UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • MERCED • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO

SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ

Members of the UC Board of Regents:
As former Chairs of the Academic Senate and Faculty
Representatives to the Board of Regents, we are writing to
express our serious concerns about item G8 on your July
agenda. This proposal would amend the Regental policy 7102
on the conduct of searches for UC chancellors, and we strongly
urge that the Board not accept the proposed changes to the
search process. Many of us have served as members of
Chancellor search committees in the past and recognize that
there are positive changes that could be made to the search
procedures, including some of those contained in the
recommended revisions. But there are two proposed changes
that we find highly objectionable, changes that alter
fundamentally shared governance in the roles that have been
delegated to the Academic Senate and to the President of the
University in the recruitment of Chancellors.
Our first objection concerns Section 4 of the proposal, which
significantly diminishes the role of the faculty in the search
process. Under current policy, the five faculty members of the
search committee work with the President to develop and
screen the initially large group of potential candidates for the
position and to recommend at least five (and usually more)
promising candidates to the full search committee. Under the
proposal currently before you, this role for the faculty would be
eliminated and handed over to a non-University search firm. We
question the value of delegating this responsibility to an
external entity, rather than leaving it with the faculty, given the
faculty’s core commitment to the University and its continued
excellence. The faculty are key stewards of academic quality

 and essential agents for advancing academic diversity; their
partnership in the search process is paramount to the success
of any new chancellor chosen. Faculty buy-in is crucial to the
success of a chancellor, and any policy change that suggests
that the faculty have a lesser role to play in selection will
inevitably lead to a lesser faculty investment in the success of
an appointee.
Our second objection is to the proposed Section 6 of the policy
that would require the President to meet privately with only the
regental members of the search committee, and then seek
their approval of the President’s choice prior to submission for
approval by the full board. The effect of this change is to
fundamentally undercut the authority of the President in
selecting Chancellors. Moreover, because the chancellors all
report to the President, such a change would serve to
undermine the ultimate authority of the President. In our view,
consultation by the President with the regents on the search
committee might be appropriate and advisable, but seeking
their approval to forward a name is not.
We also wish to call out two other aspects of the Report of the
Working Group on Chancellor Search and Selection.
First, we found the nature and methodology of the survey and
interviews that was used to motivate the report’s
recommendations to be deeply flawed. While the survey as
presented falls short of rudimentary standards for data analysis
and presentation, we have serious questions about its value as
a basis for making decisions about key matters pertaining to
University governance and leadership.
We were also
astonished to note that faculty were not included among the
many “University stakeholders” who were interviewed for the
report. We would be happy to share these concerns with you in
more detail, both regarding methodology and purpose.
Second, it is suggested in the report that the UC faculty have
been an impediment to the diversification of the University.
Along with the Regents, the diversity of the University
community has been a core value of the Academic Senate, and

 the Senate has worked tirelessly to advance diversity, inclusion
and equity through a wide range of initiatives, both on its own
accord and in coordination with Office of the President.
Historically, we can point to the Academic Senate’s strong
opposition to SP-1 and SP-2, which were passed by the
Regents, and note importantly that the Regents Policy on
University Diversity was written and approved by the Academic
Senate. While there has been progress, we recognize how
much more there remains to be done throughout the University
community to advance our diversity goals. The Academic
Senate has been, and will continue to be, committed to these
goals.
In closing, it is our view that the process used in crafting this
amendment is not in keeping with the best practices of our
University. There was no prior engagement with the Academic
Senate, there were no faculty representatives on the Regent’s
Working Group, and faculty were not included in those
interviewed for the report. If we are to develop fruitful
modifications of the search process, they must respect our
prized system of shared governance, inclusive of the input of
Academic Senate and the new administrative leadership of the
University.
As former leaders of the University of California Academic
Senate and Faculty Representatives to the Regents, we urge
the Regents in the strongest terms not to adopt the proposed
amendments to Regents Policy 7102. To do so would be an
affront to the faculty and to sound University governance.
Sincerely yours,
Robert M. Anderson, Academic Senate Chair 2011-12
Gayle Binion, Academic Senate Chair 2002-03
George Blumenthal, Academic Senate Chair, 2004-5
Jim Chalfant, Academic Senate Chair 2016-17
Lawrence Coleman, Academic Senate Chair 1999-2000
Michael Cowan, Academic Senate Chair 2000-01
Mary Croughan, Academic Senate Chair 2008-09
Aimee Dorr, Academic Senate Chair 1998-99

 Mary Gilly, Academic Senate Chair 2014-15
Dan Hare, Academic Senate Chair 2015-16
Bill Jacob, Academic Senate Chair 2013-14
Robert May, Academic Senate Chair 2018-2019
Duncan Mellichamp, Academic Senate Chair 1996-97
John Oakley, Academic Senate Chair 2006-07
Lawrence Pitts, Academic Senate Chair 2003-04
Henry Powell, Academic Senate Chair 2009-10
Robert Powell, Academic Senate Chair 2012-13
Dan Simmons, Academic Senate Chair 2010-11 and 1994-95
Sandra Weiss, Academic Senate Chair 1997-98
Shane White, Academic Senate Chair 2017-18
Note: UC Provost Michael Brown, Academic Senate Chair 200708 has recused himself because of his current position as UC
Provost.
cc. Academic Senate Chair Kum-Kum Bhavnani
Academic Senate Vice-Chair Mary Gauvain
President Janet Napolitano
Provost Michael Brown
President-elect Michael Drake