LOOKING INTO THE UC BUDGET  -- Report #21       (e-mail version)

by Charles Schwartz, Department of Physics, University of California
   Berkeley, CA 94720.        510-642-4427          March 25, 1997


     One of the University's Regents has directly challenged the 
legitimacy of my activities, as a faculty member, in researching, 
writing and distributing this series of Reports - in which I have 
analyzed UC's financial and other records, often coming to 
conclusions sharply critical of the conduct of the University's 
topmost officials. The letter which you will read below is an attempt 
to use the high position of a Regent for intimidation and to suppress 
a dissident voice.  Such an attack hits at the heart of a 
university's special role in democratic society.  This Report 
presents a variety of responses to this Regent which I have solicited 
from concerned people throughout the University; and it also outlines 
the direction of my own response.

                     LETTER FROM A REGENT
9 March 1997

Professor Charles Schwartz
Department of Physics
UC Berkeley
Berkeley, California 94720

Dear Professor Schwartz:

Unless you can explain to me how the "public service" mission of the 
University is met by your "reports," I request that you stop using 
University envelopes (and paper, postage, computers, desks, 
electricity &c.) in their preparation and dissemination.

As to the value of your efforts, my brief time with the regents 
indicates that no one is listening.  Perhaps your time could be 
better spent on research and/or teaching.  You do teach and perform 
research, I assume.

_  _  _

cc:  Dick Atkinson
     Tirso del Junco

     I have deleted the information in the signature and letterhead 
so that we may concentrate on the principles involved here rather 
than on the personality of this regent.  The cc's in this letter are 
addressed to the President of the University and the Chairman of the 
UC Board of Regents. I have heard from neither of them about this.

     When I received the letter from this regent, on March 11, my 
first action was to call on the telephone, at the number given in the 
letterhead.  I reached this regent's voicemail system and left a 
message:  I identified myself and stated that I wanted to discuss the 
letter sent to me; I said that such a letter was not the sort of 
thing a regent ought to do but perhaps this regent did not understand 
that; and therefore I should try communicating directly, before I 
proceeded to a more formal or public response; I left my telephone 
number as well as my email address encouraging this regent to contact 
me.   I got no reply at all.

     On March 18 I sent a copy of this letter to my many email 
readers throughout the University, inviting their opinions on this 
and asking, What is the appropriate way in which to respond to such a 
letter?    I added: " In case you wonder whether my use of University 
resources in connection with my 'reports' has been entirely proper 
within the established rules and practices of this institution, the 
answer is, Yes.  But note that this is not the issue raised by the 
regent."   It appears to me that there is an important educational 
mission to be served by broader discussion of this affair.

     Within several days I had received 46 responses: two-thirds of 
them from faculty members, at all nine UC campuses.  Here is what 
people had to say.  After that, I shall describe the action I have 
taken in response to this regent's letter.


     Except for the first one, these are the email responses, in the 
order received, edited for spelling and to remove any identification 
of the writer other than these categories:   F = Faculty, S = Staff, 
G = Graduate Student, N = Non-University person.
F. Remark by a colleague who saw me in the hallway shortly after 
receiving my email:  "Charlie, those regents are starting to play 
hardball with you."
F. I suggest no response unless the President or the Chair of the 
Board of Regents requests one formally.  I do consider your messages 
to be in a context of academic freedom especially to the Academic 
Senate.  How far they get to the public I do not really know.
 F. Quite a few in the academic community disagree with the regent as 
to the service to the university of your reports. It seems to me that 
they counterbalance a self-serving, unresponsive, expensive 
bureaucracy. That is a service to the university and to the state, 
including notably the taxpayers. 
S. This is an outrage! How dare a regent challenge a member of the 
faculty in such a manner! What is the "public service" of his/her 
letter? It is clearly an attempt to silence criticism of continuing 
administrative mismanagement, and demonstrates that at least one 
regent believes discussing the financial health of this institution 
is not appropriate university business. With an attitude like that, 
it is no wonder fees are going up and faculty-student ratios are 
going down. I applaud your resolve and hope that one day the UC will 
be rid of such bureaucratic hacks, so it can regain its lost stature. 
F. I do not always agree with you or your findings and I do not read 
each and every email in its entirety.  Nonetheless I am always 
interested to see what topic you are researching and to consider 
your data on matters which concern us all.  Since, according to my 
phone book, you are an emeritus professor, I believe your time is 
yours to allocate as you like.
F. Although I am not certain how else you should respond to the 
letter you forward, it is easy to recognize it as intolerable 
intimidation and insult. I cannot imagine that the Regents are 
empowered to address faculty members in such a way.  I believe that 
you are right to bring the letter to the attention of the
Chancellors, as well as to the appropriate officials in the office of 
the President.
F. I have just received a copy of the regent's letter that was sent 
to you. If it's any consolation, I am extremely indignant at the tone 
and substance of the letter. My suggested strategy for a (public) 
riposte: First make the point about the mission of the university to 
encourage rational judgments/debates based on careful ordering of the 
evidence, etc. Second, allude to the intellectually debased tone etc. 
of the letter you received. Third, shove home the point about how 
badly served we are by the vulgarians who are being appointed to the 
F. I am appalled by the particular Regent's response to you.  Either 
you have hit very close to the mark, or this Regent is trying to 
micro-manage faculty time.  In either case, the implications for the 
governance of our institution are troublesome. To put it bluntly, the 
response of this Regent smacks of Fascism.
F. Best way to respond is that you are emeritus.Beyond that I think 
the query the Regent raises is a legitimate one at least to bring up 
and since you write to me that "In case you wonder whether my use of 
University resources in connection with my "reports" has been 
entirely proper within the established rules and practices of this 
institution, the answer is, Yes." I suggest writing back in defence  
how it is within the rules and practices of the Institution. Indeed, 
I would be very interested in seeing your response to this because I 
myself wonder about the limits of such usage and your reply would be 
useful to me and I suspect others.I look forward to your reply.
F. I suggest no response. The Regents are not in charge of individual 
professors. You would distract from major issues by making a big deal 
of this silly letter, written in a moment of poor judgement.
G. I would certainly like to respond, and I know some UC faculty that 
would like to respond as well.  It seems to me difficult for them to 
respond, or for me, if we don't know who wrote the letter.  I assume 
there is some compelling reason for your caution, but I can't quite 
figure what it is.  Wouldn't it be better to draw attention to this 
Regent's attitude, and lack of knowledge about academic freedom, 
through a letter campaign and press attention?  Keep me posted
F. Your efforts to try to understand the planning of the flow of 
funds within the State-wide administration of the University of 
California is a noble attempt at researching one of the mysteries 
of the Universe. Your only sin is one of pride.  It is a common 
mistake of physics researchers to think that they can understand any 
natural phenomenon if they ask enough questions.  In your case the 
more questions you ask the less clear the answers. I have read your 
reports and still understand nothing about how the university plans 
its spending.  I think you are equally frustrated.
Part of the problem seems to be the reported figures mix in different 
inputs and outputs.  The sums thus produced are irrelevant to the 
issue of State spending.  The State input-output is really the 
principal issue. Where does the state university budget go and what 
are the revenue flows back to the state.  Research work funded 
elsewhere, clinical work funded elsewhere are separate issues.  
Research costs funded by the state and clinical costs funded by the 
state are issues that can be addressed in the framework of a state-
spending analysis.
Your Regent doesn't seem to be aware that your time is funded by the 
retirement system.  Whoever it is sounds like a bully.  I don't like 
F. Keep writing!  It is a true public service!!!
N. I see the regents are on your case again.  Give em hell, Charlie. 
I think your reports serve the academic purpose of embarrassing a 
corrupt administration. Not that I think you will care about my 
opinion.  I give it freely anyways.
F. Obviously, this Regent wouldn't have taken the time to write you 
if in fact "no one is listening".  His (how many women are Regents 
these days?) attempt to further intimidate you by sending copies to 
the President and Chair indicates that you represent something of 
great interest. Dick Atkinson should be embarrassed by this crude 
attempt at coercion, but probably won't say a thing.  In the best 
tradition of your past reports, I hope you can maintain some kind of 
dialogue with the writer and get his opinions on such matters as 
"public service", "fiduciary responsibility", and "academic freedom".  
As always, the transcript will speak for itself.
F. Subject: the attack on your academic freedom to use university 
resources to produce your budget updates, etc.  Thank you for them. I 
share them with scores of colleagues. I am a lecturer of [many] 
years. They are so much more informative than anything we get from 
official sources. I think that you should call for a privilege and 
tenure hearing on your campus. I'm sure they would like to silence 
you (and the rest of us), but we will not let that happen! Keep up 
the good work, and I'd publicize the name of the miscreant Regent 
that sent you this garbage to all of the media. 
S. I for one have been an avid reader of your reports since they 
first came out.  I appreciate your insightful analysis and 
unwillingness to accept superficial and misleading explanations of 
the budget from the Regents.  It is obvious why they want you to stop 
sending your email analyses to members of the UC community -- you are 
a thorn in their side and you "bother" them. Well to that I say:  
GOOD! Keep up your good work, and don't let the Regents silence you.  
Rather than try to keep you from disseminating your reports, I would 
like to see the Regents make an honest response to them.
F. It's typical of the attempts by the regents and some high 
administrators to terrorize faculty into submitting to their will.  
We are in for a new period of McCarthyism.  With the regents openly 
politicized as an arm of the Governor, this is getting genuinely 
scary. Personally, though, I admit, I would not have used University 
letterhead or mailing for the reports.  It would also appear that 
this regent does not know what "emeritus" means.  I am not surprised.
F. The unnamed Regent makes two points:
1) The opinion of this Regent is that your reports are not helpful. 
The Regent is entitled to his/her opinion. A brief (and random) 
sampling of opinion at [my campus] is that few believe your reports 
are useful. (I find them factually correct and interesting but I am a 
distinct minority of those sampled.)
2) A request from a Regent directed toward a faculty member (even an 
emeritus faculty) to cease a line of inquiry is inappropriate. As to 
the proper response, it depends on whether you ever hope to engage 
the Regents in a useful dialogue. If you answer yes, then I suggest a 
very low key response, even to the point of not responding.
F. Not to put too fine a point on it, oy veh!  I'm not at all sure 
how to respond to such a mindless letter.  I would like to send a 
copy to  ... I'd also like to send it to ...I hope, too, that it gets 
to the current chair of the Privilege and Tenure Committee, whoever 
that is.  I can send it, but so could you since it's a matter that 
should be brought to the committee's attention.  One suggestion:  if 
you send it to people not on your mailing list, it would be clearer 
with a very brief introduction stating that you have for some years 
been analyzing the UC budget, with particular attention to 
allocations for administrative purposes, and forwarding copies of 
the analyses to the Regents.
F.   [this person's email response contained no comment]
G. I've been receiving your reports via email (forwarded by one of 
the grad student reps) and do not find anything wrong with them.  
They are embarrassing to the Board of Regents and smiliar high mucky-
mucks who apparently wish to silence dissent within the university.  
It sounds as if the letter you received from an anonymous UC regent 
is calling for internal censorship.  Fight it.
S. I think you are providing a great service to those who have 
questions how and why the Office of the President is run like it is. 
You are providing research data used to inform members of the 
University community and I assume to those outside the community when 
asked. You are also providing information about the Regents, etc. and 
how they try to manage the affairs of UC, or mismanage as the case 
may be. I think you provide insight and helpful knowledge. A 
conscience too, so to speak.Keep up the good work and this Regent who 
wrote you will have to adjust. Being a new UC Regents' board member 
takes time to get the hang of things, don't you think?
S. I for one do read and value your reports. I've saved all of them. 
You may tell that to the Regents. I'm not faculty; I'm staff, a 
manager tired of working in a top heavy organization. I'm also a 
taxpayer not pleased with the way state funds are being spent on UC. 
In my opinion, the letter seemed oppressive. I believe asks you to 
limit your speech in a way inappropriate for a university in a free 
country. We should give thought to what the Regents might have hoped 
to accomplish with this letter. I can't think of any reasonable 
argument for you to "stop using University envelopes (and paper, 
postage, computers, desks, electricity &c.)" other than to suppress 
your message. I haven't audited the accounts thoroughly, but believe 
whenever someone says "shut up" it's because they have something to 
hide. The best response is to dig deeper and publish what you find. 
Suggested avenues for a response: the Academic Senate, California's 
Legislative Analyst, accounting office, 60 Minutes?
F. First, lots of people read your reports, and second, they are very 
important to the mission of shared government.  Shared government and 
democracy requires education--who is going to educate us on these 
matters if not you.  Certainly not the regents.  Keep that photocopy 
machine going!
F. I confess that I sometimes -- often -- read your messages; feel 
free to notch up a regular (if not quite, say, religious, or 
whatever) reader.  The question that might be put to your readership 
is whether they (the members of that readership) are concerned about 
the fact your efforts are *not* being read by the Regents.  To me 
that is a more important question than whether *we* read (agree with, 
disagree with) your letters. 
F. In my opinion the letter you received is extremely arrogant, and 
definitely not the sort of thing one would expect from a member of 
the governing board of America's leading public university system.
F. I have thought for a while that the UC faculty ought to initiate 
an effort to re-organize the governing structure of UC, focusing in 
particular on the method of appointing our Board of Regents and on 
the scope of their powers.  The ignorant and insulting character of 
the letter you forwarded confirms this belief.  Shared governance is 
a joke: we have clearly reached a point of civil war with our 
governors--they regard us as lazy and impudent serfs, and we regard 
them as arbitrary and despotic lords.  This is no way to convene a 
first class public university system.  Before they begin firing or 
disciplining us, we should probably gather and rise up together, 
assuming the place that a university ostensibly governed by its 
faculty implies is ours.  I am also long overdue in telling you how 
much I value your reports, and how much I learn from them.
G. I recently received a copy of the insulting, inflammatory, and 
highly uninformed letter written to you by one of our Regents.Before 
addressing the points raised in the letter, let me say that I am 
disappointed (though, unfortunately, not surprised) that such a 
person is allowed to occupy a position of public service and trust.   
As to the contents of the letter:
1. While a member of the Graduate Student Assembly of the University 
of California, I found your reports and commentary a helpful source 
of information in connection with issues that came before the 
assembly. As a graduate student and member of the UC community, I 
continue to find value in them.
2. I have, since I entered the UC system, understood the role of the 
Regents to be one of service to the students, faculty, and 
administrators of the UC system, and by extension, to the State of 
California and its citizens. It has been my understanding that the 
proper role of the Regents has been to act as trusted servants, 
putting the health and future of that system before any personal gain 
or personally held opinions or beliefs. I have further understood 
that the Regents are trustees responsible for the considerable assets 
of the UC system, who take advice and guidance, first from the 
administrators of that system, but also from any other concerned 
members of the UC community, including faculty, students, and staff. 
To the best of my knowledge, Regents are not responsible for the day-
to-day management of any single campus, any department within any 
campus, or any faculty or staff member employed by a UC. The review 
of the intellectual activities of any faculty member is first the 
responsibilty of that person's peers, and second, the responsiblity 
of the Chancellor of the University at which that person serves. I 
would hope that each Regent is made aware of this when he or she 
accepts appointment to the Board.
3. As with the democratic society of which it is a part, and which it 
serves, the UC system is best served when the free flow of 
information is not only respected, but encouraged. Any attempt to 
limit the free flow of information, or to discourage intellectual 
curiosity, is not in the best interest of the UC system, nor of the 
society which it serves. Any attempts to limit the free flow of 
information, or of intellectual discourse, should be met by vocal 
opposition by every member of the UC community, up to and including 
the Regents. I sincerely hope that the unnamed author of this letter 
will be informed of the gravity of his or her error, and that he or 
she will make every effort to discharge his or her duties within the 
properly prescribed bounds. Should he or she be unable to do so, he 
or she should be dismissed from the Board without delay.I consider 
your efforts on behalf of the UC system to be of great value. I hope 
that you will continue in them undeterred.
N.   [ the symbol  >  indicates lines of CS's original email to which
     this person then responds.]
> Unless you can explain to me how the "public service" mission of 
> the University is met by your "reports," I request that you stop
> using University envelopes (and paper, postage, computers, desks,
> electricity &c.) in their preparation and dissemination.
This regent seems to take a narrow view of what constitutes research. 
Possibly he feels that you should stick to your own areas of 
expertise.  I don't think the expenses of paper, etc., are really 
what's on his mind.  
> As to the value of your efforts, my brief time with the regents
> indicates that no one is listening.  
I think he means, no one among the regents and other important 
people.I think he knows that lots of people are listening, and he 
wants to put a stop to this.
> Perhaps your time could be better spent on research and/or
> teaching.  You do teach and perform research, I assume.
He may not know you are emeritus.  Also, his sarcasm reveals his 
hostility. Maybe he thinks of you as an employee who is out of line 
and deserves a written reprimand.
> I [CS] have deleted the signature and letterhead information so
> that one may concentrate on the issues involved rather than the
> personality.
Darn!  I'd like to know who he is.
> Opinions from faculty members are most desirable; and I [CS] also
> make a particular request for responses from each of UC's nine
> Chancellors, since they are the chief officials in charge of 
> protecting the climate of academic freedom on the campuses.
I've read stuff from the AAUP and I have read Plato (in translation), 
but I don't know what "academic freedom" really is.  Does it apply 
only to teachers and not to students?  Can I have some, even if I'm 
neither a teacher or a (full-time) student, as these terms are 
usually defined?  I do believe that the existence of your reports is 
evidence that a climate of academic freedom exists to some extent at 
UC in a way that it does not exist in private industry or (for 
example) at any Chinese university.  If this ignoramus of a regent 
manages to suppress your activities, then I would say academic 
freedom has become a myth at UC.
> I [CS] plan to issue a follow-up paper which will summarize the
> results of this opinion survey (maintaining respondents'
> confidentiality) and also report further developments in this
> matter.
I will look forward to your survey--assuming you are allowed to 
conduct it.
G. Obviously you have struck a nerve.
S. The letter that you have forwarded is surely a distressing one. 
It's obvious that the sender has no idea of the function (or 
responsibilities) of a Regent or of the University. Without 
belaboring the point too much, the apparently somewhat recent 
appointment of this person doesn't say much for the judgment of the 
person who nominated him/her. Please keep your reports coming:they're 
very good for my adrenalin flow. By the way, have you had an 
opportunity to read last Friday's Daily Bruin & its reports on the 
construction of the new Office of the President? The article surely 
provides still another example of the detachment from reality of 
those people. 
F. You may add my name to the list of those who feel you perform a 
valuable "public service" function.  As  a scientist, I have always 
been of the opinion that analysis of a problem by "non-group" parties 
is always helpful in determining the validity of papers from the 
group. We can of course make up our own minds about what to believe. 
A letter such as was sent to you can only serve to reduce the 
credibility of "internal" reports. I'm sure you will remind the 
Regent that you are no longer obligated to teach, and that your 
activities certainly qualify as "research". I hope he does not 
presume to tell us what we should do our research on... 
S. One response would be to argue that you are advancing the 
educational mission of the University. You are assisting the various 
"stakeholders" (the current buzz word) of the UC in understanding an 
important and complex institution.  You are engaged in applied 
political science perhaps.  
F. In regard to your reports on the university budget let me reaffirm 
once more that I find them to be of high scholastic quality.  You are 
performing a service for the entire university community.  It seems 
to me that anyone who disagrees with your conclusion should at least 
have the good grace to note the specific points of dispute.
F. I find your e-mails incredibly valuable, and think that protest 
quite inappropriate. Please continue!
F. Your activites are very important and do a great deal to further 
the public service mission of UC.  Your reports show a dedication to 
rational analysis that is the very foundation of UC, not to mention 
a fearlessness in taking on powerful elements of society that must 
also accompany such rational analyses.  The public mission of UC must 
also include discussion about how UC spends its money.  Please 
politely decline to take action on the Regent's request.
F. I believe your reports constitute a significant aspect of 
University business as they keep the faculty informed on important 
matters that would be difficult to understand otherwise.  I would 
tell the Regent in question to... ( well one isn't supposed to use 
the university facilities for harsh or abusive language) well.. to 
take this under advisement.
F. In my experience with serving on governing boards of 
administrative units, there is always a tension between receiving 
information only from the administrative director, and receiving 
information from other sources.  It has always been the case that 
receiving additional information has been extremely useful in 
reaching a fully informed decision. The reason is clear: directors/ 
CEOs can be ignorant themselves of what is actually going on, or 
sometimes they have an interest in maintaining the status quo and 
keeping the board in the dark. Sometimes they are themselves 
misinformed by subordinates for a variety of reasons, such as fear of 
reprisals, self-interest, or disagreements about policy. Surely every 
governing board needs to know the truth to make good decisions. You 
have been one of the principal sources of additional information 
which can lead the Regents to fully informed decisions.  If a Regent 
is so foolish as to reject this information, we have an indication 
that he doesn't take his responsibilities seriously, or is himself in 
collusion to perpetuate misinformation.  Your diligence is an 
important resource for the university.  As a taxpayer I salute you 
for your interest in getting the most educational benefit for our 
F. It strikes me as a direct attack on academic freedom, to say 
nothing of your first amendment rights. If being self-critical 
doesn't serve the University (and the public interest) I don't know 
what does. In your reply to the specific regent I would suggest that 
he just might learn something if he did "listen."  I'd go immediately 
to the committee on academic freedom and to privilege and tenure - he 
has clearly overstepped the bounds of his authority (as contrasted to 
the"regents" authority).  It sure sounds like a threat to me!
 G. I'm a graduate student in the ... department at ... , and I was 
appalled (although not surprised) at the tone in the letter you 
received from one of the regents.  I have been long learning how 
universities such as UCLA have experienced ballooning administrative 
costs and personnel, often to the direct detriment of their teaching 
(and research) missions.  At the UC, it is clearly a tragedy that 
the administration/regents assume as a norm that its constituents 
(both staff, faculty and students of the UC and the general citizenry 
of the state of California) are best served by being ignorant of its 
budgetary and adminstrative workings/dealings.   The attitude of 
"just do your job - don't ask questions" is completely at odds with 
the goals of participatory democracy that we are supposedly trying to 
pass on to our undergraduates.  Obviously this implies the worst sort 
of hypocrisy. I'm sure that this particular regent is especially 
irritated by your interest and investigations into the UC budgets , 
esp. in regards to administrative spending.  Despite this (and other) 
regent's assumption that it is their (managerial) prerogative to 
spend, grow and allocate without public review, I see your tireless 
work as invaluable to the cause of making the state's largest public/ 
private entity (in terms of employment) answerable to its real 
constituencies.  Especially given that California is large enough in 
many ways to be a nation unto itself, your work is very much 
appreciated and necessaty.  Thank you very much.  
F. There are three issues involved as I reflect on this.  One is the 
issue of whether what you are doing is legal.  One is the issue of 
whether what you are doing is based upon sound principles.  One is 
whether what you are doing is of value.  To some level the Regent 
addressed the first and third of these.  My views are as follows.
1) I believe you when you say what your are doing is legal.
2) I am confident you believe you are doing something that has to be 
done because of your principles and because some faculty believe you 
are providing a valuable service.
3) I believe you, as an individual, have lost any effectiveness for 
the faculty, students and institution you might once have had.  You 
are perceived as completely predictable; one who believes anyone with 
any position of responsibility is not only wrong, they are corrupt, 
deceitful and not possessed of sound principles.  I believe the 
Regent is accurate in saying that no one in a position to actually 
make and implement policy listens to you (in the sense that they 
attempt to interpret the information you provide).  I suspect people 
believe this has become your purpose and identity in life. 
S. I support your good and hard work in being a "watchdog" of UC 
expenditures, practices, and protocols.  Your inquires seem like a 
sound practice of checks and balances.  If I ever would have sensed 
hostility or bashing for the simple sake of bashing, I would have 
requested being dropped from the email alias.  Your investigations 
are clear and direct and raise concerns we should all discuss as 
citizens. Again, I support your efforts and I admire your boldness.  
I'm less bold, thus appreciate your willingness to keep my name 
confidential. Keep on, carry on!
 F. I received your recent email message enclosing a letter from a UC 
Regent. I believe there is a plausible academic freedom issue here. 
...  It depends on whether one views your reports as part of your 
administrative duties or as part of your research/teaching. Even in 
the first case though, while their free dissemination is not really 
an academic freedom issue, the *subject matter* of the reports could 
have a tangible effect on academic freedom and I (personally) feel 
that they serve a useful administrative purpose for myself, my 
committee and the other faculty.
F. I think this is a truly odious and blatant attempt from a regent 
to stifle legitimate research and criticism of the University's 
conduct. He must have passed Governor Wilson's Unclear on the 
Concept test for regent appointments. Looks like you've hit a few 
sore points - keep it up.  
N. I don't have any advice on how *you* should respond to this 
outrageous letter.  However, on a moment's notice *I* would be happy 
-- as a UC Alumni Assn. member -- to write or sign a letter stating 
that your efforts are among the most conspicuous "public service" 
activities that I am aware of within the U.C. system.  Also, that 
this letter reveals a chilling lack of understanding of academic 
freedom, University autonomy, or even the meaning of the title 
"Emeritus."  Evidently, the quality of regents' appointments has 
declined to the point where the insane (and uneducated) really are 
running the asylum.

     One should not read this collection as a referendum on the value 
of my work. Of course my fans are more likely to respond than my 
critics; and I am particularly grateful to those who did respond with 
criticism. Whatever shortcomings there are with this survey, it does 
provide a variety of viewpoints and I decided to distribute the lot.

                    THIS AUTHOR'S RESPONSE

     If there were no other recourse available, I should probably 
have turned first to the relevant committees of the Academic Senate, 
as advised by many above.  However, the state of California has a law 
[Government Code Section 8547] which is intended to provide 
encouragement and protection for "whistle blowers" in public 
agencies; and this law covers the University of California.  The case 
at hand seems perfectly suited to the intent and the terms of this 
law and the related regulations of the University.  

     In January of 1993, when I had just issued my first Report on 
the excess growth of administration at the University, I walked up to 
the speakers' podium at the Regents' meeting and actually blew a loud 
whistle to call their attention to this problem.  I also have serious 
concerns about how this institution treats others who blow the 
whistle on their administrative superiors.

     I have, therefore,  filed a formal letter of complaint against 
the regent who sent me that letter.  This complaint was addressed to 
the Chairman of the Board of Regents with copies to President 
Atkinson and to the offending regent.  This course of response places 
the responsibility for investigation and corrective action directly 
in the corporate lap of the Regents themselves.  I am sure this will 
cause them some discomfort.  How they choose to deal with this 
challenge will be a significant test of their worthiness as guardians 
of this public trust, the University of California.  And this course 
still allows for others, such as the Senate Committee on Academic 
Freedom, to become involved.

We shall see how things develop.