Imagine the UC being unable to focus on energy research because some people do not believe global warming exists or unable to develop hydrogen fuel cell technology because big oil wants to ensure they have a strong petroleum demand in the domestic market. What would your university look like if it could not do research that benefited the people of California and, for that matter, the world?

Led by State Senator Yee and co-sponsored by Senators Romero and Ashburn, the proposed Constitutional Amendment SCA 21, and similar assembly version ACA 24, would eliminate UC's autonomy and could seriously jeopardize the ability of the university to conduct politics-free research. Yee's idea would make the UC subject to legislative control and therefore subject to political ideology and threats from ultra-political or religious organizations. Senator Yee's larger goals are commendable. He seeks to rein in UC's executive compensation practices and bring them in line with the conditions our state currently faces. He also believes it's necessary for UC to be more responsive to the legislature's demands, the needs of workers and the impact of student fee increases. I could not agree with him more. I've voted against student fee increases, have criticized the Office of the President for not going as far as I believe they should when it comes to executive pay, and have argued for the need to increase diversity in order to be more reflective of the state.

Senator Yee is right in his desire to see the UC become the best possible institution it can, especially given his coveted status as a Cal alumnus. But is his approach the best one? I don't think so and I'll tell you why. He aims to improve the institution by removing the UC's autonomy instead of addressing the fundamental problems facing the UC. These efforts are misguided because he refuses to acknowledge the state's failure to live up to its commitment in the Master Plan of fully funding higher education and hasn't acknowledged the state's inability to fund healthcare costs.

He hasn't acknowledged the degree of influence the state could have if all of the ex-officio regents actually showed up consistently. He doesn't acknowledge the change in leadership and moves toward transparency the new president has taken to un-entrench the system from its poor practices. He hasn't thought through the impact of subjugating a research enterprise to the political whims of conservatives or liberals who will certainly attempt to stalemate funding for the UC when they disagree with a particular research agenda.

I write as a student researcher, a community organizer, an alumnus, a teacher and a regent. While I agree with Senator Yee's desire, I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with his approach. There are a few unexplored and sufficient ways to accomplish what he seeks to do without destroying the institution. It's been said "you don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water," and the proposed amendments would do just that. Here are a few things both the state and the UC could do to address the senator's concerns, the students' frustration, the workers needs and the public's outrage in efforts to build trust and accountability.

First, demand more accountability.Currently, the legislature has multiple means of oversight: They control the state funding we receive; can compel the UC to report on performance on all kinds of issues; call the President of the University and Regents of the Board to express their concerns directly; encourage the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the Assembly or Superintendent of Public Instruction to attend meetings as ex-officio members; hold public legislative hearings; issue a legislative/committee report; use the "bully pulpit" to bring public attention to their concerns; specifically for the senate, use the confirmation process of gubernatorial appointees to the Board of Regents to appoint more oversight-oriented regents.

There is no evidence these processes have been sufficiently utilized and there are state laws and regulations that apply to us in many areas. The nature of the constitutional autonomy is specifically spelled out in Article IX, Section 9, and it does not mean the regents operate totally outside state law.

Second, invest in higher education so we can pay worker increases, not raise student fees and create jobs through capital projects.

Third, help us set goals and targets for areas such as graduation rates, diversity and technology transfer so we can meet the needs and future of the state.

The UC is a system that educates nearly a quarter million students each year, recognized internationally and nationally for its research and public service, a formidable economic engine for the state and regions where campuses are located and a place where people discover who they want to become.

While I not am here to criticize the state's leadership, I do point out the trouble the governor and legislature currently face while trying to balance the budget, deal with term limits, fix Proposition 13 and address the "2/3rds" rule.

From where I stand, they don't seem to need anything else on their plate, let alone a world renowned public research institution that brings in more federal dollars annually than any other public research university in the country.

Finally, there are three problems with the proposal as I see it. This amendment could do irreparable harm to academic freedom; it opens the door to many unintended consequences when there are less damaging options; and it brings the UC under the direct control of a legislative body with significant troubles of its own. If you care about the future of your state, you would oppose these amendments too.

Tags: SCA 21, ACA 24