Here's Berkeley's course description of Ethnic Studies 198: The Prop. 209 Project:

SPRING 2006 DIVERSITY RESEARCH SEMINARS FOR UNDERGRADUATES

Application Deadline: Wednesday January 18 (details on how to apply below)

The Office of the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education is pleased to announce a
unique opportunity for Berkeley undergraduates to participate in an action research
seminar designed to enhance the campus's understanding of issues of diversity and
inclusion.

Seminars will be taught by Berkeley faculty in collaboration with staff in campus units
working to promote a climate of inclusion on the Berkeley campus and beyond. Each
two-unit seminar will be limited to 12 students. Either individually or in teams, students
will tackle one or more research questions on a diversity-related topic described below.

The research findings will be presented to Chancellor Birgeneau, senior campus
administrators, and other campus and community stakeholders at the end of the semester
and will help inform campus policy decisions and initiatives regarding diversity and
inclusion.

Two seminars will be offered in Spring 2006:

Ethnic Studies 198: The Prop. 209 Project
Co­Instructors: Professor David Montejano, Ethnic Studies; Professor Taeku Lee,
Political Science
Time: Tuesday 4-6 PM (first class meets on January 24)
Location: Shorb House Conference Room, 2547 Channing Way @ Bowditch
Number of Units: 2
Course Enrollment: 12
Requirements: Students must have completed a minimum of 60 units.

Course Description: In the 1990s, California voters passed a series of "anti-diversity"
referenda - the "anti-immigrant" Prop. 187 in 1994, the "anti-affirmative action" Prop.
209 in 1996, and the "anti-bilingual education" Prop. 227 in 1998. Many have interpreted
these results as a backlash against the rapid demographic changes taking place in the
State. In this research seminar, we will examine this hypothesis-and also speculate about
possible antidotes. Taking Prop. 209 as our chief case study, we will explore the various
facets that made this campaign a successful one, including looking at the weaknesses of
the "pro-affirmative action" campaign. In the first part of the course, you will map out
the likely geography of anti-diversity, pro-diversity and swing districts in the State. In
the second part of the course, you will use this analysis to craft a political strategy for a
successful "pro-diversity" initiative in the State. What kind of voter turnouts would be
necessary, what kind of campaign would have to be mounted, what "framings" of
affirmative action policies are most likely to succeed, what contextual factors have to be
in place, and so forth? This second part of the class will allow for considerable creativity
on your part. Projects will be evaluated on an individual basis. A presentation of each
project will take place at the end of the semester.

Here's the policy that forbids University of California schools from offering such blatantly ideological courses as Ethnic Studies 198.

POLICY ON COURSE CONTENT
Approved June 19, 1970
Amended September 22, 2005

Students who enroll on the campuses of the University of California are parties to a moral and contractual relationship in which the University, on its side, is obligated to provide quality education, to recognize student achievement with grades and degrees which have an accepted meaning for transfer to other institutions, for graduate work, and for careers. The Regents are responsible to the people, to the faculty, and to the students to see that the University is faithful to this contract. They have the responsibility to see that the value of the diploma is not diluted, that it maintain its meaning to graduates and to future employers. They are responsible to ensure that public confidence in the University is justified. And they are responsible to see that the University remain aloof from politics and never function as an instrument for the advance of partisan interest. Misuse of the classroom by, for example, allowing it to be used for political indoctrination, for purposes other than those for which the course was constituted, or for providing grades without commensurate and appropriate student achievement, constitutes misuse of the University as an institution.

It should be understood that the Board of Regents has always recognized the importance of an "open forum policy" on the campuses, of a free exchange of ideas, and of pursuit of the truth wherever it may lead--popular or unpopular though that may be. There are many hours available during the daily activities of students and faculty for free discourse on matters of concern to them as citizens. It cannot be argued successfully that it is necessary to interrupt progress of an academic course or to modify grading procedures to provide such discussion. It is the Regents' responsibility to the very concept of a University to protect the institution from the misuse of the classroom and to ensure the rights of all to teaching and learning.

Therefore, it is The Regents' policy that no campus, no academic college, no department, and no instructor distort the instructional process in a manner which deviates from the responsibilities inherent in academic freedom. The right of students to have their classes held on the regularly scheduled basis and to be taught by the instructor whose responsibility it is to teach the course in question is to be upheld.

April 27, 2006
Dear Chancellor Birgeneau,

Perhaps you are unaware, but UC Board of Regents' Policy on Course Content
(http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/policies/6065.html)
states that the university must "remain aloof from politics ...."

The course description for "Ethnic Studies 198: The Prop. 209 Project" (being taught this
Spring 2006) states that students will analyze data "to craft a political strategy for a
successful 'pro-diversity' initiative in the State." This course, part of your Chancellor's
Diversity Research Seminars for Undergraduates, was promoted by the Office of the Vice
Provost for Undergraduate Education. According to the announcement, course findings
are to be presented to you [an outspoken critic of Prop 209] as well as other stakeholders.
An application form for those wanting to take the course included the following: "Please
describe any technical skills that would be useful in a political campaign."

California taxpayers and voters are outraged that a UC policy is being violated. Using a
course for the scholarly analysis of politics is one thing. Using a public university course
to craft a political strategy and campaign that advances your (and others') political agenda
is quite another.

We look forward to your response, which we will post on our website.

Sincerely,
Luann Wright
President
NoIndoctrination.org

Cc: UC President Robert Dynes
The UC Board of Regents
Professor David Montejano
Professor Taeku Lee
Vice Provost Maslach
Senator Jack Scott, Education Chair

Please reread the policy carefully. The clear intent of the language—It cannot be argued successfully that it is necessary to interrupt progress of an academic course or to modify grading procedures to provide such discussion.... The right of students to have their classes held on the regularly scheduled basis and to be taught by the instructor whose responsibility it is to teach the course in question is to be upheld—refers to interruptions in classes. Given the original date and who was governor at the time (Reagan), I'm going to cautiously guess that it was crafted in response to (and trying to prevent additional) antiwar teach-ins that stopped classes. There really isn't anything in the policy that's aimed at what faculty appointed to teach the course do in the middle of classes. The alleged violation of policy just isn't self-evident.

One thing that you don't identify in itself as a serious problem but that one might find politicized in the course description is the major assignment: you will use this analysis to craft a political strategy for a successful "pro-diversity" initiative in the State. (The rest, analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the different sides in a campaign, should be uncontroversial, at least in a course description.) If the reverse had happened—209 had lost, and a course assignment was to design a campaign that would have been successful—would you be complaining, or would it be a legitimate task in an academic class, to design a strong argument? Be careful of making quick judgments on these matters. I know of a political-science faculty member who designed a course to encourage political activism and placed students in local campaigns during the semester, primarily or perhaps only with Republican candidates. Awful indoctrination, obviously!... except that the faculty member was a true-blue registered Democrat.

What remains is the implication in the course description that an "antidote" to the political climate of the successful 209 campaign is desirable. Great wording for a course description? Inviting to folks with a variety of views? Maybe not. But I think it borders on the paranoid to suspect that the class will be used to formulate a successful initiative campaign. After all, I presume conservative students will be in the class, and giving them an open view into this alleged campaign-design process isn't brilliant electoral strategizing.

Sherman,

The phrase in the policy on course content that concerns me--as I noted in this post--is the phrase about how the university must "remain aloof from politics and never function as an instrument for the advance of partisan interest." I have no issue with the phrases you excerpt, for the same reasons you don't--they don't apply to this course.

Likewise, as I noted in both this post and this one, I am not concerned with "indoctrination" here so much as I am with the manner in which UC is conflating coursework and partisan politicking--and doing so at taxpayers' expense.

You say "it borders on the paranoid to suspect that the class will be used to formulate a successful initiative campaign" -- but I think we need to accept that this is the course's stated aim, and that the aim is taken seriously enough by the university to extend the promise that the work students do in the class "will help inform campus policy decisions and initiatives regarding diversity and inclusion."

You underestimate me when you suggest that I would be just fine with a pro-209 initiative undertaken as an academic course.

There is a downside to suggesting this course should not be taught. I'm very interested in classes that have some kind of tangible project as part of the work for the course, that try to apply the knowledge they produce to the world.

So it seems to me that a class on public policy or political science might well be an exemplary class if it set out to ask, "If one was going to put together a campaign for an initiative, how should one go about that?" You could pose that question as both a philosophical one (what is the ethically right way to campaign for initiatives in a political system like California's? Are there boundaries that should not be crossed) and a practical one (how does one raise money? from whom? coordinate a campaign? etc.)

You might protest that your criticism in this case wouldn't stop such a class from taking place, but please, think about the unintended consequences. Rules have mischevious ways of doing damage to perfectly innocent practices, even when they're addressing legitimate problems. Creative and inventive people get stifled when bureaucracy is on the march: the transaction costs of innovation go way up.

Give me a way you'd clearly make a distinction between the class you describe and the one I've described in this post, and feel safe that your distinction would hold if an aggrieved partisan objected to the "experimental" course in public policy.

Tim,

Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I am troubled by the same issues you are. At the same time, it also troubles me that the university appears to be offering this course in part to get students to function as a partisan think tank for its own initiatives. My post ended on a question mark because I wanted to emphasize how you can think two ways at once about a course like this: one the one hand, opportunities for hands-on, applied learning are great; on the other, enlisting students as students in the service of university agendas strikes me as a hornet's nest of its own. Your own ideas on how one might strike a balance in stated policy between directed learning and exploitative course designs would be most welcome.

Partly I would say, "Have more faith in students, and more faith in the internal markets that operate within a given curriculum". A course that is simple-mindedly partisan, undimensional and taught in a hack-like, plodding way will often disappear from a curriculum on its own UNLESS it is made a requirement. So what I would look to prevent in this case is not any individual course, but simply prevent highly partisan, one-sided courses from being written into curricular structures as inevitable requirements.

I think that it is better to have a few clunkers or misfires, partisan and otherwise, in a curriculum than to advocate the enforcement of rules or strictures that will systematically suppress pedagogical innovation. One of the problems I have with some of the criticisms of courses like this is that they tend to assume they are synecdoches, that they stand in for a larger whole. But if you look at Berkeley's curriculum, the course you describe actually looks like an isolate of sorts in many respects. So even if you think it's a violation of established guidelines, I would say the harm that such a violation does in relationship to the harm that significant enforcement of those guidelines might do suggests that it's better to do nothing.

Third, on the question mark at the end, I'm not sure it *would* be unethical. I have a colleague here who used his sabbatical in part to do extensive and rigorous study of the way we allocate our faculty resources in comparison to a large group of similar colleges. That study was presented to administrators and faculty here, and has been useful in planning. If he had taught that as a course, and asked students to work with him, I think that he still would have been entitled to share those results and expect them to help in planning processes. (And I think the students might have found it very enlightening).

Given that example, if a university declares that it has an institutional interest in particular policy debates within Washington or at the level of state government, wouldn't a course that worked through those debates and provided useful resources to the institution be legitimate? Or, to cite another example, some students here are very active in the Free Culture movement (concerned with intellectual property, copyright, digital media, etc.) I share their interests, and I have spoken at their events from time to time. I've talked about how their commitments might affect colleges like this one, and even suggested they might press the faculty here to move towards open access publication models. If I taught a class in copyright, intellectual property, open access, blogging and so on, wouldn't that be a good thing? If one of the group projects for the class was "A Plan For Lobbying Swarthmore Faculty on Open Access", would that be wrong, as long as I insisted on open debate, exploratory learning, etcetera, in the process of drafting the plan?

Where would you cross the line into doing something wholly illegitimate or unethical? I don't know, but it is hard enough for me to imagine a case that unambiguously stepped over the line to the point that I would say it justified serious administrative action or stronger enforcement of administrative rules.

Erin,

I still think you're taking language from the 1970 statement out of context. I could take it out of context in a different way, pointing out that a single, transitory faculty offering isn't a university position, but I think that would be an equally-inapt misreading. This was written in the midst of the Vietnam War, and I suspect I could find other institutions that wrote anti-teach-in policies within a year or two of the Calif. Regents. If you have evidence to the contrary from the period in question, I'll eat my words. (I mean here about the California Regents, not other institutions--it's not fair to ask anyone to prove a negative.)

In terms of the broader discussion, I agree with Timothy Burke. For me, the risk of squashing policy-relevant courses outweights the risk of a single course entangling the university in partisan affairs.

I am not directly involved in universities in any way. The problem I see with Mr Burke's position is that he is talking about Swarthmore which is most definitely not a publicly funded university. What that university does as a private institution does not have the same limitations that need to be visited on publicly funded universities.

The other problem is that the way the course is presented practically tells you that if the findings of the students can potentially be used to attempt to overturn Proposition 209 then that is what will be done with the findings. It just seems wrong to me to set up a course at a publicly funded university which endeavors to use the students to define a proposition that will then be used to try to overturn a proposition that was voted and passed by the citizens of the state of California. It is one thing to do this as a class study and keep it in the class. The description of the course in my view opens up the possibility that the findings will actually be the basis of an attempt to subvert the wishes of the citizens of the state that is funding the university. That just strikes me as a totally unethical position. Regardless of Mr Dorn's beliefs the statement of the university policy that was mentioned in the letter stated that the policy was as amended in 2005. Therefore regardless of when and under what situation the original policy was set up, the current policy is as dated 2005 and therefore should trump any attempt by the Berkeley to subvert the policy as they tried to do here.