UC students and their parents find a common trend when flipping through their balanced checkbooks — repeated inscriptions of the title “UC Regents.” From tuition costs to bookstore charges to parking tickets, the regents are the only bankers circulating UC student dollars. But who are the “regents,” really?
The first bylaw of the regents’ constitution declares the group a corporation. As such, they are doing what corporations do best — business — in this case, with students.
While most students believe their regents to be experienced educators and administrators, the only experience most of them have with the UC system is their own past undergrad or graduate education.
Only five of the 26 have legitimate backgrounds in the field. Most members of the board, which is granted “full powers of organization and governance” in certain areas of the system according to Article IX of the state constitution, hold positions as investors, trustees and executives of large corporations.
The regents are the success stories — the University of California’s trophies, displayed for all to see. These are the alumni who made it big, and now they’re trying to mold current students into their business proteges.
The two newest appointments to the board are no exception. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger nominated William C. De La Pena, an ophthalmologist and company director, and Bruce D. Varner, a successful lawyer and law-firm owner. Varner is a rarity, sitting on UC Riverside’s board of trustees and the California State University San Bernardino; the majority of the regents have little to no background in education at all.
These are the people designing today’s college experience, but not with the sole intention of helping students or instilling positive values to improve the future. According to Schwarzenegger, college is meant instead to use students to boost the nation’s economy.
“As products of the renowned UC system, William and Bruce uniquely understand the vital role our public universities play in giving students a world-class education so they are trained for the 21st century economy,” he said.
With the announcement of that goal, all undeclared students may as well just declare business or economics as their major right now.
With the power to appoint 18 of the 26 members, the governor is the key player in this business partnership. While Article IX of California’s constitution states that “the university shall be entirely independent of all political and sectarian influence and kept free therefrom in the appointment of its Regents and in the administration of its affairs,” it makes no reference to the political bias of the governor — the sole executive to the board.
If such a clause existed, we wouldn’t have half of the regents who still serve today.
Is it a coincidence that Gerald L. Parsky and Peter Preuss, two trustees of UCSD, were both appointed by former Gov. Pete Wilson, the former mayor of San Diego? Or is it more likely that Wilson’s term in San Diego yielded political loyalties to the men, or even simple familiarity with them? The latter seems more believable.
While this case may still be questionable, there’s no doubt about the political influence in the appointment of Regent John J. Moores.
Moores, the San Diego Padres owner, donated $100,000 to former Gov. Gray Davis’ campaign in 1999, the same year he was nominated as a regent. In today’s world, money can influence anything — including an appointment to the university’s Board of Regents.
Moores, the founder of UCSD’s Moores Cancer Center, is the same man that made Fortune Magazine’s list of “greediest” executives for cashing out $611 million in stock to Peregrine Systems Inc., his San Diego-based software company.
He has also been a laboring advocate of the controversial Proposition 209, the bill that some claim has contributed to the lagging numbers of minority students because of its reversal of affirmative action.
With this kind of track record, it’s hard to imagine how Moores could have merited his position without some form of “political and sectarian influence.”
Wilson and Davis aren’t alone in their skewed appointments; Schwarzenneger followed Davis’ lead by also nominating a campaign benefactor: Frederick Ruiz, chairman of Ruiz Food Products, Inc. who donated $10,000 to the governor’s campaign in 2004. The relevance of Ruiz’ experience to the position at hand is questionable at best.
With 21 of 26 Regents lacking relevant experience in education, it’s no small wonder that the University of California is run less like a university and more like a business. And with the appointment process controlled by the governor — a person by nature beholden to the special interests that installed him in office and keep him there — should we be surprised if this sorry state of affairs continues?
