This last post fits well with my comment about Mr. Kerr: "just not sympathetic enough for the student protestors, and a little too sympathetic for the electorate and Reagan".

All I can do is paraphrase Governor Pat Brown's response to criticims of his administration's record on civil rights: something to the effect of 'we did more than we had to'. I'll try to find the exact quote again. Before people get upset about this, in context 'had to' means, 'what the electorate was actually ready for', not, 'what we would have done in the ideal'. For those who doubt the elder Brown's sincerity, I have one word: Rumford.

As for Mr. True and the University's opportunities to defend itself, a press release from Liz Irwin is a rather weak defense. Governor Schwarzenegger doesn't read those. Orange County voters don't read those. Ward Connerly [yes, thankfully he's gone now, but he was a good example of a powerful Regent] doesn't read those. The people who make decisions about UC just see the circus effect. They *will* respond negatively.

The problem with Mr. True's hunger strike and petition -- and indeed, with Tent University -- is that these activities are external (political) rather than internal. They could have permanent negative repercussions for the University. Governor Reagan's hands-on approach to UC stands as an example. The example is being replicated today by Governor Schwarzenneger, who targets UC programs that he doesn't like, through his budget proposals (outreach to disadvantaged high school students; labor think-tanks; etc.).

Instead of confining the struggle to internal venues (the bargaining table, in Mr. True's case), the protestors have gone public (political). The internal decision-makers aren't perfect, but they are more moderate than the external (political) ones. The internal people could be used as a bridge, or more properly a firewall, between the harsh external world (it is hard to deny that the State's electorate is becoming more conservative) and the friendlier, internal world that the protestors live in. I am speaking up for compromise and discretion, because these approaches can win results. Save the revolution for the really big problems (viz., my Charlayne Hunter-Gault example).

I do find it interesting that we *want* a firewall between politics and the University when we are getting our way. For example, we don't want Governor Schwarzenegger to be able to use his budget powers to kill high school outreach. We invoke the constitutional guaranty ("The university shall be entirely independent of all political or sectarian influence and kept free therefrom in the appointment of its regents and in the administration of its affairs", blah blah blah) and are thankful for it.

However, when we aren't getting our way, we quickly to shift the struggle to the political arena, appealing directly to the public (voters) and to the politicians. For example, UC unions love to quote Assembly Member Dion Aroner ("worst public employer", blah blah blah). For Ms. Aroner to comment (regardless of which side she takes) violates the spirit of the constitutional guaranty. Still, the UC unions welcome her involvement, because she happens to be taking *their* side.

This wavering -- (a) if you're trying to do something "bad", UC shouldn't be subject to political control or (b) if you're trying to do something "good", UC should be subject to political control -- is hypocritical. It's also stupid, when the person with real decision-making power (i.e., with his fingers on the pulse of an electorate that's turning to the right) is Governor Reagan or Governor Schwarzenegger.

Let's return for a moment to the employer-employee relations example that one person constructed. Let's imagine that our employee is making statements about our coffee that are partly true but also contain some distortions (maybe there was a mouse in the coffee, not a rat, and just one batch was affected). Let's also say he's protesting in the middle of our cafe, scaring off our suppliers, our lenders, our business partners, and our customers -- for good, not just until we can improve our coffee.

If the employee really wanted to help us improve our coffee, without destroying our business, he'd work closely with us, and keep his complaints internal. If he did go public, it would be with a positive message, such as, "The boss knows there are some problems with the coffee, and he's been working with me to solve them." The public message wouldn't be: "Everything about the coffee is bad, and by the way, please sign this petition encouraging the boss to resign."

In the latter case, firing the employee would clearly be in the best interest of our business. I am not saying that Mr. True and the Tent University folks are quite so extreme as our hypothetical employee. Their comments about UC do seem to more negative than positive, though. Circulating a petition calling for the resignation of a brand new and not entirely unsympathetic Chancellor can hardly be called constructive. I can only guess how M.R.C. or Sinsheimer would have handled to Tent University.

Regarding a public employer's opportunity to excise an employee, it is true that the employer could poison the work environment by changing the employee's hours, etc. However, these actions would be tied up in grievance hearings for years. They would not be effective.