John Aubrey Douglass

Anatomy of Conflict The Making and Unmaking of Affirmative Action at the University of California

Californias land-grant institution provides an important window into the affirmative action debate not only because of the 1995 edict by the Board of Regents, and later the passage of Propostion 209, but also because of the demographic context of the university effort to diversify its student body. This article provides a historical analysis of how the University of California has approached the issue of educational opportunity over time, focusing largely on undergraduate admissions. The author argues that affirmative action, and specifically the use of race as a factor in admissions, is historically consistent with the larger effort by the University of California to admit students from a broad range of California society. Yet, the translation of broad and ill-defined policy goals into specific programs has posed substantial problems and paradoxes. The ad hoc and decentralized growth of affirmative action programs within a vast nine-campus UC system led to a disjuncture between the values of the universitys Board of Regents and the academic and administrative community.

THE EVOLUTION OF A SOCIAL CONTRACT: THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BEFORE AND IN THE AFTERMATH OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

This brief essay covers the history of admissions at the University of California (UC), including the development of affirmative action programs in the 1960s and, more recently, the heated political battle over the use of race and gender preferences at the University.

The Perils and Promise of Variable Fees: Institutional and Public Policy Responses in the UK and the US.

Taylor and Francis Ltd PSP158.sgm 10.1080/ 0 00-0 00 (pri t)/0000-0000 (online) Original Article 2 5 & Francis Ltd 9 002005 Introduction On both sides of the Atlantic, public higher education faces similar challenges in how to maintain and expand access to high quality tertiary education at an affordable cost to students and their families. These challenges undermine assumptions about the cost of higher education that were based upon conditions prevalent during the generation following the end of the Second World War when access to higher education would be made available at little or no cost. The costs and implications of mass access to higher education were rarely considered. Today the issues of cost, quality and access drive public policies. While there is a continued recognition of the need to expand access to higher education as a means to bolster socioeconomic mobility, egalitarian values of democratic nations, and as an essential ingredient for economic competitiveness in the global community, the old paradigm of universal low tuition fees is a matter of debate for four reasons:

Profiling the New Flagship Model

What are the contemporary characteristics, values, and practices of a group of institutions we can identify as Flagship Universities? This chapter provides an initial profile of the model, framed by the tripartite mission of research-intensive universities: teaching and learning, research and knowledge production, and public service.1

The Origin of the Flagship Idea and Modern Adaptions

The notion of the public Flagship University has its origins in the early development of America’s higher education system in the mid-1800s. It included a devotion to the English tradition of the residential college as well as the emerging Humboldtian model of independent research and graduate studies, in which academic research would, in turn, inform and shape teaching and build a stronger academic community. But just as important, the hybrid American public-university model sought utilitarian relevance. Teaching and research would purposefully advance socioeconomic mobility and economic development. As part of an emerging national investment in education, public universities also had a role in nurturing and guiding the development of other educational institutions. For these and other reasons, America’s leading state universities were to be more practical, more engaged in society than their counterparts in Europe and elsewhere, evolving and expanding their activities in reaction to societal needs.

Considering National Context and Other Variables

In an often cited analogy, the university is imagined as a village—an insular and tightly knit community, focused on teaching and learning as a worthy endeavor of its own, but somewhat removed from the larger world. The modern comprehensive university is, however, more like a city. It has many subcultures and responsibilities that reflect its growing role in society. “Some get lost in the city,” Clark Kerr once explained in his assessment of major American universities in the early 1960s, “while others, both faculty and students, find communities within the larger institution.” The “city,” continued Kerr, “is more like the totality of civilization” (Kerr 1963).

How Rankings Came to Determine World Class

A direct correlation exists between the emergence of international rankings of universities and the pervasive rhetoric and obsession with World Class University (WCU) status. Building on a model first ventured by commercial rankings of colleges and universities in the United States as consumer guides for prospective students—notably the US News and World Report ranking of American colleges and universities—international rankings based on similar formulas made their appearance around 2003.1 As government ministries focused increasingly on research-intensive universities as a path for national economic development, they quickly embraced rankings as a quantifiable source for assessing the place of their universities in the global marketplace.

Cosmopolitan Berkeley and the Concept of Cultural Diversity in an American University

The argument that cultural and other forms of diversity enhance the educational experience of all students is generally associated with post-1960 efforts to expand the presence of disadvantaged groups on the campuses of America’s universities and colleges. In the case of the University of California-Berkeley, arguments on the merits of cultural diversity have much earlier roots in the historical enrollment of international students. Debates in the late 1800s and early twentieth century revolved around the appropriateness of enrolling foreign students, particularly those from Asia. The result was an important intellectual discussion on the merits of diversity and the ideals of a cosmopolitan university that was eventually reframed to focus largely on underrepresented domestic students. In this essay, I discuss how the notion of diversity, and its educational benefits, first emerged as a value at Berkeley. I then briefly discuss the significant increase of international students at Berkeley and other public universities. Thus far, the primary impetus of this increase has been mostly financial—Berkeley has faced significant public disinvestment, seeks new revenue sources, and can charge international students tuition rates similar to elite private colleges and universities. By targeting 20 percent of all undergraduates as international or out-of-state (US-resident non-Californians)—the majority international—the Berkeley campus is essentially diversifying its student body. How does having a more globally inclusive enrollment fit into our contemporary ideas of diversity? I attempt a brief discussion of this question and the policy challenges generated by the dramatic increase in international students at the undergraduate level at Berkeley and other UC campuses.

What it Means to Become a Flagship University1

It’s a familiar if not fully explained paradigm. A “World Class University” is supposed to have highly ranked research output, a culture of excellence, great facilities, a brand name that transcends national borders. But perhaps most importantly, the particular institution needs to sit in the upper echelons of one or more world rankings generated each year by non-profit and for-profit entities.

Funding Challenges at the University of California: Balancing Quantity with Quality and the Prospect of a Significantly Revised Social Contract

After three decades of state disinvestment, the University of California (UC) faces significant challenges and misunderstandings regarding its operating costs, its mission, and its wide array of activities. Reduced funding from the state for public higher education, including UC, has essentially severed the historic link between state allocations and enrollment workload, altering the incentive and ability for UC to expand academic programs and enrollment in pace with California’s growing population and economic needs – what formed an important component of its historic social contract. “To grow or not to grow?” is the question that now confronts the University of California and, more generally, Californians. On the positive side, an improved economy offers a window for a renewed commitment to fund public high education. Yet the most recent budget deal with the state provides only a marginal reinvestment in the university and restricts its ability to move toward a new funding model. The historic commitment to grow with the needs of California that propelled much of the state’s economic activity and socioeconomic mobility is, for the first time, an unfunded mandate with little prospect for resurrection in the immediate term. Without adequate state funding, and with a high level of institutional autonomy guaranteed in the state constitution, the university community is much less likely to continue the path of unfunded enrollment growth that erodes the quality of its teaching, research, and public service programs.