OP/ED - written but not published - May 15, 2006
UCOP NEEDS A GOOD HOUSECLEANING
By Charles Schwartz, Professor Emeritus
University of California, Berkeley
schwartz@physics.berkeley.edu
UCOP is the University of California Office of
the President. If that acronym sounds a bit more political than
academic, it is entirely in tune with the style that UC President Bob
Dynes has taken up in his battle to retain his seat through the current
scandal over excesses in executive compensation.
I recall President Richard Nixon, during the
height of the Watergate scandal, telling the American people, “I am the
President. I am responsible. But I am not to blame.” His
supporters then told us about how earlier Presidents had done things
similar to what this one was accused of; how the nation was under
threat and his great leadership was needed, etc., etc. All of
that echoes today at UCOP.
Last week Dynes spoke with UC faculty (at a
meeting of the Assembly of the Academic Senate) and explained why he
had chosen not to resign in the face of this scandal – a scandal which
occurred during his watch and in which he himself was a significant
participant – following the Nixonian tactic. The University is under
attack, he said, and by resigning he would only embolden those who were
out to destroy the independence of the University.
Well, there has been plenty of outspoken
criticism directed at Dynes and at his bosses – the Board of Regents –
by Legislators and by newspaper editors who are appalled at the
revelations of this scandal. Those may be called attacks, but they are
directed at the responsible leaders, not at the institution.
Dynes and his flacks find other false images
to hide behind. Monday’s San Francisco Chronicle had a long op/ed piece
in his defense (signed onto by “prominent business leaders” but
obviously written by Dynes’ PR people). Their central line was, “In
order to maintain and improve UC’s excellence we need to compete for
the outstanding leaders. The record shows that we have created a
great system of higher education.” The truth is that the excellence of
any great university, like UC, is established by its outstanding
faculty, not by its administrators.
We can argue about how much a UC President or
a Chancellor or a Dean ought to be paid. In 1992 the faculty at
UC Berkeley, in a resolution passed by their Academic Senate,
said: “It should be the policy of any institution of higher
learning that the total compensation paid to any executive officer
should not exceed twice the average amount paid to its full
professors.”
But what the present scandal is all about is
the fact that top UC officials have been playing sneaky games with
public money. It is about a lack of accountability and
transparency. It is about arrogance in high places. It is about
betrayal of the public trust, without which this university can not
survive.
In his published response to the three
Legislators who recently called for his removal, Dynes has given a list
of the plans he has for improving business operations at
UC. One item on that list caught my eye: “Ethics training for all
UC employees”.
The failure of ethical conduct disclosed in
this current scandal clearly sits at the very top of the UC
administration. And I can think of no better lesson in ethics than to
dole out deserved punishment to a top official who has violated those
principles.
So, now it is up to the Board of
Regents. If they are truly committed to serving the interest of
the University of California (this public trust) then they ought to
fire Mr. Dynes. But they, the regents, are caught up in the
tangle of their own internal politics. The rule for handling any
scandal is to resolve it quickly; but the Regents have dragged this one
out for six months. It seems that the early calls for a serious
“clean-up” in the UC administration have changed into a plan for
“cover-up”.
Maybe the cleansing of the University of
California will require more than the removal of President Dynes.