the administration.
One faculty member stated, and the others nodded, "We are cowed.
We can't even express our own opinion in the classroom."
A number believed that tenure was the key to our problems, that
for a number of years the faculty has been recruiting its own
kind and that what we suffer now is academic freedom without
the balance of responsibility or objectivity. One ex-administra-
tor present suggested that it would be necessary to have a
central campus committee to function as watchdog on hiring and
on grading. It was revealed at San Francisco State a study of
grading showed it often to be dishonest and unscrupulous. We
were told of one department that allowed all of the students to
grade themselves--"in the name of democracy".
The selection of top administrators on the basis of their popu-
larity with the faculty itself produces administrators who are
merely spokesmen for faculty. One member of the group said,
"Every time I think of campus problems, I think of a large and
complex ship without a captain, responding only to the
Files
-2-
October 14, 1969
machinations of the crew. 11 It was stated by one that most
private institutions select their administrators from the
private sector, primarily from business. The Ph.D. syndrome
for administration was described as a public education
phenomena.
As we listened to these academics, we wondered more and more
how many more there were like them on their campuses. To gain
an impression, the Governor asked each to estimate for his
campus. The results were as follows:
San Francisco State College: Two/thirds of the faculty okay.
"We're not outnumbered if we make a real effort. "
California State College, Dominguez Hills: Responsible faculty
are in a distinct minority by a ratio of two to one.
San Diego State College: Majority are all right, but the
Senate has been captured.
Sacramento State College: The majority would support responsi-
bility if it had leadership.
California State Polytechnic College, San Luis Obispo: A very
large majority of responsible faculty.
San Fernando Valley State College: A highly organized political
leftist faculty leadership, but a majority of the faculty would
not be radical in a secret ballot.
Long Beach State College: Physical sciences, eighty percent
responsible; social sciences, sixty percent not.
Sacramento City College: "The majority would feel at home in
this group. The majority would be willing to lose tenure
unless the radicals take charge. If the radicals are in charge,
tenure is the only protection for the responsible.
San Diego City College: Only five or six radical faculty mem-
bers on the campus.
U.C. Berkeley: Radicals are definitely in the majority, but
there are more good guys left than one might think.
U.C. Davis: Radicals definitely a minority.
U.C. San Diego: The faculty power groups are radical-liberal,
but a majority under leadership would be responsible.
U.C. Los Angeles: Eighty percent would be all right, but become
confused on issues and, unless they get a chance to think about
it, may vote against their best interests.
Files
-3-
October 14, 1969
In their rather lengthy presentations of the above--for faculty
members by nature and habit deliver lectures--these points came
out a number of times:
1) It is not practical to hope to organize moderates. The
faculty personality does not prepare him for fighting. He
will retreat.
2) Therefore, good administrators are a must.
3) With each passing month, through inbreeding and through
involvement of normal students in radical affairs, the
situation gets ever more bleak.
4) Tenure is a two-edged sword it does protect the good guys
from the bad.
5) On most campuses, there are verbal and militant leftists, a
few moderates with voice, and "mush" in the middle.
I believe that each and every faculty member present was glad he
came. The meeting for him was a shot in the arm, support from
knowing others like himself on other campuses, and an implicit
promise, made explicit by the Governor, that he would continue
to work for their freedom.
In addition, I am sure these people will write and phone with
ideas and concerns, and out of this group should grow other
groups to visit here.
ACS :sd
State of California
Memorandum
To
:
Files
Date :
October 16, 1969
CC: Governor Reagan
Ed Meese
Paul Beck
Herb Ellingwood
Subject:
Meeting with
John Kehoe
students
Rus Walton
From :
Alex C. Sherriffs
On October 10, from 9:30 to 11:30 a.m., twenty-two students
from junior colleges, state colleges, and University campuses
met with Alex C. Sherriffs and John T. Kehoe. The Governor
joined them from 9:30 to 11:00.
The feel of the student group was quite different from the
feel of the faculty group. For one thing, they were very
young! Also, the format of the meeting was quite different
from that of the faculty group. In the latter, the Governor
listened quietly for almost forty minutes before entering
actively into the conversation. Also, again, the faculty
was clearly wishing reassurance from the Governor that he
would not desert them, whereas with the students--three or
four of whom were aggressively liberal--there was a greater
question about who was up; though sixteen or seventeen of the
students needed no convincing. The situation was such that
the Governor was pulled into defending himself against stereo-
types. I think next time we should lean more on the format
that we followed for the faculty and let the good students
themselves defend us if need be.
Some of the students were under wraps because of the presence
of Dave Ernst, Bob McWhirk, and one other ringer that some-
how got in our group. Nonetheless, the students brought up a
number of problems they faced, and actions they were taking
in response to these situations which were quite revealing.
On several of the campuses, quite independently, individuals
have joined together to start student papers to rival their
captured house organs. On one campus, a rumor control
center has been established.
To sum up the dynamics, they were revealing
without students
having knowledge of facts, one cannot count on responsible and
viable action from a student body. The crying need on the
campus, with only one part of the faculty speaking out and
with radical control of student government and student press,
is for the ability to hear from all sides of the questions, or
better, the truth about matters concerning them. If nothing
else came through, this did.
Files
-2-
October 16, 1969
There was corroboration, too, of some of the faculty comments.
Barbara Leach, from California State College, Dominguez Hills,
echoed the assessment of faculty imbalance and pointed out that
her sole organization for responsible students was denied a
charter "because there is no need for more- organizations". At
Sacramento State, we hear from. a student, as we did from the
faculty, "all we have is the employees choosing their employers"
From another campus we hear, "there are no classes taught on
what the capitalist system even is." From another, "There ought
to be ethnic studies of quality, not simply Mickey Mouse courses
for blacks and browns.'
An article in the Davis underground (responsible) newspaper
indicates how much the students appreciated the Governor's shar-
ing his thoughts with them (see attached). And one of the
students who has been in to see me since the meeting said he
expected RR just to say a few words and leave. He could hardly
believe it when the Governor sat down and stayed. They were
impressed.
ACS:sd
Attachment
RONNIE RAPS
COMMUNICATION BEGINS
Answering the us-
Alex Sherriffs spoke
Friday morning saw
so that academic
ual charges of cut-
on his concern re-
what could be the
freedom was not the
ting the budget too
garding the turr
start of a change in
question. "A com-
drastically, Reagan
that higher educa-
the relationships
munist, marxist, or
countered that the U
tion had taken. If
between students and
whatever can teach
of C budget has gone
problems are not dis
the administration
in the University "
up 54% in the last
cussed rationally
in Sacramento. An
His objections were,
three years which
ther can be little
hour and a half was
however, that she
kept up the pace of
hope of ever reach-
spent questioning
has consigned her-
the previous admin-
ing solution, seemed
and openly discuss-
self to be a member
istration, and that
to be the theme
ing key issues with
of a subversive or-
all other depart-
which most students
the Governor of Cal-
ganization. lie fur-
ments of governments
expressed. The stu-
ifornia, Ronald Rea-
ther enunciated the
had only been in-
dents varied greatly
gan.
Twenty-five
the U cannot have
creased 18% in the
in opinion political.
students from var-
academic freedom for
same time. For the
ious state colleges
ly and the only real
some and not for
forthcoming budget
and the University
common ground which
others. Just one
Reagan has allowed
could be found seem-
system were in at-
week prior to Angela
tendance, which be-
the University to
ed to be the need to
Davis, the UCLA ad-
sides the Governor,
set their own prior-
"save and improve
ministration refused
included the Secre-
iteis and, already,
higher education."
to hire a qualified
tary of Education,
the students have
The meeting ended at
Jesuit under the rul.
half and hour after
Alex Sherriffs, and
been placed last. It
ing that members of
seems from various
it was scheduled to
various other aides
such groups do not
and officials. Six
reports that the
and another is al-
have free will. Rea-
university will dis-
ready being arranged.
students from Davis
gan could not justi-
were there: Bob Mc-
pense with students
fy this inconsisten-
Whirk, Dave Ernst
before anything else.
cy.
Hugh Scaramella, Bob
The discussion,
Upon further ques-
Figari, Pat Hopkins,
tioning, Reagan re-
which included EOP,
and Rex Hime.
Vietnam Moratorium,
vealed that a great
What could have
deal of the Univer-
cost of University
been a very dry and
attendance, and tui-
sity problems rested
formal meeting was
tion, continued for
in the attitudes of
immediately turned
well over an hour
the professors. In
into an active and
and the Governor was
a recent poll it was
constructive
ex-
stated that an over-
still answering
change of ideas when
whelming amount of
questions as he was
the Governor asked
professors felt that
dragged to a meeting
for questions and
the most important
with administrators
Bob McWhirk brought
thing in the univer-
of the University.
up the Angela Davis
sity community was
Then the discussion;
affair. Reagan re-
the preservation of
turned to various
sponded that this
their own academic
campus problems with
should not have been
freedom
all the students be-
not
the
a Regental problem
students.
ing allowed to speak.
and that it had been
"dumped into our
laps". He firmly
Published by
believed that as a
member of the Com-
munist Party, Miss
Davis could not in
CONCERN:UCD
actuality have free
will in her own mind
RR Controntation w/Professers 5-21-69
file
Governor Reagan, I'm Owen Shingle and I teach Physics at
Berkeley. I want to express gratefulness that you are willing
to meet with us this afternoon.
We realize that this is very short notice. Weve come to protest
the presence of National Guard and outside police forces at Berkeley.
We feel that they are leading to a real catastrophe.
we feel that
you should move this delcaration of an extreme emergency in Berkeley
and let us get back to proper campus life again. The University
is not the kind of place that can be operated under a National Guard
kind of law. This present situation is simply unworkable. It's
obvious to all of us that it isn't working and it's clear on the
scene in Berkeley that we could be leading to worse and worse tragedy
as time goes on. We have to take a new direction and really it should
come from you as chief officer of the state and the one who has declared
this extreme emergency.
G. Well, Dr. Chamberlain,
just what assurance
we did not put the
police or the National Guard on the campus at first and then find that
trouble followed. Are you telling me that the radical group, the
revolutionaries, the rioters who started this who threatened $5 million
damage to the campus, who have already, I'm sure, been some of the same
who participated in the previous riots that have now resulted in more
than a half a million dollars in damage to the campus to say nothing
if injuries and violation of rights of others, who merely want to
teach and get an education
are you telling me that they have said
now that if we remove the police and the National Guard, they would
give up these storm trooper - Hitler-like tactics and now go ahead with
their education as they should?
Governor Reagan, you have to realize, that when you are talking
about the Revolutionaries, you are talking about a very small group.
When we talk about a very angry student body reacting to this occupation
of Berkeley, we're talking about thousands and thousands of students.
Yesterday, I was gassed in our classroom, simply because there was
a helecopter going over the campus spraying gas generally
My students are in danger of being shot
there's nothing that's been
done that calls for this kind of military interference. We know that
in normal circumstances when there is not a police guard that the
students have a great measure of self control
that they control
the normal social
each other in/axmarmal way
that it's this feeling that they have
that they have been ridden over roughshod by the establishment that
makes them react in this angry fashion, and we must take a new and
different direction. This includes getting down the fence around
people's park. The matter of the troops from outside and the external
police is very very important, and we cannot have peace on this basis.
G. Dr. Chamberlain, We seem to be getting down tb the argument
that usually takes place between nations as to who started the war.
And I think this effort every time there is violence
and it
usually stems from the same group or groups on our campuses, and
finally, in conformity with the law, law enforcement officers have
to be called to protect the person of other individuals and the property.
the property of the University as well as other individuals. Then,
suddently it comes down that there was never any trouble until the
police arrived. Now, let's review the bidding of this
are you
suggesting to me that the Universty of California is obligated
to use a million 3 hundred thousand dollars of land it bought for a
specific purpose and now wants to make use of
that it is obligated
to turn this over to the Berkeley street gang
that has been using
it in spite of the fact that I have a petition on my desk, the University
has a copy of this petition they received from the property owners
around there, residents around there, complaining and begging the
with
University to do something about this and go ahead with the development
because of the mis-use of the property. Because it was covered with
human feces, and garbage and their lawns the same and they were afraid
to go out on their own streets in their neighborhood any more because of
the kind of people that have been attracted there
Now the University
(interruption
sounds like you are talking about the Ghetto now No,
I'm talking about the so-called peoples' park. I'm talking about
the so-called peoples" park. And when the University, on the legal
advice of their own advisors, proceded on schedule to utilize this
so-called
property, students, as well as the/Berkeley street gang woke
that was involved in the riots last summer, defied the University and
said if they sought to use this property, they would do five million
dollars waxkhxef damage to the University buildings.
Then the newly elected student body president led, after the rally,
with
incited a riot,/which he is now charged, led this mob down the street
Scores of policemen were injured before any shots were fired
or
there was any retaliatory action
we have some of the weapons here
in the Capitol
the lengths of construction steel that were cut
that were thrown from roofs and from fire-escapes
one of them imbedded
in the steel door of a car
if it had hit a human being, I'm quite
sure it would have been murder. THXX These were deadly weapons that had
been stockpiled for use. Now I grant you
I myself can X look at the
tactical decision that was made yesterday, wonder about it, wonder what
concern prompted the use of this
of the spraying. I can also suggest
that there was an alternative. Whether that was a tactical mistake
or not, once the dogs of war are unleased, you must expect that things
will happen and that people, bing human, will make mistakes on both sides
-4-
Interruption
GOVERNOR
)
G. This violence was precipitated, and I would like to say one more
thing
Professor
If we are going to start simply from when an
incedent takes place after the violence has started, and say well,
this has now become ***** the issue
I would like to propose that
the issue is that on the campuses YOU who are adults, you who are
entrusted with those young people in their guidance, have a responsibilit
to make it plain to them from the very beginning that you yourselves
do not tolerate the kind of conduct that has led to the burming of
Wheeler Hall, that has led to the two murders on the campus of UCLA,
(Interruption
We are making it clear
fine political speech
We have made it clear over and over again, and I think you know, if
you stop talking for politics, that the overwhelming majority of
the faculty and students are against violence, have done more to
curb violence than you, I think XX0C XXX violence escalates
precisely because every time there is a Regent's meeting, the
Chancellors of all nine campuses have to scurry around and see
if they can put an end to negotiations so that the Governor doesn't
come to the Regents meeting and get them fired as he already has done
before. You have created an atmosphere
G. LISTEN! YOU ARE A LIAR! Now don't you talk about political
speeches. Don't you make a political speech of that kind and charge
me with going and trying to fire chancellors. I have fought to keep
politics out of that Board of Regents and out of the running of the
University, and will continue to.
Voice
I'm pleading with you
I wonn't be angry
I'm pleading with
you to look to see
G. Who are you? Who are you, anyway?
V. Will you let me finish my
G I would like to hear who you are. This gentlemen
V. I'm
Wofsy
are you happy now?
G. You bet I'm happy, and you bet you won't say anything that will
surprise me.
Wofsy
And I'd love to see you discuss this thing before the
people of California.
Il
G I am discussing it openly.
V They know, and will know that you can't run a University by bayonette
You cannot do it that way If you would allow yourself to listen, you
would have a lot of people who would be showing some compassion
some interest in non-violence, some interest in litter, if you would
speak out against the use of fire-arms and buckshot and say
if you will, that people responsible for that should be removed,
if you would say that and set an example of
G Mr. Wofsy
W. Cutting down the escalation, you can bet
G Mr. Wofsy, When did any of you appear before the students?? When did
any of you stand up at Sproul Hall on Tursday and beg them not to go
down there?
W. Over and over again we/ve called for non violence and you can read
t he daily Cal, which people don't read
and they know that that is a
fact
that the academic senate has taken a position on that strongly
over and over again. But what happens is that when we come before a
Regents meeting, nobody has listened to anything we say, and there
is more of an attempt to make the educators look like kooks, more of
an effort to make them look futile and weak and to ruin any respect
which students might have for them so that students finally eventually
stop listending to us at all
because they know it isn't going to matter
G. Mr. Wofsy, Were there police on the campus at Santa Barbara
when they blew up that janitor with a bomb?
W. Listen, you know there's not a person in this room that
condones bombing and we argue against it and work against it
and if we knew who did it and if we could stop it, we would.
G. Mr. Wofsy
W. But you knew, I hope, who ordered the buckshot. What are you
doing about that.
G. Mr. Wofsy,
W. I would go everything I could to stop bombing if I can.
G Mr. Wofsy ,
W. Will you stop the buckshot?
G. Mr. Wofsy, what is going on in the campsuses not only here in
California 0X but in this country, can only be stopped on the campus
by the faculty and by the administrators
Q. So why are the police there?
G. All right, I'll tell you why they're there. Because there is
a little matter ofxwe law. What would you have the police do?
when a mob surges down the street and says to the University,
it cannot have access to it's own property
that
it
cant
make
use
of
it
what would you have the police do? When
recent one just
before this disturbance at Berkeley, the newspapers carried the
pictures of students being beaten by their fellow students for trying
simply to go to class through a picket line, and manning that picket
line were also members of the faculty. When the University saw it
necessary to call the police
Would you have bhe police say "Well,
because we might have to come into an altercation with those who are
causing this violence, and infringing on the rights of others,
we will withdraw and turn the community over to those people????
/Can you guarantee me that this street mob in Berkeley that is now
conspiring with a certain group of students to carry out this disturbano
that they will suddenly go home and the University will have access to
-7-
that land if the police disappear. The police in California were
called in by the administrators of the University. When trouble
started. When the trouble started
(voice
Before trouble started)
When the trouble became so great that the local police couldn' t
handle it, in conformity with the law, they called upon the Governor
for state aid
Voice
what time are you speaking about
would you tell us the time?
Is this on Thursday, before 3
G.
I am talking
I could be talking about any disturbance throughout
the past year
the pattern fits all of them
Garble
innocent bystander was shot and killed by one of the police
that were sent in there. We are here because over 100 peoble have
been shot down 100 people that I'm sure the record will show have
bann gassed
lethal gas that has been classified, as far as I know,
as being used
G.
Lethal gas
lethat gas
Tear Gas.
today
Voice. We're here because people are bing shot and killed/in B rkeley
and ********** we want to know hhat we can do now to come to some
rational solution to this problem. What we re saying is yes
if you get those people out of there, yes, we think that a peacefule
solution is going to evolve out of this situation.
"
G
Then why did you let the situation happen???Thos epeople told
you for days in advance that if the University sought to go ahead with
that construction, on that property , that they were going to
physically destroy the University.
V. They offered to negotiate many times.
G Negotiate? What is to negotiate? What is
On that issue
don't you simply explain to these students that the University had a
piece of property that it bought for future construction of the campus
and that it is now going ahead with the plan.
What do you mean
negotiate??
V. Governor Reagan, The time has passed when the University can
ride roughshod over the desires of the majority of its student body.
The University if for its own community, and the community of those
who live around it.
yes, that's right
G. But the University was asking for $3 hundred million in a bond
issue, to build necessary things, and things they need for the
expansion of the University. And when that was refused by the
public, and when they still had some money to go ahead and with
whatever we can make available out of the general fund, and they
proceed, and all of you have been screaming that they don't have enough
money, and yet when they set out to do this, you tell me that th y're
going to be responsible for providing public parks? There happens to
be a public park being build four blocks away, from the so-called
peoples park
by the City of Berkeley.
V. Not yet, sir.
G. It is my understanding that they are underway
V. There has been no demolition for it yet.
G. Well for heaven sakes!
V. Do you realize that this land has lain there with the remains of
old buildings, not leveled for 9nmonths. The as soon a S people
start fixing it up so that it can be used by the community around
there and is a very excellent location, then, the University suddenly
decides that it's legal title might be clouded, by allowing other
people to use it for a while, and suddenly it has to erect a
fence under police guard.
G. Professor, Vice Chancellor C
? told us the other day
that having owned this property for some time
that on the list of
priorities determined by the University, not the Government,
That finally it was not one of the top priority items, that
finally it was put on the schedule for construction at this time
and the people who were using the park, and had not been interfered
with up until that time, the people were told that the University
was going to proceed. Now with **e regard to public property and
the providing of parks, I told the Regents the other day and told
the administration of the University that the University wanted to
some
cooperate in a thing we have had going for a %mgxtime
a thing called
project "sandlot". In which the state makes available 00 on a $1.00
a year lease to local communities, state owned properties, rights of
way for freeways, that will not be built on for some time,
They would be very happy to have them get in on this. But all the
people using that property, know the approximate date of construction
and know that when we get ready to go ahead with the building, that then
we will go ahead 1 that then they will have to find some others,
and probably by then some other rights of way will be bought. And the
University is free to do this
But, I believe you are talking about an issue that was deliberately
a phony issue that was deliverabely brought up bu a group of self proclaime
rebels who wanted a confrontation with the University, who made it very
plain that they had no intention of cooperating in any way,
and they did this
QDoes this justify the fact that yesterday I couldn's teach my students
when they went to the computer center which is a perfectly peaceful
thing to do, when they went to take their work over there to have it proces
were gassed and were unable to go, and then when they tried to get off
the campus, the National Guard had a wall to wall line of troops there.
When I tried to get off the campus yesterday, I had to show my faculty
card to too lines of National Guardsmen and two sets of Berkeley policeme:
And these people were handed our campus yeaterday, our staff was
the girls in the office, the whole works, and the helicopters came
in and gassed us. Governor, there's a matter of proportion and
I don't want to get sort of and angry as my collegue over here has,
it isn t. helping me
G. Constitutionally angry
V. I don't think it's helping any of us, but I really believe that the
pnly way out of this is a moderation of the continual escalation on
the part of the field commanders, of the police repression.
G Wait a minute
V. Governor, there are not now, if there were any, radicals
these are my students in architecture and engineering, these are not
political people
what can they don now but
You gassed them,
you shot at them, and I'm sorry, I shouldn't say it that way,
G. No, you shouldn'
V But, they' re being radicalized in the language of the movement, and
exactly what the radicals want to happen is happening now. And I think
we must find a way immediately, before this goes to the point where
people just go nuts on both sides. We must stop the violence. We
must get the National Guard off of the campus.
G. Wait a minute
You said sound fairly reasonable and I want
to talk to you about this.
0
I happen to be one who belives that
the bulk of your students have got some legitimate grievances about
the University.
V. They do.
G. And about many of you.
V. They do.
G. And about the lack of contact that they have with professors.
G. About the lack of communication
the Universities have grown
too big. This is the SO called great SIXI silent majority.
That the great difficulty of getting in communication with them
is because of shares this redical element that has been in and all
I'm trying to say to you is that the record does not support what
you say.
You go your way and your teaching and that's fine. And I take some
comfort out of the fact that when there is a disturbance of this kind
that the bulk of the students are in class and are being taught and
are going about their business. It 's very reassuring.
Voices: They're being gassed.
G. Oh
Voices, they are
G. Oh
Voice. Your California Highway Patrol are not wearing badges when
they are beating students. I am a faculty member, I've tried to
protect some of them
G.
Wait a minute
May I talk to this gentleman for just a moment.
Let me go on with this. Every time when this happens, in every one
of these disturbances, there's been a long period of threat beforehand.
There has been definitely a little group and some of the same names
pop up and they even pop up on more than one campus connected with this.
But where are the majority of you in this perion?
and once it starts,
remember in every instance, because I will say this in behalf of your
University administration, as a matter of fact, I say it against them
not meaning to be in their behalf
Your University administration in
my estimation has been too slow in recognizing the danger and calling
for help. Law enforcement is never called until the violence has
taken place. Now, (interruption re: threat of violence) The
threat of violence
the threats have been very explicit as to
what was going to happen.
It is true that the police were notified and were on hand early in
the morning to make sure that there would be no confrontation.
The confrontation came when they were attacked.
Voice? But Governor, please, some of my collegues realized what was
happening, just as you said, quite property, some of us should have.
And we started the week before through Professor Vanderwine, who is
chairman of the Chancellors Committee on housing, which is roughly
some interest in this, because as you know it was originally to be
a housing sighk site. We started hearings and I feel confident that
one way or another, that issue could have been resolved in a matter
of a week or two. in a peaceful manner. But the fence was erected
before thosed hearings had a change to get started. Those hearings
between the Chancelloss committee on housing and the park group.
I feel sure, even at this point, after one person has died and a number
pof persons have been greviously injured, and the whole campus has
been upset beyond belief, I feel that even now,
as I understand it from what Mayor Johnson this noon, there is a meeting
right now with members of that xxx same committee with this time
actually representatives of the Chancellors office formal administration
and representatives of the group at the park, who are largely
students and I'm either proud or afraid to say anumber of them in
my college.. the landscape architects in particular were active in
working in that park. It is not just street people Many college
students were very active in that Ifee even at this moment if
we could get the National Guard off our backs, we could negotiate
this thing out peacefully in a few days time.
Governor: Gentlemen, I'm sorry, I have a message here and I'ver got to
leave you. I just want to say
-13-
First of all, I was asked by local officials who said that the
situation was out of hand, that they could not control it
to provide the adequate force in the National Guard.
You are asking me in the face of the kind of violence we have seen
precipitated not by the police but by those who were rioting and
to
disturbing. You were asking me who on the good faith that these
people who had had this continuing record of violence, this continued
disreppect for other peoples rights, this willingness to burn and
to smash windows and do all these other things,
you are asking me
to withdraw the protection from the community and from the decent
people in advance of this and I say to you that I think it would
be far more seemly if you could present to me the pledge of those
who have been leading the disturbance that they are ready to lay
down their violent techniques and tacticts and acts and then we could
withdraw the necessary protection force
But I have a responsibility
under the constitution of the law and let me before I go say one more
thang and then I'm sorry that I have to terminate this but I
don't think we are going to get anyplace with it. Because, obviously
I don't believe you are prepared to realize or admit, perhaps you do
realize it, that the answer to this situation has lain on the campus
from the very beginning. There would never have been the necessity for
law enforcement officers, and I'm not just talking about this
particular incident. & But in this whole history of escalating violence
and revolution and rebellion, if those who are entrusted with academic
positions, administrators, and academic senate and faculty alike,
had been prepared from the very first to insist that those in their
midst who were unwilling to teach and to learn within the framework
of rules established by the university would be terminated, would
blax be separated from those institutions. And to date, many of you
-14-
have taken an opposite viewpoint. You have in fact instigated and
encouraged and tried to proclaim that the University must be a
revolutionary body involving itself in problems not necessarily
those of education. And I will say to you, that individuals have
a right to teach and individuals have a right to learn
And the Univeristy has a right to lay down a framework of rules
and regulations within which this education will be provided.
And you, yourselves are in a position to bring an end to this
Law enforcement cannot. Law enforcement can only be called
once the violence has been started, to restore order and to
protect the rights of all. When violence starts, yes there are going
things
to be regrettable incidents. People are human and pemple are going
to get out of hand on both sides. When you unleash those dogs
but, you are the ones who can solve the academic problems on your
campuses right now and I хиних challenge you to do it. Do not
bring the problem here to the state capitol, at the same time that
you are screaming and indicting us for interfering with education,
because I'll tell you now, I'll fight for as long as I am alive
to preserve education from political interference contrary to what
Mr. Wofsy and some of his associates think.
Voice: Governor, Let me remind you though, that your protecting the
University right to erect a fence around its property with 2000 national
guard and one man's life lost
keep your sense of proportion. Don't
let it happen that your administration in California is known for getting
us into a situation that none of us would like, an incurable situation
using incurable methods
don't let it be that your reputation comes
out like those who got us into the VIETnam way.
G. Professor, there's more than that
there's two young people lying
in hospitals maimed and blinded for life, there are now four dead, not
-15-
There are millions of dollars of damage done to the buildings,
and all of it began, all of it began the first time when some of
you who know better and are old enough to know better, let
young people think that they had the right to choose the laws
they would obey, as long as they were doing it in the name of
social protest.
Applause.
Edm
Whereas: Public higher education is a privilege made available to
students by the taxpayers and is not a right of birth or
citizenship; and
Whereas: Institutions of higher learning have the high purposes
of imparting knowledge, fostering inquiry, and preparing
the student for his future within a civilized society; and
Whereas: Faculty members and students are engaged in processes
requiring a dispassionate search for truth and an
unbiased presentation of Man's knowledge about himself
and his environment, and these processes require the
highest standards of conduct and dedication; and
Whereas: Most faculty members and students recognize that the
laws of the land apply to the campus as well as to the
remainder of the community; and
Whereas: It is not the purpose of these institutions to serve as
staging grounds or practice fields for insurrection,
rebellion and anarchy; and
Whereas: Disruptions on and around campuses throughout the nation
have increased in number, in violence, and in general
disregard for the basic civilized values of our society;
and
Whereas: There is growing evidence of coordination in the planning,
the nature, the timing, and the leadership in campus
disruptions;
Now Therefore Be It Resolved by the members of the
National Governors' Conference that said members, acting under
their duly authorized powers and, where necessary, in concert
with their legislatures, take whatever steps may be necessary
within their separate states to maintain law and order and a
generally appropriate climate for teaching and learning on the
campuses of the tax supported institutions of higher learning;
and
That, since vascillation and lack of discipline by campus admin-
istrators has almost always resulted in increasing chaos, admin-
istrators be encouraged to prosecute and appropriately punish
those who instigate violence and unlawful acts on campus, whether
they are students, members of the faculty or outsiders; and
Be It Further Resolved: That the Governors urge the President of
the United States to authorize a full and complete investigation
into the instigators, the causes and the effects of such violence
which is no longer a series of isolated phenomena but instead is
nationwide; seeking, among things, to determine if there is a
nationwide conspiracy behind the current outbreaks; whether federal
funds should be withheld from institutions, faculty members and
students who permit or perform unlawful acts; and whether there
are specific steps that could be recommended to the states and the
institutions that would lessen the incidence of violence without
at the same time curbing the right of dissent, hampering the abil-
ity of the institution to function in its proper area, or instituting
new federal controls over the legitimate authority of the states.
Page
10
Section
A
S.F. Sunday Examiner & Chronicle, November 23, 1969
43.5 Percent Increase
College Spending Up Under Reagan
By Lance Gilmore
funds for higher education
increased by 30 percent -
The 63 percent increase in
UC has been the most out-
Education Writer
here are up 40 percent from
from 79,000 to 101,000.
community college funds
spoken critic of the Reagan
The figures do not bear out
two years ago.
In the last year of Gover-
compares with a 35 percent
budgets among the higher
the oft-repeated charge that
For all three years of Gov-
ernor Reagan's administra-
nor Brown's administration,
increase in enrollment in the
education segments.
Governor Reagan has short-
California was spending
three-year period. The col-
changed California higher
tion, state support for higher
$3028 per UC student and
leges this fall have an aver-
Current Worries
education.
education, including operat-
age daily attendance of 460,-
UC officials insist that the
ing funds and construction
$1265 per state college stu-
State support for higher ed-
funds, is up 54 percent.
dent. This fall the figures are
000 students.
tiny operating budget in-
ucation in the Reagan years
$3114 and $1500, respectively.
Governor Reagan insists he
crease of 1967-68 and reduced
since 1966-67 has increased
The State of New York this
has given higher education
construction monies caused
by 43.5 percent while enroll-
school year is providing $625
State Colleges
top priority, and the statis-
them to lose ground they
ment has climbed 35 percent.
million in operating funds for
tics do show that other state
The 19-campus state col-
never regained in the face of
This school year California
higher education while Cali-
agencies have not received
lege system received $167.7
more students and rising
taxpayers are providing
fornia is providing operating
increases of a similar magni-
million in operating funds in
costs.
$853.7 million toward the edu-
funds of $749 million.
ude during his term of of-
1966-67 and enrolled 130,000
The academic community
cation of some 742,000 stu-
The nine-campus Universi-
fice.
students (fulltime equiva-
lent).
Although Reagan's higher
has been consistently critical
dents in the University of
ty of California this school
year will spend slightly more
education budgets are con-
of Reagan's budgets because
California, the state colleges
and the community colleges.
than $1 billion (see adjoining
This year the colleges are
sistently up as a whole, UC
the Governor has never giv-
statistical table), of which
receiving $288 million in
was severely limited in 1967-
en UC or the State Colleges
Ahead of N.Y.
the state is paying $329 mil-
state funds, a whopping 70
68 when its annual operating
as much money as they
In the last year of Gover-
lion in operating funds and
percent increase in three
budget increase was held to
sought.
nor Brown's administration,
$33.4 million in construction
years, while enrollment is
$3 million and construction
This is a perennial com-
1966-67, the state was spend-
funds.
181,000, up 40 percent in the
funds actually were cut back
plaint under every Gover-
ing $594 million for 550,000
The Reagan Administra-
same period.
from the previous year.
nor's administration. Univer-
students.
tion and the Legislature have
The community colleges,
The Reagan Administra-
sity and college administra-
"California continues to
allocated UC a 37 percent
allocated state funds on an
tion consistently has given
tors nearly always ask for
pace the nation in its spend-
hike in operating funds over
average daily attendance ba-
UC less money for construc-
more money than they get.
ing on higher education," the
the past three years. UC en-
sis, received $71 million from
tion than the Brown Adminis-
However, the community is
Wall Street Journal observed
rollment (fulltime equiva-
the state in 1966-67 and $116
tration provided, but has giv-
especially worried this year
last month, noting that state
lent) in the same period has
million this fall.
en the state colleges more.
because of the Governor's
UC'S BILLION-DOLLAR OPERATION
The University of California became a billion-dollar operation this fall. The
table shows UC's fiscal progression from an institution serving 43,700 students at
a cost of $353 million a decade ago to one serving 101,500 students this fall at a
cost of $1.02 billion.
State
Private
Student Fees,
Enrollment
Funds,
Federal
Gifts,
Activities,
Construction
Totals
(Fulltime
Year
Operation
Grants
Grants
etc.
(State)
(Millions)
equiv.)
1959-60
$ 98.6
$190.5
$9.1
$ 34.4
$20.6
$ 353.3
43,748
1960-61
120.7
225.0
10.7
35.7
50.7
442.9
48,354
1961-62
134.2
279.3
13.6
33.2
48.0
508.3
52,961
1962-63
147.3
295.9
14.2
58.4
55.9
571.8
57,183
1963-64
158.0
316.0
15.8
73.9
70.9
634.7
63,288
1964-65
179.5
315.5
17.9
82.2
63.7
658.8
65,858
1965-66
204.3
341.0
18.0
100.4
59.1
722.8
73,667
1966-67
240.1
372.8
22.1
114.3
66.7
815.9
79,293
1967-68
243.8
393.4
21.9
164.3
57.9
881.3
89,072
1968-69
291.0
399.7
24.1
186.6
44.5
946.0
96,451
1969-70
329.3
416.7
26.8
210.9
36.4
1,020.1
101,481
new budgeting system for
This gives UC and the state
a needless panic about the
1970-71.
colleges, as well as other
new system.
The new system calls for
state agencies, an initial
Higher education officials
all state agencies to lop 20
are not so sure. They are
budget for 1970-71 that is low-
percent off their initial budg-
waiting to see how much of
et requests and draw up a
er than their current budg-
the initial 20 percent cut is
priority list of items to be
ets.
restored when the dust has
restored if the state winds up
Theoretically, any or all
settled in Sacramento.
with enough money to fund
state agencies could wind up
UC officials have said they
budget requests at more than
next year with less money
will reduce admission of new
80 percent.
than they have this year, but
graduate students if the cuts
Reagan claims the new
the Governor claims this is
are not restored.
system is simply a procedure
not going to happen.
The California Master Plan
intended to insure that if
While the increases may
for Higher Education calls
there is not enough money to
not be all the agencies are
for UC to take on an ever-
meet all budget requests, the
seeking, they will wind up
greater proportion of gradu-
items deleted will be those
with more money next year,
ate students each year -1,3% the
given least priority by the
the Governor indicated,
most expensive category of
agencies themseleves.
charging that there has been
students to educate.
TABLE 1
GENERAL FUND CURRENT COST FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
(IN MILLIONS)
PERCENT
STATE
PERCENT
JR.
PERCENT
PERCENT
FISCAL YEAR
UNIVERSITY
INCREASE
COLLEGES
INCREASE
COLLEGES
INCREASE
TOTAL
INCREASE
1963-64
$158
$101
$
46
$305
1964-65
179
13.3%
116
14.8%
59
28.3%
354
16.1%
1965-66
204
14.0
137
18.1
71
20.3
412
16.4
1966-67
240
17.6
168
22.6
75
5.6
483
17.2
1967-68
244
1.7
192
14.3
92
22.7
528
9.3
1968-69
291
18.8
238
23.9
106
15.2
635
20.3
1969-70
330
13.3
288
21.0
121
14.1
739
16.4
Source: Statement of A. Alan Post, Legislative Analyst to the Joint Committee on
Higher Education, in Los Angeles, October 31, 1969.