Excellence in research has long been one of the most cherished aspects of the mission of the University of California. While few would question the importance of that mission, there is considerable debate concerning the appropriateness and value of certain kinds of research. Clearly, not all research is valued equally by all groups. Indeed, even within the University, some areas have greater prestige than others. There are striking differences in the status accorded research dealing with the traditional majority community and newer research areas such as ethnic and women's studies. There are even differences in the value granted older areas of inquiry such as those focusing on Western Europe and the Eastern United States, on the one hand, and Latin America and other areas of the world, on the other. Many University of California scholars assume that their fields of investigation are pre-eminent because the traditionally distinguished institutions, located in Western Europe and the Eastern United States, have emphasized those areas; this is particularly true in the humanities and the social sciences, but it is found in other areas as well.
Given the change in the population of California, the University can no longer continue to live in the past. While the study of the traditions of Western European and the Eastern United States must continue, the University needs to expand its approach to emphasize the broader cultural experience found in the State and among its student body. In other words, the University must strengthen its research efforts in the other cultural traditions. As one of the leading universities in the world, the University of California has contributed to the study of all areas of human knowledge. It has long devoted some resources to the study of the "less prestigious" areas. But if the University is to respond to the needs of the future, it must allocate greater resources to those areas and realize that they are not any "less prestigious" than any other areas of inquiry. (Why, for example, should studies of seventeenth century French or New England villages be considered more important than studies of contemporary California cities such as Los Angeles or San Francisco?) Such a change in emphasis will not only strengthen research on Chicano/Latino issues, Mexico and other Latin American countries, it will contribute to the recruitment of minority faculty, students, staff, and administrators in those areas and consolidate ties with Latin American and particularly Mexican institutions. This will constitute a change in emphasis, rather than an inauguration of new programs, because faculty interest in such areas is strong and basic structures exist.
The University already possesses ORUs in Chicano Studies, in Latin American Studies, and in U.S. - Mexico Studies, and it maintains extensive contacts between UC faculty, especially scientists, and Latin American institutions. The UC Consortium on Mexico and the United States (UC MEXUS) is an excellent model for promotion of interdisciplinary, intercampus and internationally collaborative research in these areas. It was established in 1980 to provide support for UC endeavors which focus on Mexico and Mexican origin populations in the United States, and its activities, while modestly funded by the University, have contributed significantly to the expansion of interest and extramural more support of these areas. Formalization of the status of UC MEXUS and funding appropriate to its Universitywide responsibilities should occur immediately. It is not the case, therefore, that faculty and administrators in the University have not been concerned with these issues. Rather, the University has provided only meager support for these endeavors. There is a vast difference, for example, between the backing the University has granted Pacific Rim initiatives and the support it has given to Hispanic activities. Part of the answer, of course, is that the University must acknowledge that Mexico and other countries in Latin America are part of the Pacific Rim. The Hispanic population in the State might also be considered an aspect of the Pacific Rim. Although broadening the notion of the "Pacific Rim" is valuable, Hispanic issues must not be simply subsumed as an aspect of that program. Hispanic studies -- Chicano, Latino, Mexican and other Latin American studies -- at UC must be recognized and supported separately on their own merits.
It is clear that the condition of research in the areas addressed by SCR 43 is, at best, incomplete. That is, there is much we do not know about the population we call Hispanic. This is due not only to the complexity and changing nature of the population, but also to the fact that academic study of Hispanics is a relatively new field. This is reflected in State and national population data which provides over the past decades few accurate distinctions concerning Hispanic residents. Research centers which focus upon the U.S. Hispanic population have been established in only the past two decades. And the training of future generations of scholars and scientists who will concentrate m these areas progresses slowly because of the present dearth of faculty members to train them.
Thus achievement of the research and training objectives identified in this report will be dependent upon increased human resources, i.e., scholars and scientists working on Hispanic topics, which will accelerate the pace of research essential to informing State and federal public policy.
This acceleration is dependent also upon increased financial resources, to encourage researchers to concentrate in the area and to support the research itself. In the University of California, such resources in the past have been derived from a combination of federal, private and University sources. State support, through the University's State-funded research budget and through direct State agency grants, has been very small.
Table 1 provides some insight. Drawn from the University's 1987-88 Campus Financial Schedules, the table details the amounts and general sources of expenditures for research in those UC units most closely related to the subjects of SCR 43. In these units, less than two million dollars in State and University funds were spent in 1987-88. Some units supported nearly their entire research agenda on extramural funding alone. While additional University and State funding will have contributed to Hispanic-related research in disciplinary-based units, and while it is impossible to extract the amount of such expenditures, the support given to the University's units charged to perform research in Hispanic issues is an indication of the University's meager commitment in this area. In contrast, in 1987-88 the University expended more than three million dollars in the preparation of the super-collider proposal.
The pattern of federal government support for research in these areas is changing. First, federal agencies, with some exceptions, are doing more in-house research. In addition, the federal government and foundations are increasingly likely to put their resources into non-academic think tanks. For example, the Ford Foundation's 2.8 million dollar immigration project was awarded to the Rand Corporation and the Urban Institute. There is an increasing misperception among the agencies that nonacademic think tanks have more clout with legislative bodies, and that the universities are more likely to be biased in the issues addressed. Interestingly, much of the work awarded to the think tanks is later subcontracted to the universities, or the research is "milked" from university researchers.
Eighty percent of funding for social science research comes from private foundations (and in our two-year sample, 100%) and these have enormous influence over what gets done. There are important UC efforts that are very much at risk because of shifting agency priorities. The maintenance of these University assets depends now on the capricious or short-term agendas of largely East Coast private foundations. Issues such as those raised by SCR 43 are often thought of as regional, not national, issues by these foundations, and New York Program Officers are not particularly sensitive to California's interests. Typically they will provide only start-up funding for new projects. Projects meriting continuation must too often be abandoned by the University because they have been abandoned by the East Coast foundations whose interests and priorities change as often as annually. For example, the Social Science Research Council, a major source of support in the past for Chicano/Latino research, assigned only $12,000 in 1988 for Latin American topics. The Ford Foundation's strongest current emphasis is in agriculture. And at the federal level, Office of Education Title VI funding is down 65% this year.
Therefore, the University of California has to reduce the vulnerability of its own programs to the whims of external funders. The only solution to this problem is to reduce dependence on extramural funding for projects and programs the University has determined are essential to meeting its research mission in the state and the time in which it exists.
An analysis of the University's records of extramural funding received in the years 1984-85 and 1987-88 reveals some interesting patterns (See Table 2). For projects related to the broad range of issues presented in SCR 43, federal support fell by nearly $700,000, or close to 18%, between fiscal years 1985 and 1988. Grants from foundations and charities combined increased by $412,570 over the period, an increase of 42%. The overall increase of 4.63% in funding is hardly impressive in light of inflation.
Interesting also are shifts in the kinds of projects supported by various sources. In Table 3, a $1.1 million reduction in support for basic research is offset by $.9 million in new applied research funding and small increases in support for training and developmental research.
Net declines in foundation and federal support, in light of the meager institutional and State support provided to the research units central to study of California's Hispanic population, mean that important assets it has taken years to build will be liquidated. The Committee understands that two organizations whose work is directly related to SCR 43-- the Field Research Program on Mexican Migration to California in the UCSD Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, and the Spanish Speaking Mental Health Center at Los Angeles -- are scheduled to terminate all activities during this fiscal year. It is essential to note that these two programs have been the sources of some of the most critical data available to support applied research activities about California's Hispanic population. Even in medical schools, traditionally well-funded, important research areas are discontinued because of shifts in agency priorities. The dramatic shift in emphasis from basic to applied research reflects federal and foundation priorities which do not support essential new research areas with as yet undetermined potential for application to public policy. Therefore, it is imperative that the University not only continue, but expand, support for a broad range of Hispanic research activities. Research support should also include specialized libraries and publication outlets. Current support for libraries dealing with Hispanic and Latin American issues is not sufficient to meet the need. The collection of publications, documents, and other materials is critical if research on Hispanic issues is to prosper. It should be substantially expanded. For more information on UC library needs, see "Latinos and the University of California libraries," appended to this report. Similarly, publication outlets for such research should be broadened. The University of California Press, one of the largest university presses in the nation, devotes little attention to Hispanic and Latin American issues. Although UC Press was once well known as an important publisher of Latin American materials, it has not allocated significant resources to such publications in the last two decades. And it has scarcely demonstrated an interest in Chicano and other Latino works. Generally faculty within and outside the UC system consider UC Press either disinterested or hostile to Hispanic and Latin American publications. Other university presses, such as University of Texas, Princeton, New Mexico, Nebraska, and Notre Dame, are known as the leaders in those fields. This should change. Also, UC sponsors some of the leading journals in Chicano, Mexican, and Latin American studies, but they receive little support from the University. This too should change. The University of California should be in the forefront of knowledge in Hispanic and Latin American studies. Important publishing efforts have been established in some of the ORUs. These also require University support, and they are important sources for researchers in areas related to SCR 43.
Of course not all Hispanic faculty investigate Hispanic and Latin American issues; many are engaged in non-area-specific research in the arts, humanities, social sciences, the professions, and the sciences. The research activities of all Hispanic faculty must be encouraged. Funds should be made available to support their research. This will increase the University's attractiveness to outstanding Hispanic faculty. In addition, many Hispanic and other scholars have collaborated with Mexican and other Latin American institutions. These exchanges should be supported and expanded.