<
(SACRAMENTO)— In response to recent acts of racism and hateful vandalism committed by students at several University of California campuses, Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and Senators Gloria Romero (D-East Los Angeles), Denise Ducheny (D-San Diego) and Carol Liu (D-Pasadena), sent the following letter to UC President Mark Yudof and the Chancellors of the 5 concerned campuses inquiring about their policies and the enforcement of those policies.
President Mark G. Yudof
University of California
UC Office of the President
1111 Franklin St., 12th Floor
Oakland, CA 94607-5200
Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau
University of California, Berkeley
Office of the Chancellor
200 California Hall #1500
Berkeley, CA 94720-1500
Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi
University of California, Davis
Mrak Hall
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616
Chancellor Michael V. Drake, M.D.
University of California, Irvine
The Chancellor’s Office
Irvine, CA 92697-1900
Chancellor Marye Anne Fox
University of California, San Diego
Office of the Chancellor
9500 Gilman Drive
La Jolla, CA 92093-0005
Chancellor George Blumenthal
University of California, Santa Cruz
200 Clark Kerr Hall
Santa Cruz, CA 95064
President Mark G. Yudof
March 3, 2010
Dear President Yudof and Chancellors,
We are writing to share your outrage at the recent acts of racism and hateful vandalism committed by students at five UC campuses. Like you, we were shocked and mortified. Thus, we were pleased to read that leaders of the UC community have publicly denounced and condemned these and all acts of racism, intolerance and incivility. We were also pleased to read of the efforts at some of the affected schools to investigate the despicable acts as hate crimes.
However, we do not wish to rely on press accounts to ascertain UC’s responses to the despicable acts. We therefore are writing to inquire what policies UC and its campuses have in place to deter such abhorrent acts; what UC and its campuses have done to enforce those policies; and what policy changes UC may be considering to ensure that these vile acts do not recur. Specifically:
· What policies does UC have in place with respect to prohibiting the vandalism of school property with hate speech (such as the painting or carving of swastikas or other hateful graffiti on the property)? Is there a uniform UC policy or do individual campuses set their own policies? (To the extent that individual campuses set individual policies, please note and elaborate in the following questions as well.)
· What penalties or disciplinary sanctions do the UC policies impose for the vandalism of school property with such hate speech?
· How does UC make its students aware of its policies?
· In the past five years, how many incidents of these and similar forms of vandalism have been reported to UC campus officials?
· What is UC’s policy with respect to the investigation of these acts and how many of these incidents in the past five years were investigated?
· What is UC’s policy with respect to the disciplining or prosecution of the offender? How many disciplinary actions or prosecutions have been taken in the past five years?
· What discipline or corrective actions have UC taken in response to the recent incidents on the five UC campuses? What policy changes, if any, will be made?
Unquestionably, these vicious acts create a hostile atmosphere for the affected students, making their student experience unnecessarily more challenging than it already is. News articles have reported on students’ perception of pervasive racism on several campuses.
We know you share our concern that this problem must be addressed, at all campuses, so the educational opportunities and experiences of a UC student are not compromised by a hostile environment that is not conducive to higher learning. We also know all of us are concerned about what these incidents say to prospective students, who may decide to turn away from UC in favor of other, less hostile academic settings.
We all share the goal that our universities should be training tomorrow’s future leaders to recognize and celebrate our multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-religious, and LGBT diversity, and not be harbors for racism or hate of any kind.
· What deficiencies have been identified in UC policies that could enable a racist or hateful climate to exist on any UC campus? And what improvements to those policies have been or are being considered?
We look forward to hearing your responses to these concerns and working together to address them. Our budget and policy committees will be monitoring your progress.
Sincerely,
SENATOR DARRELL STEINBERG
Senate President Pro Tempore
SENATOR GLORIA ROMERO
Chair, Senate Education Committee
SENATOR DENISE DUCHENY
Chair, Senate Budget Committee
SENATOR CAROL LIU
Chair, Senate Budget Committee,
Subcommittee 1
cc: Karen French, Associate Director, UC Office of Legislative Affairs
The UCB budget gap has grown to $150 million, and still the Chancellor is spending money that isn't there on expensive outside consultants. His reasons range from the need for impartiality to requiring the "innovative thinking, expertise, and new knowledge" the consultants would bring.
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean that the faculty and management of a world-class research and teaching institution lack the knowledge, impartiality, innovation, and professionalism to come up with solutions? Have they been fudging their research for years? The consultants will glean their recommendations from interviewing faculty and the UCB management that hired them; yet solutions could be found internally if the Chancellor were doing the job HE was hired to do. Consultant fees would be far better spent on meeting the needs of students.
There can be only one conclusion as to why creative solutions have not been forthcoming from the professionals within UCB: Chancellor Birgeneau has lost credibility and the trust of the faculty as well as of the Academic Senate leadership that represents them. Even if the faculty agrees with the consultants' recommendations - disagreeing might put their jobs in jeopardy - the underlying problem of lost credibility and trust will remain.
The signs of UC Berkeley’s relative decline are clear: Cal tumbles from 2nd best in the world. In 2004, for example, the London-based Times Higher Education ranked UC Berkeley the second leading research university in the world, just behind Harvard; in 2009 that ranking had tumbled to 39th place.
ReplyDeleteWhen UC Berkeley announced its elimination of baseball, men’s and women’s gymnastics, and women’s lacrosse teams and its defunding of the national-champion men’s rugby team, the chancellor sighed, “Sorry, but this was necessary!”
But was it? Yes, the university is in dire financial straits. Yet $3 million was somehow found to pay the Bain consulting firm to uncover waste and inefficiencies in UC Berkeley, despite the fact that a prominent East Coast university was doing the same thing without consultants.
Essentially, the process requires collecting and analyzing information from faculty and staff. Apparently, senior administrators at UC Berkeley believe that the faculty and staff of their world-class university lack the cognitive ability, integrity, and motivation to identify millions in savings. If consultants are necessary, the reason is clear: the chancellor, provost, and president have lost credibility with the people who provided the information to the consultants. Chancellor Robert J Birgeneau has reigned for eight years, during which time the inefficiencies proliferated. Even as Bain’s recommendations are implemented (“They told me to do it”, Birgeneau), credibility and trust problems remain.
Bain is interviewing faculty, staff, senior management and the academic senate leaders for $150 million in inefficiencies, most of which could have been found internally. One easy-to-identify problem, for example, was wasteful procurement practices such as failing to secure bulk discounts on printers. But Birgeneau apparently has no concept of savings: even in procuring a consulting firm, he failed to receive proposals from other firms.
Students, staff, faculty, and California legislators are the victims of his incompetence. Now that sports teams are feeling the pinch, perhaps the California Alumni Association, benefactors and donators, and the UC Board of Regents will demand to know why Birgeneau is raking in $500,000 a year despite the abdication of his responsibilities.
The author, who has 35 years’ consulting experience, has taught at University of California Berkeley, where he was able to observe the culture and the way the senior management operates.