Message from the Chancellor (with - again - no apology)

Security guards staging at Murphy: 5-20-2024

This item below in italics from the chancellor was forwarded to yours truly. He is not sure where one can find it on the UCLA website. A quick search of the UCLA site did not locate it. That's a problem right there. And there is no apology. The message talks about "accountability." But there is only a promise of a report at some unspecified date in the future. And the accountability focuses on a symptom - the thug attack of April 30 - and not the basic cause.*

The basic cause was a decision not to maintain basic rules of civic conduct while providing freedom of speech. Both could have been done. In the end, neither was accomplished. The encampment could have been allowed on the lawn. But obstruction of walkways, of building entrances, graffiti, and similar conduct needed to be prevented. The phrase "mostly peaceful" means sometimes not. When not, by anyone, there has to be intervention. Excuses such as students-could-have-gotten-into-class-by-using-the-backdoor is the equivalent of saying they could ride the bus but have to sit in the back. It is saying that we are so important that everyone else is subordinate.

If there was a decision not to introduce police initially to maintain minimum civic conduct and instead to use private security guards, then the guards should have been empowered to do it, although why untrained private guards should be the ones so-entrusted raises other questions. But once it was clear basic order was not going to be maintained from social media and TV news, you had an open invitation for anyone to come in and do anything. Thus, long before we got to April 30th, a basic mistake was made. Who made it? Why? Mistakes were made BY SOMEONE. They don't make themselves. Even if the mistake is at some point acknowledged, an apology is (over)due.

And there is the related lesser question of whatever happened to the "dialog among differences" or whatever it is called, supposedly subsidized by special funding from UC President Drake? There is a vague reference to dialog in the chancellor's message. The Drake money must have been spent for something. But whatever it was, the funding and the entire effort seems to have fallen into a black hole. Perhaps some future meeting of the Regents' Compliance and Audit committee should follow the money.

The fact that the Legislative Assembly did not pass either of the two condemnations had more to do with the politicization of the vote, to a desire not to further embarrass UCLA, and because the facts regarding decision making by the chancellor had not been heard, than with approval of what the chancellor did or didn't do. Not passing a vote of no confidence isn't a vote of confidence. Not censuring isn't affirmation of conduct.

Below is the chancellor's latest message:

Dear Bruin Community:

The events of the past several weeks have fractured both our sense of community and our sense of security. They have bred anger and mistrust between Bruins, and they have led to marked frustration with how we have administered campus safety at UCLA. I am deeply sorry to see our community in so much pain.

I believe that accountability is critical to moving forward. We are continuing our criminal investigation into those who perpetrated the despicable attack on the Royce Quad encampment on April 30, as well as our review of campus safety protocols to ensure accountability and prevent failures in the future. I know there are many questions, and while we may not have or be able to share all of the answers right now, we are committed to getting you the facts that you seek and deserve. We will learn from what happened — and we will act to better protect our students, faculty and staff. UCLA can only fulfill its mission as a place of learning, debate and growth if those in our community feel safe.

This week, I will be testifying before a Congressional committee focused on the topic of antisemitism on college campuses. I will speak honestly, and personally, about the challenges UCLA faces and the impact of this pernicious form of hate. I will continue to insist that antisemitism – as well as Islamophobia, anti-Arab hate and any form of bigotry, hostility or discrimination – is antithetical to our values, corrosive to our community and not to be tolerated.

UCLA faces complex, interrelated challenges related to protecting community safety and well-being, protecting Bruins from discrimination and harassment, and protecting free expression rights. In my final few months as chancellor, I am dedicated to doing all I can to address these challenges and help shepherd the process of rebuilding trust and dialogue within our community. This includes ongoing discussions with student and faculty leaders of all perspectives, with the aim of ensuring our campus can be a place where advocacy does not lead to antagonism.

Our university has and will continue to grapple with significant issues. But I hope that in the months ahead we will be able to start on the path towards healing — and once again come to see, respect and interact with one another as friends and colleagues in our incredibly important shared academic community.

Sincerely,

Gene D. Block

Chancellor

=====

*It is worth noting that as of yet, no arrests have been made of individuals involved in the April 30th attacks. As noted in prior posts, there have been news media interviews with people who seem to have been involved and who are identified by name. It remains unclear how it could be that when the police finally arrived, no arrests were made at that time. It remains unclear how, despite the bragging about the high-tech methods that were going to be used to identify the culprits, no arrests have been made using those techniques. If the chancellor really believes that the central question is about April 30, how is any of this possible? Or does he in fact understand that who-did-it is a sideshow to the underlying story?