Editorial: Student input is necessary in scheduling decisions

In an attempt to accommodate one group of students, University of California headquarters succeeded only in proving the dire need for a conversation about shared governance at every level.

As the Daily Bruin first reported on Jan. 6, the next academic year will begin a week later than normal at UC campuses following the quarter system, shortening winter break to two rather than three weeks. Since then, a petition calling for the UC to return to a schedule with a three-week winter break garnered more than 25,000 online signatures.

Sweeping scheduling decisions deserve the input of a wide range of UC stakeholders, and should not be handed down with student feedback as an afterthought.

Student outcry on the scheduling issue proves an important point, mirroring in many ways the controversy that surrounded the UCOP’s decision tointroduce a new UC logowithout seeking input from students, faculty or alumni. Similar concerns were raised the next year when Janet Napolitano, a U.S. Cabinet secretary, was appointed to the UC’s top spot without much consultation of students or faculty.

It is apparent that the bumped-up schedule was the result of good intentions, triggered by policies that seek to accommodate students who observe major religious holidays. In this case, the holiday was Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, which will fall from Sept. 24-26 this year.

But University officials, in multiple interviews and email exchanges with the Daily Bruin, have been vague about what policies and which administrators are responsible for the anomaly, at first, citing policies regarding move-in conflicts for dorms.

The UC later changed its story to cite a number of relevant policies, but has as of yet failed to specify which in particular is responsible for next year’s abnormality.

The confusion of UC staff is unsurprising: The University’s policies are themselves convoluted and opaque. Specifically, the move-in policy the UC pointed to at first mentions “major religious holiday” without defining that term.

It should be noted that the UC is not the only party with a loose grip on the relevant facts. The petition against the new schedule claims the UC changed the quarter schedule in January 2014, when in fact the abnormal schedule was planned years in advance.

Nonetheless, the students signing the petition have made their opinion clear that the schedule is a hindrance for them. Accommodating students is ultimately a good cause, but administrators must recognize that virtually any schedule change will inconvenience some while benefiting others.

“(Calendar changes) should be for everybody or not at all,” Neyamatullah Akbar, president of the Muslim Student Association,told the Daily Bruin last week. We agree.

In the past, the UC has been inconsistent in their accommodations for religious holidays – move-in days at several UC campuses conflicted with the major Muslim religious holiday Ramadan in 2009.

Students deserve a response from UC headquarters. If the University wishes to hold true to its claim of shared governance, this is an issue on which it can easily and effectively act.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *