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
118564860
label
Issue Papers - Regents [University of California]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564860
contentType
document
title
Issue Papers - Regents [University of California]
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
118564860
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
289df14efa6073c2
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 - Regents
[University of California]
Box: P31
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/
Feb. 14, 1968
1. It is understandable that members of the Board of Regents
work to get the most for their institution.
2. I understand this, both as a Regent myself with responsibility
to the University, and as Governor of the State of California, with
responsibility to the society whose university we are discussing.
3. In our budget for the State of California, we have given the
most that can responsibly be given to our institutions of higher
education. They have had our highest priority.
4. The situation is such that to give the University more would
require reducing the budgets of other departments, agencies or
programs.
5. The average level of budget increase for next year over this
year is approximately 7%. The level of increase for the budget of
the University exceeds 11%. Which departments, agencies or programs
would the University have us cut? Highway patrol? Welfare? MediCal?
We are already asking for a $10 million cut in the increase of welfare
programs, and a $66 million cut in MediCal.
Last year the State was able to support the University with
$264.2 million, which included salary increases. Last year $21 million
of Regents' funds were also included for use. For in our new budget
we grant $294.1 million to the University, of which $14.1 million is
for salary increase and $280 million for work load. In addition,
$45 million has been granted for capital outlay. The University has
2.
been informed also that funds derived from a raise in student fees
may be kept by the University for its own use.
6. Within its budget, the University has great flexibility
for determining particular use of funds.
7. Besides cutting budgets of other departments, agencies and
programs, which, in my responsibility to the people of the State
I cannot do, what alternatives are there?
a. Increase taxes? The State of California has reached its
maximal possibilities for tax revenues. The people are
already hurting seriously. If the University pushes to
suggest taxation, who would it raise and how?
b. Withholding tax?
C. Tuition? The most obvious source of revenue for the
University would come from the adoption of a tuition
fee, particularly one in which up to 50% would be
utilized for faculty enrichment. Were this to be adopted,
we would be well on our way to resolving the University's
financial problems.
d. Limitation of enrollment? This is the least acceptable
solution of all, if indeed a solution it is. It penalizes
the people and it is not necessary.
3
E. There are the matters of economy and efficiency.
For example: what is the teaching load? what is
the situation regarding course offerings? is there
unnecessary duplication on the various campuses?
State of California
Memorandum
To
:
LYN NOFZIGER
file
Date
:
March 1, 1968
PAUL BECK
ED GRAY
NANCY REYNOLDS
Subject: Regents Appointments
From
:
PAUL R. HAERLE
In connection with the two Regents appointments being announced
today, the two possible areas of criticism and the answers to
each are the following:
A. W. Glenn Campbell is Director of the Hoover Institution
for War and Peace on the Stanford University campus. The
following is the relationship between the Institution and
the University:
1. The Hoover Institution is an independent unit
within the University framework. It is physically
located on the campus. Legally, the Institution
is an integral part of the University.
2. The financial linkage between Stanford University
and the Hoover Institution is general in nature and
is essentially based on the use of the Hoover Institu-
tion facilities (library). For the current fiscal year,
20% of the budget of the Hoover Institution is derived
from Stanford University for library support, and as
payment to the Institution for the use of their library
by Stanford University students. The rest of the budget
for the Hoover Institution comes from private sources
and/or endowments.
3. On some occasions the scholars of the Institution
teach classes at Stanford University, but they are not
automatically professorial positions.
B. Einar Mohn is not being replaced by another labor union
representative. It has and will be asserted that it is
traditional for there to be a representative of labor on the
Board of Regents. An examination of the records indicates
that this "tradition" is not so long lived as might be believed.
In fact, the "tradition" really applies to only one person,
C. J. Haggerty, originally Secretary-Treasurer of the California
Building and Construction Trades Council, who was originally
appointed by Governor Warren in 1950. Haggerty did not succeed
a labor representative but, rather, a member of the Giannini
banking family in San Francisco. As far as our research can
disclose, Haggerty was the first organized labor appointee
on the Board of Regents.
continued
Memorandum
March 1, 1968
Page 2
His term was due to expire in March of 1966. At that
time a perplexing switch occurred. Ed Carter, who was
originally appointed in 1952 with a term to expire in
1968, was put into Haggerty's spot SO that his term would
expire in 1982. Haggerty was shifted over to fill the
two-year unexpired term of Carter, and then after the
election (specifically, on December 5, 1966) Haggerty
resigned and Einar Mohn was appointed to fill his unexpired
term. Thus, if Brown had wanted to he could have assured
that the "labor representative" could have had an additional
16 years on the Board when Haggerty's term expired in 1966.
Instead, he tood pains to see to it that he was given a
shorter term--possibly to embarrass a potential Republican
successor, possibly to assure Ed Carter a second term.
Further with reference to Paragraph A on the preceeding page:
It is worthy of note that others of the Regents have
strong private university connections. Elinor Heller
is a Trustee of Mills College and Ed Carter is a Trustee
of Occidental College, as is Buffie Chandler herself.
PRH: C
Haulbeck
Regents
State of California
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
SACRAMENTO 95814
ED REINECKE
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
March 25, 1970
Statement to California Journal, March 25, 1970
by Lieutenant Governor Ed Reinecke, in response
to question,
"Did you vote against the Resolution at the Board
of Regents to give Mayor John Lindsay an honorary
degree when he appears as the Charter Day speaker. "
"While this is strictly a matter that was covered
in the executive session of the Board of Regents,
and should not be discussed publicly, it has come
to my attention that certain statements inappro-
priately have been made concerning my vote on this
resolution. I feel it is proper for me to state
that I indicated to the Board prior to the vote,
that I would vote for the honorary degree for Mayor
John Lindsay, which in fact I did."
Janes University Extension Center
BX
AD
Los Angeles, California
June 19, 1970
To: THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY CF CALIFORNIA:
The Committee of the Whole of The Regents submits the following
report and recommends that it be accepted and adopted by the Board:
The committee of the whole has reviewed carefully the record re-
lating to the reappointment or non-reappointment of Acting Assistant Professor
Angela Davis and submits this report and recommendation to the Board of
Regents for its consideration and action.
The question presented is whether Angela Davis is to be reemployed
by the University. The present consideration does not involve any question
of whether she is to be disciplined or discharged. Her present term of
employment, according to the record, expires on June 30, 1970.
The committee has not considered, or considered to be relevant to
its findings or conclusions, the membership of Angela Davis in the Communist
Party or the circumstances in which previous actions were taken by the Board
relating to her membership in the Communist Party.
For the reasons discussed below, this committee recommends that
Miss Davis not be reappointed.
This committee of the whole takes note of the criticisms and
apprehensions which have been expressed concerning the action of the Board
of Regents in reserving to itself decision making authority in this matter.
The Regents for many years have entrusted to the administration, acting
with the advice of the faculty, authority to make non-tenured faculty
appointments, except special categories such as Regents Professors and
over-age appointments. This authority has been delegated and
the Board of Regents has no present intention of altering this
delegation. At the same time, members of the Board of Regents have not
only the constitutional right but also the constitutional duty to act in
those rare instances where it appears that great harm to the University
would result from a failure of the Board to act.
THE REPORT OF THE FACULTY AD HCC COMMITTEE
The most penetrating inquiry which has been made regarding the
propriety of the classroom and extramural activities of Miss Davis is that
contained in the report of the ad hoc faculty committee submitted to the
Chancellor, we understand, shortly prior to the April 1970, Regents'
meeting. That committee inquired into the following general allegations
against Miss Davis:
"1. That she has utilized her position in the classroom
for the purpose of indoctrinating students;
2
"2. That her extra University commitments and activities
interfere with her duties as a member of the faculty; and
"3. That her public statements demonstrate her commitment to
a concept of academic freedom which substantiates the first two charges
and would ultimately be destructive of that essential freedom itself."
As to the first allegation regarding classroom indoctrination, the
committee's finding was that:
"On the basis of all the evidence available to it, the
committee unanimously concludes that Miss Davis has not 'utilized her
position in the classroom for the purpose of indoctrinating students, "
This committee accepts the finding of the ad hoc committee that
during the period from the time Miss Davis commenced teaching in the Fall
of 1969 to the date of the ad hoc committee's report--approximately 7
months--the charge that she utilized her position in the classroom for the
purpose of indoctrinating students was not substantiated.
With regard to the second allegation that Miss Davis' "extra Uni-
versity commitments and activities interfere with her duties as a member
of the faculty," the ad hoc committee concluded:
"On the basis of the factual record, however, we unanimously
conclude that the allegation that her outside commitments and activities
have interfered with her teaching responsibilities lacks credible
evidentiary support."
This committee also accepts the finding of the ad hoc committee
that the charge that Miss Davis' extra University commitments and activities
interfered with her duties as a teacher during the period it reviewed was
not substantiated.
It is to be noted, however, that the ad hoc committee limited its
inquiry to only the question of whether her outside activities interfered
with her teaching duties. As stated by the Committee:
"In the context of this report we are concerned primarily
with the effects, if any, of Miss Davis' outside activities on her
teaching. Whether those activities may have adversely affected her
scholarly work in general, and her progress on her doctoral disserta-
tion in particular, is a question beyond both our competence to evaluate
and the legitimate scope of our inquiry."
The third allegation considered by the ad hoc committee was:
"That her public statements demonstrate her commitment to a
concept of academic freedom which substantiates the first two charges
and would ultimately be destructive of that essential freedom itself."
3
In considering this general allegation, the ad hoc committee reviewed the
transcripts of four speeches given by Miss Davis: At Pauley Pavilion,
UCLA on October 8, 1969; at a People's World banquet in Santa Monica on
October 12, 1969; at the Lower Plaza of the Berkeley campus on October 24,
1969; and at Campbell Hall on the Santa Barbara campus on February 5, 1970.
The ad hoc committee considered the statements in those speeches
in the light of policies of the American Association of University Pro-
fessors. These include the AAUP Statement on Professional Ethics which
provides in relevant part that:
"As a colleague, the professor has obligations that derive
from common membership in the community of scholars. He respects and
defends the free inquiry of his associates. In the exchange of
criticism and ideas he shows due respect for the opinions of
others
And that:
"As a citizen engaged in a profession that depends upon freedom
for its health and integrity, the professor has a particular obligation
to promote conditions of free inquiry and to further public understanding
of academic freedom."
The ad hoc committee also considered the AAUP Statement of
Principles on Academic Freedom, 1940, which provides that the College or
University teacher,
"As a man of learning and an educational officer,
should
remember that the public may judge his profession and his insti-
tution by his utterances. Hence he should at all times be accurate,
should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the
opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that he
is not an institutional spokesman."
The ad hoc committee report also refers to the AAUP Advisory
Letter No. 11 on Extramural Utterances which states that:
"A violation (of the requirement to exercise 'appropriate restraint')
may consist of serious intemperateness of expression, intentional
falsehood, incitement of misconduct, or conceivably some other
impropriety of circumstances."
And:
"A careful distinction should be drawn at all times between those
common instances of relatively insignificant disregard of the admonitions
cited above and those rare instances which do in fact raise 'grave
doubts' about a faculty member's fitness to teach."
Commenting upon Miss Davis' speeches the ad hoc committee observed
that:
4
"Each of the speeches ranges over a number of topics, but certain
common patterns emerge."
Specifically with respect to the academic freedom implications of her
public statements, the ad hoc committee states that:
"Miss Divis appears to consider academic freedom, as conventionally
defined, as 'an empty concept which professors use to gurrantee their
right to work undisturbed by the real world, undisturbed by the real
problems of this society.
And:
"It means the ivory tower intellectuals
whose only interest
consists in deciphering Third Century manuscripts
And these
people who see academic freedom as being the freedom from the pressures
of society
do not realize that they are also unconscious
perhaps
accomplices in the exploitation and oppression of man. "
And further that:
"Miss Davis appears to believe that academic freedom carries
obligations that are qualitatively different from those identified by
the AAUP and by the Academic Senate of this University. Specifically,
academic freedom is meaningless unless it is used to espouse political and
social freedoms, 'to unveil the predominant, oppressive ideas and acts of
this country' and 'to begin to develop not only criticism but positive
solutions and
to carry out these paths in the universities! Cther-
wise, academic freedon is a- 'real farce.
The ad hoc committee's report then sets forth a number of excerpts
from Miss Davis' speeches. They include the following:
1. "Bill Allen (Assistant Professor William Allen, who had
been notified of non-reappointment by the Santa Barbara campus)
was fired because he's anti-imperialist, because he's anti-racist,
because he refuses to go along with what most of those senile people
in anthropology do when they talk about going over and studying
people's cultures. He tried to point out that the real problem in
this world and Latin America and throughout the third world
lies in the imperialist aggression of the United States and the other
capitalist countries of the vest. (Santa B rbara speech, 5 February
1970)
2. "I think that education itself is inherently political.
It's goal ought to be political; it ought to create human beings who
possess a genuine concern for their fellow human beings, and who will
use the knowledge they acquire in order to conquer nature, but to
conquer nature for the purpose of freeing man
from enslaving
necessities." (Pauley Pavilion speech)
5
3. "The regents
have allowed the police force and the
military to prevent those people whom they (were) supposed to be
representing from making use of the property which belongs to them.
They killed, they brutalized, they murdered human beings who had
more than a right, I think, to establish a park for the people, on the
land which rightfully belongs to the people (Pauley Pavilion Speech)"
4. "We ought to ask for and consider the reason for this
decision (of the Los Angeles Superior Court holding unconstitutional the
Regents' policy of excluding members of the Communist Party from the
University's faculty). The decision came about only because of mass
pressure, only because of the fact that all over the State there were
demonstrations, there were indications that we would take over. And I
think the judge who made the decision realized this when he said he
wanted to
effect the decision within a few hours because other-
wise he knew it was going to be decided in the streets. I think he
was right, and what we have to do at this point is to use that
decision
in order to escalate the struggle in the society."
5. "Are we going to write resolutions and condemn them (State
and Federal authorities) for their brutality (against Negroes,
Mexican-Americans students), or are we going to openly declare war
on them?
"And that's what we have to start talking about (a general strike),
demonstrative actions which show pig forces what we can do--even though
we don't do it then--but what we can do.
****
"This is the way we have to begin to conceive of our actions,
we have to talk about offensive action
And it's really nothing
more than the demonstration of what can be done once we really get
ourselves together, once we really organize ourselves, once we really
are able to raise the level of consciousness in all the people so we
can move in a united fashion to overthrow this whole system, to over-
throw
the government.
"And you should realize that a strike is potential force; that's
exactly what it is. We should call
things by their name. When
people start saying that we are out to subvert, that we are subversive,
we should say, "Hell, yes, we are subversive. Hell, yes, and we're
going to continue to be
subversive until we have subverted this
whole damn system of oppression.' (Santa Barbara Speech)
The ad hoc committee observed that:
"On the limited evidence available, it seems clear that she
does not hesitate to attack the motives, methods, and conclusions of
6
those with whom she disagrees. Thus, the anthropologistsat Santa
Barbara who voted not to renew the appointment of a junior colleague
are themselves dismissed as 'senile,' and a professor who, after years
of study, published a length article outlining an hypothesis that
certain kinds of learning abilities vary in measurable degrees between
races and are due primarily to genetic rather than social factors, is
denounced as a racist and an 'exploiter' of academic freedom."
that:
If
we think she has been less than fair in her characterization
cf the views of fellow scholars whom she has denounced,
"
that:
"Her public speeches,
have been characterized by notable
lack of restraint and the use of, to say the least, extravagant and
inflammatory rhetoric."
that:
"
she has frequently sacrificed accuracy and fairness for the
sake of rhetorical effect. We deem particularly offensive such
utterances as her statement that the Regents 'killed
brutalized
(and) murdered' the 'people's park' demonstrators (Pauley Pavilion
speech) and her repeated characterization of the police as 'pigs.'
(Santa Barbara speech)"
and that such utterances are, "distasteful and reprehensible."
The ad hoc committee was charged with recommending whether formal
charges or other disciplinary action should be taken against Miss Davis.
It recommended against such action. However, it should be emphasized that
the ad hoc committee nowhere recommends that she be reemployed. On the
contrary, it made the following recommendation:
"We also find
that Miss Davis' choice of language in
some of her public statements is inconsistent with accepted standards
of appropriate restraint in the exercise of academic freedom, even
though the statements themselves are not likely to lead to the de-
struction of those standards. Accordingly, we recommend that they be
taken into account, together with all other relevant factors, by the
appropriate faculty and administrative authorities when consideration
is given to the renewal of Miss Davis' present contract of employment."
This committee of the whole agrees with the observations and the
foregoing finding and recommendation of the ad hoc committee.
THE DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY RECCMMENDATION
The Department of Philosophy, by a vote of 14 ayes, 3 abstentions,
has recommended that Miss Davis be reappointed for the academic year 1970-71
at the rank and step of her present employment, Acting Assistant Professor,
7
Step II. The Departmental recommendation was based principally upon reports
of her teaching effectiveness submitted by students and faculty observers.
In general, these reports were commendatory of her teaching. Some were
highly laudatory and called for her retention. One student's evaluation,
however, concluded that her teaching was biased in favor of Marxism and
was
indoctrination, not open critical teaching."
The Departmental recommendation is nearly devoid of information
concerning Miss Davis' research activities. In that regard it states
simply:
"Miss Davis has made less progress toward the completion of her Ph.D.
than either she or the Department expected at the time she was appointed
(April, 1969); however, given the distracting circumstances that developed
during the latter part of the Summer and most of the Fall quarters, she
has done a remarkable amount of reading on and given considerable
thought to her dissertation subject--a Kantian theory of force. Indeed
on the basis of the written report she has submitted, all but one
member of our Department present at the March 19th meeting voted in
favor of a Departmental recommendation that Miss Davis be granted
again this summer, through the Faculty Development Program, a summer
stipend."
The report and recommendation of the Philosophy Department was made
prior to the ad hoc committee report and it does not mention extramural
statements or activities of Miss Davis.
REVIEW BY THE DEANS - DIVISION OF HUMANITIES AND
COLLEGE OF LETTERS AND SCIENCE
The Departmental recommendation was reviewed by the Dean of the
Division of Humanities (the Division within the College of Letters and
Science which includes the Department of Philosophy), and by the Dean of
the College of Letters and Science. The letter of April 22, 1970, from the
Dean of the Division of Humanities to the Dean of the College of Letters
and Science points out the reductions in faculty positions which have been
imposed as a result of recent financial stringency. It concludes that,
"If the additional F.T.E. were to become available, the needs for which
they were intended would, in my judgment, claim priority over the proposed
appointment of Miss Angela Davis." That letter also notes that a full
appraisal of Miss Davis' academic qualifications could not then be made by
the Dean since, "There exists a report prepared by a special committee
appointed by the Chancellor on Miss Davis' professional conduct" which he
did not have, and "Moreover, the Department of Philosophy has not provided
this office with a detailed account and evaluation of Miss Davis' progress
on her dissertation since last year. The Dean of the Division of Humanities
concluded that, "Cbviously, all this evidence must be examined before a
recommendation regarding her appointment can be properly made;
"
The Dean of the College of Letters and Science submitted a letter
dated April 22, 1970, to The Vice Chancellor calling attention to the
11
present critical staffing situation in the College" and declining to
8
recommend the proposed reappointment of Miss Davis. The Dean's letter
concludes:
"There being no vacant provision in the College to which the
appointment in question can be assigned, the only resource would be to
ask you to provide special funding for it. But if I were to request
such a provision, I would be elevating this appointment to the
Number 1 priority of the College and giving it sudden precedence over
52 already needed positions in nearly every Department of the College.
In my opinion, to do so would be unfair and not in the best interests
of the College of Letters and Science. I therefore do not recommend
the appointment. If any additional funds are made available to the
College, they should be applied to a reduction of the list of staffing
needs already established."
Thereafter The Vice Chancellor requested the Deans to report on
Miss Davis' academic qualifications without regard to budgetary consider-
ations. In response, the Dean of the College of Letters and Science sub-
mitted a letter dated May 4, 1970, to The Vice Chancellor, the full text
of which reads:
"In response to your question regarding the academic
qualifications of Miss Angela Davis for reappointment to the
position of Acting Assistant Professor, I must reply that in my
opinion her qualifications are unquestionable. She was well
qualified, academically, for the position to which she was appointed
last year, and I know of no evidence that she is not at least as
well qualified now."
It thus appears from the record that this appraisal was made without
regard to either Miss Davis' progress on her dissertation or her extra-
mural statements and activities. It should also be noted that this letter
contains no reccmmendation that Miss Davis be reappointed.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE
On May 5, 1970, the Chairman of the Committee on Budget and Inter-
departmental Affairs of the Los Angeles Division of the Academic Senate,
submitted to The Vice Chancellor the following recommendation:
"The Budget Committee recommends the reappointment of
Miss Angela Davis as Acting Assistant Professor II for a one-year
term, 7-1-70 to 6-30-71. In making this recommendation we have
placed emphasis on her record of teaching excellence and strong
academic training, accomplishment, and promise. It is customary
in many departments at UCLA to reappoint qualified acting
assistant professors for the second year while they are still in the
process of completing their Ph.D. dissertations."
The Budget Committee further concluded that:
"We cannot accept as valid the argument that Miss Davis
should not be reappointed for budgetary reasons."
9
because of its view that the:
"
priorities expressed by campus faculty development program
take precedence."
Thus it appears from its report that the Budget Committee gave
little, if any, consideration to Miss Davis' dissertation progress and
none to her extramural statements and activities. Nor does it appear that
consideration was given to other criteria normally applied to University
appointments, such as professional accomplishment, research, and University
and public service.
THE CHANCELLOR'S PROPOSED ACTION
As you know, at the May 15, 1970, meeting of the Board, the
Chancellor made a statement in which he said:
"I have concluded, therefore, that there are no permissible grounds
for refusal of the departmental recommendation, and that on the basis
of the applicable criteria Miss Davis should be reappointed for a
second one-year, self-terminating appointment under the Faculty
Development Program.'
In his statement, the Chancellor observed that:
"The Department based its recommendations (for reappointment) on a
formal appraisal of her performance during this current year, drawing
on evaluations by faculty members and students of her performance in
the courses she has taught."
This indicates that the Department considered only classroom performance
and did not consider Miss Davis' extramural statements and activities, and,
possibly, did not consider her progress on the dissertation in making its
recommendation.
We also note that while the Chancellor's statement says, "This
report (of the ad hoc committee) was made available to both the Deans and
the Budget Committee prior to their review of the Department proposal for
reappointment," there is no mention of the contents of the ad hoc committees
report in either the letter from the Dean of the College of Letters and
Science to The Vice Chancellor of May 4, 1970, commenting upon Angela Davis'
academic qualifications, or in the letter from the Chairman of the Budget
Committee to The Vice Chancellor of May 5, 1970, recommending Miss Davis'
reappointment. Thus, we have some difficulty with the Chancellor's con-
clusion that:
"The favorable evaluations of the Deans and Budget Committee
testify to their conviction that these allegations (of unprofessional
conduct discussed in the ad hoc committee report) do not constitute
sufficient grounds for denial of reappointment."
10
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
It is the conclusion of this Committee that the finding and recom-
mendation of the ad hoc committee that Miss Davis' extramural activities
be taken into account in connection with consideration of her reemployment,
were not given sufficient consideration in the reviews and recommendations
which have been made for the reappointment of Miss Davis. It is our view
that the above quoted statements and others contained in the four public
speeches reviewed by the ad hoc committee and this committee are so
extreme, so antithetical to the protection of academic freedom and so
obviously deliberately false in several respects as to be inconsistent
with qualification for appointment to the faculty of the University of
California.
It is also a matter of concern to this committee that, as indicated
above, the record indicates such little attention to Miss Davis' progress
or lack of progress on her dissertation. We note that in her Pauley
Pavilion speech of October 8, 1969, Miss Davis announced that, "I myself
was supposed to have my Ph.D. dissertation finished by the end of this
quarter, but obviously that's not going to be the case," because, as she
went on to explain, she would be devoting her time and energies to political
purposes. The Departmental recommendation of March 23, 1970, acknowledges
that, "Miss Davis has made less progress toward the completion of her
Ph.D. than either she or the Department expected at the time she was
appointed (April, 1969) The Dean of the Division of Humanities, in his
letter of April 22, 1970, observed that, "Moreover, the Department of
Philosophy has not provided this office with a detailed account and
evaluation of Miss Davis's progress on her dissertation since last year."
And, "Cbviously, all this evidence must be examined before a recommendation
regarding her appointment can be properly made,
" The record contains
no indication that such evidence of her progress on the dissertation was
considered in the review process.
This committee is also concerned with the proposal for giving this
appointment an unwarranted priority in the face of other established and
more pressing faculty staffing needs within the Division of Humanities
and throughout the College of Letters and Science. This committee concurs
with views of the Dean of the College of Letters and Science that approval
of this proposal If
would be elevating this appointment to the Number 1
priority of the College and giving it sudden precedence over 52 already
needed positions in nearly every Department of the College"; that such
action,
would be unfair and not in the best interests of the College
of Letters and Science"; and that, "If any additional funds are made
available to the College, they should be applied to a reduction of the list
of staffing needs already established."
In light of the foregoing, this committee recommends that Acting
Assistant Professor Angela Davis not be reappointed to the faculty of the
University of California.
Dated: June 19, 1970.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF THE REGENTS
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA