The issue: For the first time, the UC Regents meeting has been canceled because of safety concerns.
The UC Board of Regents recently canceled its November meeting because of concerns for student protesters’ safety. And while its intentions were good, it faced a lose-lose situation.
Student critics have accused the regents of playing a game of strategy, tactically avoiding large, angry crowds. But if the meeting had continued as planned and a student had gotten injured, repercussions may have been severe. In both situations, the regents would have been held at fault.
It is convenient to implicate the regents for all sorts of unpleasant happenings within the UC. However, the regents are largely fighting for our cause and student blame is misplaced. Of course there is the possibility that protests may have been peaceful, but there was a high risk of violence.
Prior to canceling, UC law enforcement officials informed the regents that in addition to peaceful protesters, violent and confrontational demonstrators would also be present.
According to a press release by Sherry Lansing, chair of the UC Board of Regents, Vice Chair Bruce Varner and UC President Mark Yudof, failure to adhere to UC law enforcement officials to cancel or postpone the meeting, “might constitute a reckless disregard of credible law enforcement intelligence.” Ensuring public safety was imperative to the regents.
Meanwhile, protesters have concluded that postponing the meeting shows the regents do not want to face the large volume of unhappy students. And for this particular meeting, time and money invested in planning were not small. Student Regent Alfredo Mireles Jr. said student organizers across the different UC campuses had planned for the meeting for months and invested thousands of dollars.
The cancellation has upset students and organizers who have had to alter or cancel plans, believing the move to be a cowardly one. However, Mireles said, “(The regents) appear to be sincere in that they believe there were legitimate safety concerns for students that were coming to protest. The message that I got was the UCSF police said they could not safely secure the meeting.”
Although this is the first time a regents meeting has been canceled because of public safety concerns, this level of negative student reaction is not without precedent. The tuition hikes in 2009 garnered an increase in protests. Yet, meeting schedules went unaltered.
Meetings have been canceled only three times before: in response to the 1989 Loma Prieta, Calif. earthquake, the Sept. 11 attacks and the 2003 Iraq War. And a 2009 outbreak of the bird flu caused the last postponed meeting. All were grim and urgent matters. I am not lost on the severity of the above events; I am merely pointing out that canceled meetings have had legitimate reasons and that protests have been welcomed in the past.
The next regents meeting will be a teleconference on Nov. 28. To welcome student input, the regents will lengthen the time allotted for public comment at each location. Protesters will now have an hour instead of 20 minutes to share their opinions. This move shows an increased concern for students and their voices.
I, like most other students, dislike the increased tuition. Yet, the regents are working to decrease costs in light of state disinvestment. The press release also stated that the meeting’s agenda “included updates from UC staff members on several initiatives that have been launched in an effort to offset state disinvestment in the university” and that “a tuition increase was never part of the agenda for this meeting.”
Instead of condemning the regents, let’s go to the state legislature, where the real decisions are made.
Email Lee at jlee@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
opinion@media.ucla.edu.