UC Riverside Provost/EVC Search

December 14, 2010

Dear Chancellor White,

On only two days notice, Tom Campbell visited UCR last Friday as a candidate for Executive Vice Chancellor/Provost. Campbell is best known as a politician, most recently as a Republican candidate for the Senate. He has been a congressman from California's 12th and 15th districts, and is a former professor at Stanford Law School, the former dean of the Haas School of Business, and a former professor of business administration at the University of California, Berkeley.

Campbell has spoken in favor of Arizona's SB1070, opposes "sanctuary cities" that seek to protect immigrant rights by advising police not to check on the legal status of residents, and co-sponsored a House of Representatives bill declaring English the official language of the US.

These positions seem highly inappropriate for the EVC/Provost of UCR, a Hispanic-Serving Institution, a status that you yourself highlighted in your October 15, 2010 Friday letter. Regarding President Obamas Executive Order regarding the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans, you wrote: As one of the few research universities in America that is designated a Hispanic Serving Institution, and in order to reach the ambitious education goals we have set for our nation, we must provide the opportunities needed to raise Hispanic education attainment. In direct contrast to your statement, appointing a politician who has given support to controversial anti-immigrant legislation would send the wrong message about UCR's commitment to diversity and to the education of all Californians.

Given Campbells stringent support for anti-immigrant legislation, it is hard to imagine his appointment as anything less than extremely divisive on a campus that prides itself on its racial, ethnic and cultural diversity, and embraces the value of the immigrant experience as central to its identity.

To our students, many of whom are themselves undocumented, and many more of whom come from families with undocumented relatives, his appointment would be viewed as an absolute betrayal. What would be Campbells stance if he were to have oversight over law enforcement on campus in future? Would he continue to believe that local law enforcement should help enforce our nation's immigration laws? Would he hold that sanctuary areas have no legal merit, and would he authorize or encourage campus security to cooperate with Homeland Security to deport individuals? Campbells appointment would create a chilling climate on campus, not only for students who come from mixed status households, but for all those from an immigrant background, who make up the majority of our student population. Moreover, given his extremely problematic stance on these questions, it seems shocking that our students would be given no real opportunity to publicly examine and engage critically with his views. His visit occurred on the last day of finals, a time when students can hardly be expected to focus on anything other than their academic work.

To many of the faculty, as disturbing as his stands on SB1070 and sanctuary cities are, the rhetoric he uses to support this position is perhaps even more alarming. In a recent radio interview, he drew an analogy between the secession of Southern "rebel states" and sanctuary cities, suggesting that insofar as a sanctuary city is not enforcing federal law, it is behaving like a rebel state. He suggested that sanctuary cities are akin to slave-holding states, and that taking a stand against SB1070 is therefore akin to supporting slavery because all opposition to federal law is effectively the same. Such rhetorical slippage, packaged as a rational interpretation of the relationship between states and the federal government, is deeply disturbing to many of us. This fast-and-loose play with history is being used to rewrite American history and to nearly criminalize the politicization of American studies in fields like Chicano Studies, Ethnic Studies, and Asian American Studies. It also raises troubling questions about Campbells role in promotions and tenure: many faculty engage in scholarship on matters relating to racial, ethnic, linguistic and cultural diversity, and are critically engaged with the lack of attentiveness and opposition to the voices of marginalized populations in mainstream discourses. How will Campbell assess those of us who are openly critical of such positions on this matter in our scholarship, and how neutral can any such assessment be? What would this mean for academic freedom on our campus?

The decision about the EVC/Provost appointment on our campus comes at a crucial historical moment when the rights of immigrants, minorities and other vulnerable or disenfranchised populations are publicly being discussed, negotiated, and sometimes openly denied. Given our identity as the University of Californias most diverse campusand our commitment to its flourishing as suchCampbells positions on immigration are immediately, powerfully relevant to our campus in ways that his stands on other social issues are not.

Most troubling of all is the apparent haste and stealth with which this decision seems to be occurring. The position of EVC/Provost is crucial to UCRs future, yet the public search process is being held in 10 days during finals and winter break. Mary Croughan, the other candidate, is scheduled to visit UCR on Wednesday, December 15, 2010. The comment period ends on December 20, and the entire search has occurred during a time when most members of the campus community are understandably already engaged in other matters involving finals, family and travel plans for the holiday season. Moreover, the short list is the shortest possible one, with only two internal UC candidates; this process would be flawed even if these candidates were perfect.

Whether or not Tom Campbell is an appropriate candidate for EVC/Provost, there are many important questions that deserve a full public discussion regarding the position. Rather than making a decision in haste, we ask that the process be extended until such time that members of the campus community have had a better opportunity to examine the candidates records and express their views. Rushing to make a decision during the holiday season would not allow for the full transparency, debate and public comment that ought to characterize an appointment of such tremendous magnitude for our campus. We urge you to extend the EVC/Provost search process until January, and to include more than simply the two internal UC candidates currently being considered, which will allow for a more open, deliberative and consultative process involving the participation of all members of our community.