Speaking as a professor in the UC system, I wouldn't want to lose sight of the fact that the regents' decision goes beyond the specific issue of Affirmative Action, because the way that that decision was reached violated one of the most fundamental principles organizing the UC system,which is shared governance. The regents, of course, themselves in 1988 granted powers to the faculty and administration in the UC system to work out hiring and admissions. It would enhance the number of people of color and women in the system, so this is a marked reversal. The only reason that I have found convincing for this reversal is presidential politics, and I think that was very much in evidence at the regents meeting. He's chosen an issue which certainly is divisive and may well attempt to build upon 187, and what Wilson was able to do in terms of fostering scapegoating towards immigrants.
Shared governance is out the window.
I take it that people will find informal ways to attempt to maintain the goals, which have never been rescinded. The goals of creating a representative UC constituency remain. The means are what are attacked by the regents' proposal These kinds of informal negotiations concern me greatly. Not simply students of color and women, but all students who see in this message a closing of the doors at this campus. I also have to be concerned about how the regents' decision will be translated into a reaction against research that's race-oriented and departments that have organized themselves around race study.