On Friday afternoon, Chancellor Gene Block sat down with the Editorial Board for an open discussion.
The chancellor offered candid, clear responses ““ which are printed in the News section today ““ to questions concerning a breadth of topics including the budget, the walkout and Night Powell. He was not mechanical in his answers but was instead mindful, showing genuine concern and measure to institute changes.
The Editorial Board left this meeting feeling that Block sits in the same boat as us, faced with many of the same challenges passed down from the state level.
This board acknowledges the complexities of the problems that the chancellor faces and trusts that he will do everything within his constraints to represent students aptly to those outside the UCLA community and serve students’ wishes in his decisions here on campus.
We are confident and pleased with him as our chancellor and it is for this reason that we hope he will make an effort to increase his regular face time with students. We felt our time with Block was extremely productive and important to us as students of this university because it was intimate and candid, and we want others to have this opportunity as well.
Early on in the interview, Block elaborated on possible solutions to our current financial problems, putting emphasis on the solution least disruptive to our education: increasing our endowment. In answering questions about the necessary budget-induced sacrifices administrators have been forced to make lately, Block was forthright in admitting his limitations.
Block also addressed UCLA’s fluctuating reputation, which he said has been affected by perceptions of the state’s budget crisis. He said that the state is a bad partner and that UCLA should and will aggressively pursue donors and donations to help mitigate such massive financial inconsistencies.
When asked about the walkout, Block was tactful in his response, saying that during such a sensitive time, criticism and frustration is usually directed to the top of the command chain. Unfortunately for Block, he is that figure at UCLA and must accept that large undertaking.
With that said, we must also endorse his rationale in respecting but not fully supporting the walkout and in wanting to hear from the greater UCLA community rather than a smaller selection of people in a town hall meeting, something walkout supporters have expressed interest in having. Block is intelligent and rational in wanting a more constructive forum; a more moderated discussion would provide the opportunity for a larger number of students’ opinions to be heard instead of those opinions held by the most outspoken (and often loudest) individuals.
Whatever discomfort Block showed while talking about the walkout was doubtlessly overshadowed by his assertion he would work on reopening Night Powell.
In meeting with us, the chancellor offered his thoughts on a number of relevant issues and made a fine impression. But beyond this editorial, that impression is all but lost, and we hope the chancellor will continue to make a genuine effort to reach out to other students beyond his quarterly office hours and breakfast on the Hill.