UCLA Graduate, Undergraduate, Staffm and Faculty Press Conference

Daily-Bruin: Not far from where they met only two weeks ago, a group of undergraduates, graduates and union representatives congregated at 3 p.m. to hold a press conference following a long-sought-after meeting with Chancellor Gene Block.

The meeting with Block was held earlier in the day at 11 a.m. It was organized after the UC-wide walkout that occurred on the first day of school, bringing more than 400 protesters from Bruin Walk straight to the doors of Murphy. A smaller group of about 30 attended the press conference.

Miguel Lopez said that Block may or may not be attending the town hall forum, tentatively scheduled for Oct. 20, 21 or 22. He still has to confirm.

Lopez said the students, faculty and workers would continue mobilizing, “with or without Block.”

Jackie Robinson was a stellar athlete, a change agent, a civil rights silent/present leader, and a Pasadena resident. Despite his gifts and talent, the city’s leaders and built environment long denied the Robinson family and other families of color access, equity, and respect. Fast forward past the Civil Rights movement and an outstanding MLB career, the city sought to jump on the Robinson bandwagon to no avail. The deep racism embedded in Pasadena city politics and culture kept Jackie Robinson away and gave him the foundation to deny the city’s requests to honor his legacy.

Courtesy of the LA Times

Now, in 2009 the city still has not gotten the message and is in a heated debate over the (re)naming of a Pasadena Park situated right next to the infamous Rose Bowl. Read more here

University of California, Los Angeles

October 5, 2009

Dear Chancellor Block,

We write you at a pivotal point in the history of California and of the UC system.  California’s budgetary crisis is unprecedented and its effects—from job losses, to funding cuts, to social program reductions—are being felt at every level and in every area of the state.  Today, we write in defense of what we believe to be our state’s most valued resource and most recent budgetary casualty—students.

UC fee increases are neither new nor simply the result of the state’s current budgetary crisis. Last spring, the Regents increased student fees by 9.3 percent.  In the last ten years, education fees have been raised approximately 170 percent.  The Regents are now asking more of UC students than it ever has before, planning to take action and approve fee increases in both the Fall and again in the Spring quarters this year.  What is new, what is different—is the fact that more of us are now aware of the impact and severity of recent financial decisions and the grave trend of privatization attached to them.  This time around UC students—along side with UC faculty and staff—are working together toward progress and will not stop until we realize a brighter future for all Californians.

The Impact on Future UC Students

In a recent interview UC President Yudof said that “the state has stopped building the highways to higher education, and they’ve started building toll roads.”  He also said that those who will bear the brunt of the fee increases will be middle class families.  We write to tell you that President Yudof was mistaken. Those who will be most harshly impacted by these fee increases will be minority students and students from low-income families—the students who scrapped, struggled, and sacrificed to become the first in their families to even attend college. While increases in fees may be seen as a drop in the bucket for wealthy families or as a toll in the road to higher education for middle class families—for many first generation, poor and minority UC students, this latest increase in fees will serve as a roadblock altogether.

On September 25, 2009, Los Angeles Unified School District posted its final list of the public schools it intends to sell off to charters. The list includes all the available new schools built to relieve the overcrowded conditions of East LA and South Central schools that have forced tens of thousands of students to be tracked into completely unviable learning environments. Allowing for the privatization of the UC system, means opening the floodgates for further privatization at all levels in California public education and across the nation. We must continue to defend the great democratic principle of public education and reject any invitation to join the current dishonest and cynical attack against it.  In standing against the further privatization of UCLA, we are leading the fight against the privatization and further resegregation of all California public schools.  The legacy and applicability of landmark cases like Plyler v. Doe, Menendez v. Westminster, and Brown v. Board of Education are in serious jeopardy if we allow the current attack on our public schools to succeed.

The Impact on California’s Students

There is no question that pervasive inequality in educational opportunity is the source of income inequality in the United States.  Education remains one of the strongest influences on income distribution—and determines who will be our society’s future leaders and who will have to settle for less.  If we allow for the current and future fee increases—minority students and the poor will be effectively barred from attending UCLA and more of California’s low-income, minority students will be both undereducated and underpaid, fueling the disastrous cycle of systematic inequality that perpetuates poverty and underachievement.

We see the Blue and Gold Opportunity Program as an initial step in what we hope is a long-standing institutional commitment to access, diversity, and equity by the University of California.  We will work with you to expand this program to reach its full potential. Within the UC’s, current and proposed fee hikes are already having an impact on the most vulnerable.  Low-income students—a group disproportionately comprised of underrepresented Black, Latina/o, Native American, and Asian students—no longer have traditional worries like exams and terms papers.  These worries have now been overtaken with anxiety about how to pay increasing fees while still being able to afford the bare necessities like rent, transportation, and food.  The very system whose mission has been to make education accessible for all Californians is currently constructing a barrier to education for most of our state’s population—in order to maintain UCLA’s academic distinction we must end this practice now.

Each year 50,000 to 65,000 undocumented students graduate from U.S. high schools—25,000 of those students are from California.   These students are discriminatorily denied access to state and federal college financial aid, and even if they overcome this and graduate their future remains uncertain. The families and communities of undocumented students contribute billions of tax dollars and incalculable hours of poorly paid labor that benefit the economy. Giving their sons and daughters access to higher education is fair and just and can be addressed through your commitment and leadership.  It is in the best interest of all Californians to protect the longstanding legal right of undocumented students to receive the same public educational opportunities as everyone else.  

California’s Future

The UC system is the life force of California’s economy. According to the May 23, 2009 Los Angeles Times article, California Budget Crisis Could Bring Lasting Economic Harm, the long-term effects of decisions made by the UC could far outweigh the near-term effects.

“…the expected deep cuts in education spending could thin the state’s human capital, potentially forcing California companies to look elsewhere for skilled workers as well as new plants or even headquarters.  Promising students would go to other states, taking their future skills, earnings and, possibly, Nobel Prizes elsewhere.”

As graduate students we look forward to working with you, undergraduates, faculty, and staff united to maintain the quality and excellence of UCLA for all Californians.  We believe that all Californians—with and without papers—have the right to live free from discrimination and exploitation. The destructive tradition of employers using anti-immigrant raids to suppress union organizing and workers demands will not be tolerated on the UCLA campus or anywhere in California.  Raids, employer audits, and mandatory use of the E-Verify system harm immigrants, their employers, their communities, and our economy and ensure the destruction of communities where immigrants have settled and contribute to the growth of our state and national economy.  Very simply, the future and potential of California rests upon the ability of all Californians to access affordable and quality higher educational opportunities in the UC and beyond.  Without this—California’s economic vitality will be in serious jeopardy.

As members of the UCLA Graduate Students Association leadership, we represent the interests of not just graduate students, but every UCLA student and it is with that responsibility that we write to tell you that we stand against fee raises on the most vulnerable, a decision that will ultimately result in the privatization of higher education, the destruction of accessibility and diversity.  We stand against fee hikes as a long-term harm to UCLA, the UC system, and the state as a whole.

In addition, we look forward to discussing with you our efforts to achieve an increase in underrepresented student enrollment, a scholarship program for undocumented immigrant students, and an end to UCPD-ICE collaboration.  In order to better serve UC students we underscore the importance of the Regents providing full disclosure of the UC budget and transparency in the decision making process, taking a strong position against all privatization efforts for the UC and all public school systems in California, and calling on the Obama administration to release public stimulus money to fund public education and bail-out the UC.

After meeting with President Yudof this weekend at UC Irvine we have a renewed sense of the hard work that lies ahead.  Following that initial conversation, we look forward to continued meetings with you Chancellor Block, as well as President Yudof, and the Regents.

####

Now this discussion can go two ways: term limit changes to ensure elected officials are dedicated to policy that will be beneficial and healthy for California or if the term limit law happened after you, does it still apply…

I will address the latter. I know that I am generations behind political peers, but to know that Jerry Brown was already Governor of California for two terms and is planning to run for a third is just plain wrong to me. I completely understand the precendent in terms of when the law was incorporated, etc. etc. But come on, you already served two and have access to another two IF you can raise enough money, carry the Latino vote, and address your impotence on Prop 8.

As a young Californian, lets give the Capitol some new life. Whoever is there right now needs to go, obviously, and moreover, in mass exodus. (I was super excited about Steinberg and Bass in leadership, but now I am just totally disillussioned with every single legislator up there). Talk about unveiling the early retirement programs to address the budget, we have our pilot group right in front of us.

I diverge. So Jerry Brown wants to be governor. He might as well be; PPIC has clearly suggested that the state’s voters are old, white, and relatively well-off. Soungs like Brown’s perfect constituency. Now I don’t have the stomach for the former Mayor of Oakland and his opportunity to reinvent himself for my peers failed drastically with his lack of movement and political prowess on the Prop 8 legal hearings. Is he ready to take a stance and save our public education system, vouch for protecting students and lower-ranked faculty in the CSU’s, UC’s, and CC’s, courageous to pioneer and sign a single payer health care bill into law (Khuel where are you), and incorporate undocumented workers into the framework of our state with dignity, respect. After all he was at the helm when the state pioneered the property tax movement for the nation and passed Prop 13; I cannot in good faith trust him to lead us out of this budget fiasco. It was his leadership grandfathered us into an inequitable system of property taxes favoring corporations and early white homeowners.

I will say that the one thing I like about Brown is his gubernatorial portrait, impressive; but I think Newsom will far outdo this contemporary canvas.