Thursday, April 11, 1996
Regent answers questions about integrating industry and
education communityBy Philip CarterAs a member of the UC Board of
Regents, Lt. Gov. Gray Davis has come forward as a compelling
advocate for greater integration between California’s business and
education communities.
Speaking with the Daily Bruin last week, Davis continued to
advocate a greater role for UC research in California business, in
addition to incentive programs to push college students into these
"high-growth areas," such as science and engineering.
Davis discusses these issues, and the pitfalls of this
UC-business relationship, such as the recent special admissions
scandal at UCLA.
Q: California has seen an explosion in biotechnology and
computers, largely due to UC research. How do you see this
involvement in business fitting into the traditional UC maxim of
"research, teaching and public service," and how do you reconcile
any sorts of conflicts between these areas?
A: I am trying to build greater public support for the UC system
 UC already is a major economic driver for California.
Unfortunately, that is not widely known. To the extent that
business increasingly relies on university research, it will widen
the understanding of the importance of the university to our
economic well being.
Q: Business relies a lot on university research, and given
California’s trend of funding prisons and corrections and not
funding higher education, by the year 2010, there won’t be any more
funding for higher education. Should business start subsidizing the
University of California more for the cost of its research?
A: I don’t propose that this research be done for free  I
propose that it be done at market-based cost. The advantages of the
university are its superb work, and it eliminates the need for
businesses to hire people. Business can just reach out to the
university when they have a problem, and when the problem is
solved, the research is done. You don’t have to worry about having
an employee whose basic usefulness is eliminated when the research
is done.
Q: For some schools that have gone this way, like MIT, they’ve
done it at a cost of general education in the humanities and social
sciences. Is that a sacrifice that should be made, or should those
areas be maintained as the university transitions into this
21st-century model of a business-oriented university?
A: Traditional liberal arts education makes for a better-rounded
citizen, and I’m not willing to sacrifice that. I think schools can
do both  they can fulfill industry’s needs for scientists and
engineers and still offer courses in the humanities and liberal
arts. People have to opt for whatever career appeals to them, but
since we have a need for engineers, we ought to make that need
known and provide incentive that illustrates that we’d very much
like to see those jobs filled by folks coming out of our own
university.
Q: So what can the university or business do to steer college
students into those areas where there are important jobs?
A: I think we ought to encourage every young person who’s
interested in the sciences  biology, chemistry and physics
 to pursue the appropriate education. I would like to go back
to the Eisenhower days, when in reaction to the Russian launching
of Sputnik, we said "If you want to become an engineer, the
government will pay for your education." We can’t find enough
home-grown engineers, so then we have to liberalize our immigration
policy to allow people to come work for Intel or Amgen or
Lockheed.
I’d like to (give incentive to) people to assume a career in the
sciences and engineering. That’s frankly where the jobs are, and
where the current line of economics is going.
* * *
Q: Some of this closeness to business may have unintended
consequences, though. You’ve read the recent reports about
"alternate routes" through UCLA’s admissions process for the
wealthy and powerful. How would you propose a solution to these
issues?
A: I called (UC President) Dick Atkinson a couple of days ago,
and said that at the next regents meeting I would propose that any
time a regent or an elected official wrote a letter of
recommendation, that information should be available to the
public.
I have, over the years, written letters for my employees, my
interns, and for people whose stories I find compelling  I
think it’s perfectly appropriate.
What I don’t think is appropriate is to attempt to call in any
"markers" to say "I did this favor for the university, now please
admit this student."
The letter of recommendation should have as much weight as its
contents are persuasive, and no more. It shouldn’t depend on who
signs the letter; it should depend on how compelling the story is
that the letter tells.
Q: So opening up the process is the key here, instead of
changing it?
A: Right. There’s not a person in this state who hasn’t put in a
good word for somebody: their child, their friend, their neighbor.
That’s perfectly appropriate  we all help each other. I’m in
my 50s, and I’m a great believer that my generation has got to find
a way to make this world attractive to your generation.
Q: How important do you think it might be for a large donor to
the university to get special perquisites, such as admission? Is it
in the university’s economic interests to give these?
A: I would hope that people give money for the best of reasons.
This is a wonderful institution, and donors whose names are on
buildings or are honored at regents’ meetings for their
philanthropy should find sufficient satisfaction in that. You never
know what lurks in the minds of some donors, but my hope is that
the reward is the act of giving, instead of any attendant
benefit.
Q: The rallying cry on this issue has become for some people:
"No affirmative action now for racial minorities, but you have
affirmative action for the rich and powerful." Is there some
hypocrisy there?
A: I think this is true. I’m one of the few people who did not
vote to repeal affirmative action. I’m a great believer in public
disclosure. If every regent and every public official knew that
their name was going to be available to the press if they wrote a
letter of recommendation, that would have a tempering influence on
everyone’s behavior and expectations.
To say people can’t write letters, I think, is a violation of
people’s First Amendment freedoms. Whether you’re a high school
student or president of the United States, you ought to be able to
express yourself.
Carter is the Daily Bruin wire editor, and covered the UC Board
of Regents from December 1994 through January 1996.