There’s really too many things to address in this article, but the underlying premise would be a start.

First, the fact that a seemingly random person—someone who doesn’t participate in Occupy UCLA’s General Assemblies or other core organizing—was portrayed as a spokesperson is incredibly irresponsible, if not malicious, journalism.

Second, the relationship between Yee’s bill and Occupy is tenuous at best. This raises another major issue of this article, that it ignores that there are interests BESIDES “Occupy UC” that are upset about the budget and management of the UC, and in so doing pretends that the massive surge of protest during the 2009/10 academic year never happened. For example: the Unions, USAC, UCLA Fights Back, the Mother Orgs, etc. Whether Yee is trying to placate them is another issue, but it sure isn’t intended to buy off the Occupy movement, and more likely is Yee’s attempt to represent the interests of his constituency. Yee consistently has been a critic of the UC management for a number of years now, interrupted only by his unsuccessful bid at the San Francisco mayoralty.

Third, no one thinks that reducing executive management pay will solve the budget crisis, but it is a start, and a very symbolic gesture. At a time when tuition is increasing and staff are fearful of layoffs, it seems quite inappropriate for administrators to receive massive raises. And the timing is even more insulting: at every Regents’ meeting for the past few years—since we’ve heard about the budget crisis—administrators have received grotesque salary increases literally the same day that the Regents approve equally grotesque tuition/fee increases, with the justification that they’re “necessary.” Of course, the Regents argue that quality management needs to be paid market rates (because they’re doing such a good job privatizing the UC), but the same logic doesn’t get applied for the people who actually make the UC the world class institution that it is: the lecturers, librarians, low-level administrative staff, graduate students, etc. If you want a stark indicator of how far BELOW market wages most UC employees are, consider that UC librarians are paid about 20% LESS than Cal State and Community College librarians, and UCLA in particular has recently lost a number of great librarians to Community Colleges and LAPL, where salaries are considerably higher. That’s not just a problem, that’s embarrassing. Similarly, UC teaching assistants are paid at least 10% less than the national average, with one of the highest costs of living in the country. And, as the UC Regents have argued, maintaining a top institution requires attracting top talent, but you can’t attract the best people in their fields with below market average wages.

Fourth, this article assumes that there is a genuine budget crisis, or at least that everything is caused by a lack of state funds. Yee was actually on the forefront of getting the CA Legislature to audit the UC, which the UC has militantly refused for a number of years. The audit, completed over the summer and then completely ignored by news media, demonstrates very clearly that UC is sitting on huge piles of money, while siphoning money away from education into projects that don’t benefit students or society. Is state funding decreasing, and is that harming public education? Yes and yes. But this mentality neglects the fact that the UC is taking out billions upon billions in construction bonds to renovate the façades of buildings, while securing amazing bond rates by telling investors that tuition can be raised infinitely as collateral. Additionally, UC can’t even necessarily account for its entire budget: in the audit, $1 Billion was listed under the single line item “Miscellaneous Services,” and no one in UCOP could explain what that money was being spent on.

Finally, if the author had any clue about the Occupy movement—and by “clue” I mean merely that he had bothered to talk to anyone actually involved, rather than just a “supporter” that he knows—he would understand that new legislation is not a top priority. Everything that the students want can be granted directly by the Regents and UCOP, and the closest thing to a legislative solution they want is that the UC follows state law and the Master Plan. No law is needed to stop rising executive pay, no law is needed to restore budget cuts or cap tuition or increase financial aid. What is ultimately needed is a true democratization of the Regents, so that it’s not comprised EXCLUSIVELY of former CEOs and billionaires, but instead of educators, students, and workers, who understand the needs of the UC and its role in society, and are held accountable to the people they represent. The current state of the UC Regents meetings demonstrates this lack of accountability: a token public comment session that the Regents spend pissing or checking their email, while the building is ringed by heavily armed riot police.

Flag this comment

This really is sinking to new lows of terrible journalism, even by the Bruin’s standards.
In addition to everything John said—which I agree with, though would’ve used many more expletives had I said it myself (since not only is this shoddy journalism, but maliciously so, in that it harms the only truly progressive student movements and progress with anti-factual statements and illogical claims drawn from them)—I have several other concerns.
How do you stand so starkly against moral victories that have no negative consequences? Why is it bad to win a moral victory that—though it may not lower tuition directly—will still help curb certain inequalities we can all agree are pretty terrible (for example, that the regents all make large 6 figure salaries every year, on top of large 6 figure yearly bonuses, both self-awarded and ever increasing despite supposed mounting budget crises)? Any rational being can see that this money could easily go to more practical and equitable sources—like paying actual educators more (something this could easily do, since it reduces bloated administrative pay, and we now have more UC administrators than educators, thanks to these previously uncurbed policies of administrative bloat and self-rewarding despite terrible performance). That is a practical good unto itself, on top of the moral good of the semblance of fair pay.
Secondly, this article takes the extremely stupid stance of failing to see any connection between incentive and action; you think that curbing grotesquely and exponentially increasing salaries/bonuses won’t directly create enough money to lower tuition, so there is no connection it could possibly have to tuition. Are you fucking kidding me? Do you intentionally create the most illogical farces of claims you can to maliciously undermine well-intentioned movements or pieces of legislation, or are you just so lazy and ineffective that you allow your own ineptitude to do that work for you? The regents control tuition hikes; the regents like large paychecks; by creating legislation that says the regents cannot give themselves larger paychecks when they are hiking tuition, the regents may think twice next time about unnecessarily hiking tuition. Can you really not see that, or are you just intentionally trying to mislead your readership as some psychological experiment or Swiftian farce?
It also bears repeating from John’s comment that not a single person even tangentially involved in Occupy UCLA was consulted whatsoever in writing this, and yet it claims backseat insight into our morality, aims, and efficacy; it also bears saying that you’re standing against what you even admit is a moral victory just because it is also not (what you perceive as) a practical victory.
Let me say that again: the point of your article is that moral victories with no negative consequences and even some demonstrable direct benefits and many reasonably assumed indirect potential benefits are worse than nothing. How does that make any sense, and how is that worth writing about? How are you so critical of a piece of legislation you admit is a step in the right direction, but are (completely wrongfully) critical of both the authorship and the reach of? Why are you writing this instead of doing something if you’re claiming the closest steps to actual reform of the horribly plutocratic and corrupt UC system are not enough, and worse than nothing?
I seriously hope the Daily Bruin reconsiders allowing painfully inept, grossly inaccurate, harmfully misleading, and laughably hypocritical “writers” such as yourself to continue to spread your propagandish drivel. You disgust me.

Flag this comment

“to institute the executives we want, we must offer competitive compensation.” As the article implies, a bill that restricts compensation could cause us to lose talented or valuable executives. This bill likely will have negative consequences. Flag this comment

“We are so quick to blame UC executives for any misfortunes that occur, but to institute the executives we want, we must offer competitive compensation. This will ensure that the most qualified individuals apply for these positions, which is the UC’s best hope for implementing substantial change.”

In response to GT, there’s a very perverse hypocrisy at work here regarding competitive compensation. On the one hand, the backbone of the UC is deliberately not paid competitively, as I explained in my earlier comment. On the other, it’s not just offering competitive salaries to attract the best people, it’s also granting performance bonuses to people whose achievements cannot be explained to the general public or even the university community. Moreover, it also entails seeking out people like Mark Yudof for top positions, who had a clear track record as a public raider, someone who devastated every university he set foot in: he managed to single-handedly create budget crises and jack up tuition at Minnesota and Texas before coming to California; it should really be no surprise that the budget cuts—or rather their effects—arrived with Yudof. If we have well-performing administrators who can actually demonstrate their worth to the students, then the question of compensation is one worth pondering; but I find it extremely difficult to find competitive salaries justified for people who clearly (and obviously intentionally) are only making things worse. But then again, it only makes sense when you consider that the administrators’ responsibility is to their corporate overlords (i.e. the Regents) rather than the students, and the Regents have been using the UC’s investments in their own firms and funds to milk the University dry—thus Yudof et al are doing EXACTLY what they were hired to do, and are deserving of the high salaries under this logic.

Flag this comment

Rohannnn, homieeeee, if you wanna know about Occupy UCLA, ask people from Occupy UCLA. Quoting a random dude who sympathizes isn’t really allowing us much of a window to represent ourselves (no offense to random dude). =)

Flag this comment