Two controversial figures were set to discuss immigration policy this Tuesday night. But they never came.
The event’s protesters, on the other hand, did come. And all this was brought on by the university’s unfair and ill-defined policies about providing event security.
L.O.G.I.C. (Liberty, Objectivity, Greed, Individualism and Capitalism) planned to host a debate between Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, and Carl Braun, executive director of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps of California, on how the U.S. should deal with the immigration controversy.
They had applied for event insurance and provided for security inside the venue ““ all at the club’s expense ““ as university policy dictates.
Then they heard that a group called UCLA Students for a Democratic Society, which is not even a registered UCLA club, was planning to protest the debate. When they told the Center for Student Programming, the administrators said L.O.G.I.C. would have to pay for this added security, and that it may even be too late to get security.
The club was asked to provide 46 additional security personnel, from both private and university firms, possibly racking up the price tag to a costly $15,000, according to L.O.G.I.C.
The club did not ask the protestors to come, and they shouldn’t be held financially responsible for events that are totally outside their control.
It’s the university police’s job to ensure the peace and safety of our campus, and they should be expected to take care of these sorts of disturbances ““ it’s what they’re already paid to do.
Would the administration charge UCLA researchers for protecting them from violent animal rights activists? Would a city charge the NFL if people rioted after the Super Bowl?
According to Nancy Greenstein, director of police community services for UCPD, it is long-standing tradition for student groups to be provided with 12 free hours of security a year (that is, 12 security-guard hours, not 12 hours of total security). But the university was requiring over 40 security personnel for a two-hour event. You can do the math: The 12-hour allotment hardly makes a dent.
More importantly, the university has no written guidelines on which events require security and how much security they need.
Surely there will need to be some leeway and discretion when it comes to determining event security, but having no guidelines is a huge problem for organizations that want to plan events and budget their funding.
The university is working on these guidelines, said Mike Cohn, assistant director of the Center for Student Programming.
It’s unfair to student groups to expect them to pay for event security if they can’t even know ahead of time how much it’s likely to cost them.
What is even more absurd is that the university may still expect the organization to pay for the added security even though the event had been cancelled, according to L.O.G.I.C. representatives.
A university policy needs to be produced that outlines broadly when security will be required and roughly how much that allows for leeway on a case-by-case basis. But university officials have no right to charge student groups for events unfolding outside their venue and outside their control.