Towards the end of May, CUCFA sent a letter to the leaders of UC’s new National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement, asking for their help in stopping the “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act” (ASAA) and H.R. 4508 (commonly known as the “Prosper Act”). Last week, Executive Director Deutchman responded to our letter. Our original letter and her response are both online. Below is our followup to that response:

July 5, 2018

Dear Ms. Deutchman,

Thank you for your response to our May 30 letter expressing concerns over the potential impact of two legislative initiatives on the relationship between free speech and academic freedom on our campuses. And thank you also for sharing it with the University Office of Federal Government Relations.

While we appreciate both gestures, we are puzzled by your statement that “the Center is not in a position to engage in this sort of legislative advocacy.” We read in its very first statement of purpose that:

“…the Center explores how the fundamental democratic principles of free speech and civic engagement must adapt to the challenges and opportunities of modern society. Through research, advocacy, debate and discussion, the Center helps ensure that the next generation of leaders is prepared to defend and advance these values,” (our emphasis – https://freespeechcenter.universityofcalifornia.edu/about/)

We also notice that the Center bears the quite ambitious name of National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement (again, our emphasis), and that it is situated in UC Washington DC. We therefore find it odd that a Center advocating for civic engagement and claiming national status would refuse to engage with issues that touch directly on its central mission.

We would very much appreciate some clarification regarding the way you intend to manage and steer the activities of the Center. Our confusion about its mission and raison d’être stems in large part from the absence of faculty involvement at all levels of the initiative. With the exception of the designation of two prestigious academics, Professor Chemerinsky and Chancellor Gilman, as co-Chairs of its Board of Advisors, and the presence of Lawrence Stone (University of Chicago) on the Board, none of the ten members of its Advisory Board is a current member of any university faculty. In addition, no UC Senate Faculty Committee was ever charged with, or created to assist in designing the purpose and activities of the Center, or in choosing its Advisory Board, or its Executive Director. While the President of our University has the right to create Centers, our Compendium (https://www.ucop.edu/institutional-research-academic-planning/_files/compendium_sept2014.pdf) regulating the establishment and running of Academic Units, including “Centers” (see especially p. 29) unequivocally prescribes consultation with the “Academic Senate.” And it is a time-honored convention of shared governance in the UC System that the budget and activities of even “non-ORU” (Organized Research Units) Centers are subject to faculty Senate input, periodic reviews, and appropriate reporting.

We would like to use this exchange as an opportunity to learn from you how the Center’s leadership understands not only its mission but also its relationship to UC Senate faculty, for we would also be happy to assist suggesting ways UC faculties could be better integrated into the activities of the Center.

On behalf of the Council of UC Faculty Associations Executive Board,
Claudio Fogu,
CUCFA Vice President for External Relations,
and Associate Professor of Italian Studies, UCSB