The
head of the world’s most prestigious University system was appointed over the
summer. The Regents of the University of
California—the board of which constitutes a political patronage machine for the
governor—nominated and appointed Janet Napolitano (Homeland Security Secretary
in the federal government) within a week, making a mockery of due process and
the community which Napolitano is supposed to serve.
Napolitano
will preside over a community comprising nearly 19,000 academic staff, 190,000
other staff, and nearly a quarter million students. None of these people were considered
important enough to be worth consulting in a process which was so lacking in
transparency that it might have been the envy of Kim Jong-un!
The
Board of Regents failed to present the community with the criteria by which
they judged candidates. The Board of
Regents failed to disclose the long-list or short-list of candidates from whom
they made their final selection. The
Board of Regents failed to include the community in the process, and it failed
to allow the community either the time or means to comment in between their
announcement of Napolitano and her confirmation.
The
University community was outraged, both by the fact that the Board of Regents
made not the slightest pretence at a democratic process, and by the fact that
Napolitano was active in upping deportations while serving in the federal
government, and will be coming to a state which has chosen to take a much more
humane approach to immigrants and their children. Student governments at UC Berkeley, UC San
Diego, and UC Irvine responded by passing votes of no-confidence in
Napolitano.
That
Napolitano’s tenure could stink so badly before she’s even done anything is a
testimony to the mangled sham of a process by which she was appointed, and the
former cabinet secretary and Arizona Governor should have refused to have
anything to do with the farce that was her appointment.
The
New University reported that “only a
handful of students from UCI were invited to meet with Napolitano today,
including ASUCI President...AGS President, UC Student Regent...and some of the
leaders from the Cross Cultural Center’s Umbrella Organizations”. This is in keeping with the administration’s
strategy of using students as props in such meetings, and hand-picking student
leaders who already have access to the administration.
Ninety
years ago, eleven years before he would run to be the Governor of California,
Upton Sinclair published The Goose-Step,
an account of higher education in the United States. Invoking the mafia, Sinclair referred to
Berkeley—then dominated by right-wing, imperialist thought; an institution in
which the student body was highly-militarised and regressive in its outlook—as the
University of the Black Hand. The
Regents, in Sinclair’s words, were the “grand dukes of the plutocracy”, and
then ran Berkeley like a “medieval fortress”.
Today
it is on the one hand most conventional to think of the Board of Regents
serving the politicians who appoint them.
But Sinclair recognised that the Regents were appointed because of the
financial and propaganda services they rendered to the state’s leading
political figures. Today many of the
Regents were appointed by Governors whom they backed politically. The politicians were, in Sinclair’s mind, “nominated
by these gentlemen’s newspapers and elected by these gentlemen’s checks”.
Many
of the Regents who anointed Napolitano in defiance of the University today are
drawn from the profiteering business and financial world of California, a far
cry from the civic-minded, communitarian University over which they rule. Sinclair’s comment about one Regent—that he
was “a gentleman whose qualifications to direct the higher education of
California were acquired while driving a stage”—ring as true today as they must
have nearly a century ago.
The
progressivism and leftism of the city of Berkeley long predates the growth of
conscience amongst the University’s students, and in Sinclair’s day, “when the
electrical workers went on strike, the mayor of Berkeley smashed the strike
with University boys”. At President
Barrows’ urging, students were similarly used to break a seamen’s strike later. Backed by the Regents, Barrows shut down
extension teaching, which sought to broaden those receiving a University of
California education beyond the children of the state’s plutocracy.
Barrows,
a practitioner of American imperialism and terrorism in the Philippines, began
the militarisation of the University, ensuring that although “twelve thousand
students get a free education [they] must pay for it by taking two years of
military training”. Barrows also
asserted that “one advantage of having a big university is that you have
abundant material from which to select athletic teams”. Students were bludgeoned into providing
financial backing for the support of Memorial Stadium, and “when some of them
found that they had not been able to earn money to pay their full
subscriptions, they were refused admission to the university; that is, the
university refused to accept their registration fees, until the stadium pledges
had been paid!”
Members
of the UC Regents also dabbled in politics, and the father of H R Haldeman
(notorious for his involvement in the scandals of the Nixon administration),
one of California’s leading plutocrats, founded the Better America Foundation,
which Sinclair described as “a kind of ‘black hand’ society of the rich, a
terrorist organization which does not stop short of crime”, working to entrench
the interests of the Regents and their associates “for the purpose of keeping
California capitalist”.*
It
was, then, only comparatively recently that the University of California became
associated with progressivism.
Lest
we think these bad old days are over, we need only look to the resistance the
Board of Regents has mounted to demands that they invest the University’s funds
in an ethical manner. They turned the
police on students protesting for divestment from the apartheid regime in South
Africa, and today simply ignore those arguing that the University’s money
should not be associated with Israeli colonialism.
At
a time when the class of which the Regents are amongst the foremost
representatives are raking in record profits and lobbying to have their taxes
cut, California is increasingly unable to fund its public institutions and the
same Regents are driving up the fees of students to crippling levels, ensuring
that those students who emerge into the cruel immoral economy created by the
Regents and their fellow representatives of the state’s elite will be heavily
indebted and vulnerable.
But
there is a critical difference today. In
Sinclair’s day, students marched the “goose-step”, cheering on the imperialist
Presidents Wheeler (a proponent of German militarism) and Barrows (a
practitioner of American terror). Rather
than seeking common cause with the state’s working citizenry, they allowed
themselves to be used by the university’s overseers to attack that citizenry.
Today,
students are more aware of the relationship between their own economic plight
and that of California. And as their
critique of Napolitano illustrates, they are not willing to accept their plight
lying down.
In
its early days, the University of California was designed to provide the
intellectual fodder for the plutocrats and magnates who ran California behind
closed doors in smoke-filled rooms.
Today, its administrative offices have become retirement chambers for
members of the national security apparatus and its governing board is virtually
indistinguishable from a corporate boardroom.
But while previous generations of students were proud to be associated
with the most reactionary elements of California’s society, today’s generations
are actively repudiating any association between the noble endeavour of
education and the dirty work of the state’s elites and the undemocratic outlook
they bring to our University.
-----
*
Upton Sinclair, The Goose-Step: A Study
of American Education (New York: AMS Press, 1923): 126-152, 373