UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA — The UC Board of Regents finally did something
right. After a series of recent blunders, from fee hikes to pay scandals, last
month brought a glimmer of hope to what has been an embarrassing
administration.

In their Sept. 20 meeting, the regents finally ended a
months-long fracas over the university’s tobacco company-funded research
grants. In early January, UC Regent John J. Moores initiated the anti-tobacco
policy in hope of dispelling rising concerns about the university’s kinship
with scorned tobacco giant Philip Morris. But with faculty opposition to the
proposal mounting universitywide, regents wisely decided to nix the proposed
ban and promise more research transparency.

The victory for faculty and students, however, has been
tarnished and assailed by an onslaught of nicotine-bashing, irrational
idealists who claim the move will discredit the university’s prized reputation
for superior research. These anti-tobacco parties accuse the companies of
conducting crooked studies aimed at fixing results, citing such practices as
reason for the UC system to sever its ties.

However, the time for
manipulating studies has come and gone for the tobacco industry. By now, we can
assume the majority of Americans recognize the dangers associated with smoking,
leaving little incentive for the industry to empty its pockets to reverse
something that is irreversible.

The anti-tobacco advocacy groups — too engrossed in the
principle of the issue — have ultimately lost sight of the facts. The past
decade has brought astounding budget cuts to California’s education system, and
much of the difference is now carried by the state’s over-burdened students. As
its shaky grasp of state funding continuously looses with each nocuous blow to
the education budget, the UC system has driven into a corner by state
legislators and forced to explore alternative funding avenues for the system’s
wide range of projects. Research is just one example.

Last year alone, the UC system drew in almost $17 million
from 23 different grants given by Philip Morris. It would be challenging, if
not impossible, for the university to solicit that sum of money year after year
from other sources — student fees aside. And it’s for this reason that the
regents’ decision was such a crucial one. Had the ban been approved, the board
would have set a dangerous precedent for scrutinizing and curbing private
funding, a concern faculty members raised when the issue was on trial. It would
have endangered other private companies like British Petroleum, which recently
offered UC Berkeley $500 million in grant money for biofuel research.

As for the university’s ability to maintain reputable
research with third-party supporters, this
will likely not be an issue. Research is one department where the university
has preserved an unstained track record.

Take, for example, the
university’s endeavors in nuclear research at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore
national laboratories, both of which the UC system has operated for over 60
years. Aside from public contention over the labs’ nuclear-oriented work, they
have yet to upset the university’s overall academic mission. Instead, they have employed 17,000 workers and
earned a combined sum of close to $4 billion a year — money that is needed
especially during the current state budget cuts.

So despite the
activists who continue to bemoan the decision, tobacco-funded research is still
the university’s golden ticket. In fact, as the threat of further education
budget cuts grows substantially more bloated every passing year, the university
would be wise to continue pursuing similar ventures with other private
enterprises.

Just this month, State
Treasurer Bill Lockyer released a bill that would starve the university of 20 percent of its annual funding by
eliminating all state financial support. Though the legislation’s chances of
survival are less than slim, it
highlights the dire condition of the UC system, which will no doubt force the
university to approach funding matters in a drastically different manner in the
coming years.

The tobacco fiasco was
just one example in a line of many more to come. Whether or not the decision
was made with the foresight of future budget ails, it will no doubt be good
business for the struggling system. And
as long as Uncle Sam continues cutting off the university, the more it will be
forced to look elsewhere and the less it will be able to act on principle
alone.