Friday, November 21, 1997
The students’ regent
REGENTS: Kathryn McClymond, a student at UCLA, brings a
different perspective to her position on the University of
California Board of Regents
By J. Jioni Palmer
Daily Bruin Senior Staff
Student Regent Kathryn McClymond is optimistic about the future
of the University of California. Appointed by the UC Board of
Regents, her term began on July 1 and will last for one full year.
McClymond, a sixth-year doctoral student in religious studies, sat
down with the Daily Bruin to share her outlook on the
university.
In your opinion, what are some of the major issues confronting
the university?
Right now, the top three I focus on are domestic partnership
benefits which is on the agenda of this weeks regents’ meeting. No.
2, the budget, and we just approved the budget for 1998-99. But
budget issues are long term, but I’m very concerned about funding
for the university system. And then, thirdly outreach, particularly
in the area of SP-1, SP-2 and Prop. 209.
Would you like to take this opportunity to talk about budget
issues?
Well, I think one thing that’s got students excited right now is
the fee roll back and fee freezes for some students that came as a
result of AB 1318. My concern is that the UC system is still
woefully underfunded. We need more faculty; our libraries are not
at the level they need to be at. We still don’t have a long-term
solution for student fees that students can count on in the long
run for their planning. Every aspect of the university is hurting.
We’ve got to figure out a way to address that.
Where do you think that is going to come from? The state so far
hasn’t expressed too much willingness to increase funding, and
private funding of the university has kind of gotten some people
scared that it will lead to the privatization of the university. So
what’s the middle ground, in your perspective?
Well, I still think that the long term answer has got to be
state funding. It has got to come from the legislature. Because the
amount of money that we need is so huge, that’s the only place
where we’re going to get that. However, the UC also has a low rate
of fund-raising from its alumni. If you compare it to other
institutions that are comparable, we don’t raise as much money from
our graduates. And that’s something that I know a number of the
chancellors are concerned about, and the UC system as a whole has
been talking about fairly recently, ever since I’ve been following
what’s going on. You know, I think there’s been some discussion on
whether or not student fees are going to be able to stay low, and
that’s going to be a really tough one because students and families
don’t want to pay more and yet, how are we going to pay for all of
this?
So you see part of the emphasis of fund raising should be more
in terms of getting alumni to donate?
Right. For example, capital campaigns or other special projects.
But I don’t see that as being a long-term solution. A big chunk of
the money has got to come from the state of California, from the
people willing to give more money, and we’re just going to have to
speak up as the people of the state and force our legislature to do
that.
You see this happening now?
No I don’t. That’s one reason why I’m talking about it because
we do not support public education, not from the state, and we have
to just maintain where we’re at. We’re sliding backwards in terms
of the number of faculty we need, in terms of our building for
maintenance issues, in terms of our library resources, and it’s
going to reach a point where we can’t catch up and we need to do
that in order to maintain the reputation of the system but also to
serve the needs of the number of students that will be coming
through.
You talked a little bit about domestic partnership as I believe
it was your No. 1 issue.
Yes, and that’s because its on the board agenda this week. The
regents are going to vote on whether or not to extend domestic
partnership benefits in the form of retirement benefits, health
insurance benefits and housing indirectly via the chancellors at
each of the UC campuses.
It gives the UC president permission to authorize these kinds of
benefits to employees and students at the campuses. The chancellors
are probably the ones that will wind up administering housing
simply because it is a different campus issue.
I’m for it. I think that for us to be competitive as an employer
in this state, we need to do it. I think it’s the right thing to
do. We’re certainly not on the leading edge. Most of the leading
educational institutions do it already and the major employers in
California do it. And we will lose faculty and staff if we don’t do
this.
There is an opinion among many people that the Board of Regents
is a group of aloof, wealthy, political cronies of the governor
with little background in academia or educational policy. Do you
find this to be the case?
I do think it’s true that most of them don’t have a background
in educational policy. I think that frequently the expertise they
bring to the board is different; it’s administrative or business. A
lot of these people own their own businesses, have been successful;
some of them have contracts that have been very helpful to the
university. So, there are things that they can bring to the board
other than educational policy. Obviously, they do have the
connection to the governor because the governor appoints them.
What about the whole appearance of being aloof and out of touch,
as individuals to an extent and as a board?
It’s interesting. I’ve found that most people tend to think of
the Board of Regents as if they’re all homogeneous, and they all
think alike, vote alike and that’s not true. We all have very
different opinions. Some of the most important votes, such as SP-1
(the measure that abolished affirmative action in UC) for example,
were not unanimous votes and it’s important that students realize
that. However, once a vote is taken, it’s traditional for the
entire board to support that vote, and I think that’s why they come
across as a block. In addition to which I don’t think we as regents
travel the campuses enough. And a number of the regents feel that
way and would like to see that change.
But for instance, with the SP-1 and SP-2 issue, they went
against every facet of the university. They ignored the arguments
and the concerns of every chancellor, every student body president,
student government and academic senate. How do they reconcile
that?
I think we’re paying the price for that right now. I think we’re
seeing as a result it’s incredibly difficult to work with students
in particular. The chancellors still continue to work with the
Board of Regents, but it’s clear that a number of them were not
happy with this decision, and then they’re forced to come up with
programs to implement that decision. One of the things that the
regents are trying to do is address that as a problem.
Since the passage of SP-1, SP-2 and Proposition 209, the UC
system has witnessed a decline in applicants and enrollment of
people of color. Do you think there is a perception that the
University of California is hostile and an unwelcome environment
for people of color?
I think we have a problem both with perception and with reality.
I have a problem with Prop. 209 and SP-1, but in addition, I have a
problem with the perception that we have given that
under-represented minorities aren’t welcome, and I don’t believe
that that’s true. But we started a situation where fewer
under-represented minorities are going to come which is going to
make it less attractive to future applicants. In addition to which,
there are a few students who are not under-represented minorities
who don’t want to come to a school that isn’t diverse. And the UC
is going to have to get very aggressive about responding to that,
or I think we’re going to get several years into the process and
then we’re going to have a problem.
So is this a valid perception then?
I think it is. Well, I think it’s valid in the sense that it’s
sort of creating its own trouble. I mean I think we are beginning
to see the loss of applications. I’m not as concerned with looking
at the admissions numbers as the applications because I think we’re
losing applications from a whole bunch of qualified students, both
minorities and not those who just aren’t considering the UC. That’s
a real problem for the UC.
What can the university do to change that?
Well, I think it’s going to require an effort on several levels.
I think the regents need to be speaking out publicly across the
state – not just at the regent’s meetings – saying, "Look, we want
everyone to consider the UC." I think system-wide, the Office of
the President has to really promote and take advantage of the
outreach task force proposal that came before us and be aggressive
about that. It’s going to have to look like we really are trying to
encourage a lot of students to consider the UC campuses. I think
that each campus has decided it’s going to have to deal with it on
a local level. The campuses are going to have to do their own
outreach efforts. And then things are going to have to change in K
through 12 in order to get students thinking early enough along
from junior high level on about attending UC.
One hot topic at UCLA, and I know for a number of campuses for
the past couple of years, has been the whole movement by graduate
students to unionize. What is your opinion on that whole movement
in general?
I have to say I’m still thinking about that one, and that may
end up being a really unpopular position to take right now. I am a
grad student at UC Santa Barbara. I do TA there.
It seems to me there are advantages to both systems, either to a
system where you unionize or to a system where you’re not
unionized. A certain part of it is out of our hands, it’s going to
be up to the courts maybe to decide whether unionization is allowed
to go through.JAMIE SCAN:ON-JACOBS/Daily Bruin
Student regent Kathryn McClymond wants to focus on budget issues
and outreach.