150 Missing Black Freshmen at UCLA

30 Jan

by Rahim Kurwa
Second Year PhD Student, Sociology

University apologists are quick to blame our lack of racial diversity on racial inequalities in the K-12 system. While that system is indeed seriously flawed, the data clearly show that UCLA actively worsens these racial inequalities through its admissions policies.

In 2010, 48,576 students applied to UCLA. Of these, 2,693 were black and 13,173 were white. Essentially all of these students are qualified to be admitted to the University of California, as verifying that you have passed the A-G requirements is part of the application process.

Of the 2,693 Black applicants to UCLA, 382 were admitted, a 14% admissions rate.  209 accepted their offer, for a 54.7% enrollment rate.

Of the 13,173 white applicants to UCLA, 3,286 were admitted, a 24.9% admissions rate. 1,524 accepted their offer, for a 31% enrollment rate.

To try to sort through 48,576 applications, UCLA understandably uses additional criteria for admissions that go above and beyond the UC-wide standards. However, those criteria serve to produce admissions rates that are unequal by race, among students who have qualified for admission to the University of California (and for whom the K-12 system has succeeded).

If Black applicants to UCLA were admitted at the 25% rate that is the rough average for all other groups applying to the university, we would see the following occur:

25% of 2,693 = 673 admitted students. Apply the 54.7% enrollment rate and we get 368 black freshmen. This would be roughly 150 more than our current reality, and about 600 additional Black students per every 4 year cycle. This would represent 7.4% of the incoming freshmen class, rather than our current 4.2% rate of representation for Black freshmen.

What criteria has UCLA chosen that fall so harshly on Black students? Extra weight given to SAT and AP scores are the most likely answer. Both are measures of privilege: financial, academic, residential, and ultimately racial privilege. We know that paying for SAT preparation improves students outcomes, and we know that AP classes are not offered at the same rate across California’s schools. Rather there are some schools with lower resources and fewer AP classes, and other schools with many resources and many AP classes, and these schools are distributed unevenly along the state’s racial residential lines. It is also important to note that the UC’s own data show that SAT scores predict little about a student’s performance in the university (only 13% of total GPA variance), meaning that we are using criteria that are both racially unequal and relatively arbitrary.

So when people shrug their shoulders at the lack of underrepresented minorities on UCLA’s campus, you should remember that its not entirely the K-12 system’s fault. Our university is actively making this problem worse through its admissions policies. Abandoning useless but racially biased admissions criteria will stop the bleeding, but ultimately without the repeal of Prop 209 (which banned affirmative action), we are not likely to return to the racial diversity our university enjoyed prior to 1996.

Looking beyond UCLA we can see that this pattern is similar at UC Berkeley, but not as strong at other UCs. The distribution of under-represented minorities in the UC system is unbalanced across its schools, lower at “elite” UCs, and higher at the less prestigious campuses. When looking at the patterns of spending at these campuses, it becomes evident that the UC’s patterns of racial inequality also fit its patterns of spending inequality, as the campuses with the most under-represented minorities see a lower level of spending per student than the campuses with lower than average rates of under-represented minorities.

More info:

For more on the intersection of race and spending at the UCs, see Chris Newfield’s essay at Remaking the University.

For more resources on the crisis in Black admissions at UCLA, see the Bunche Center’s various research reports.



2693 applied
48576 total applied
382 admitted
209 enrolled
54.7% enroll rate
14% admit rate


13173 applied
48576 total applied
3286 admitted
1,524 enrolled
31% enroll rate
24.9% admit rate
25.3% total UCLA rate


Passing the Buck: On the November 28th Regents Meeting

29 Nov

by Renee Hudson

Yesterday, the Regents teleconferenced from four locations: UCSF, Davis, Merced, and UCLA. While tuition hikes weren’t on the table this time around, the Regents voted to approve expenses. This is essentially a de facto tuition increase since now the Regents will have to come up with the money to cover approved expenses.

UC President Mark Yudof stated in an LA Times article earlier this month that he would seek additional funding from the state to prevent further tuition increases. However, President Yudof and the Regents have failed to come up with a concrete plan outlining how they plan to receive additional funding from the state, which makes the passage of this proposal unlikely. Further, in the same LA Times article, Yudof stated that if state funding fell through, the Regents “would consider more modest tuition hikes.”

Given that tuition was already increased this academic year by 8% and that “more modest” fee increases are likely, this means that Yudof and the Regents will essentially implement the 81% tuition increase over four years that they proposed a few months ago. Yudof has since attempted to distance himself from the 81% tuition increase due to public outcry. However, in practice, the plan to increase tuition by 81% is still in effect.

During the teleconference, protesters shut down the meeting at each location using people’s mic. Regents and administrators then met behind closed doors to approve expenses, including roughly $3,500,000 in raises for several executives. The validity of this approval is suspect, considering the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, which you can read here.

As reported by The San Francisco Chronicle, Yudof stated, “I’m sick and tired of Sacramento privatizing the university.”

And yet, Sacramento did not approve $3,500,000 in raises to UC Executives.

Significantly, as reported in The Sacramento Bee, Yudof said, of the raises, “We consider these retention efforts to be essential. I understand it’s not a great time, but we can’t really close down shop and say we’re not going to make any effort to retain our best people.”

Note that “our best people” are administrators, not, say, faculty. While Yudof continues to blame Sacramento for the privatization of UC, he continues to privilege executive compensation over high-quality, affordable education. For more information on how the Sacramento argument doesn’t hold water, click here.

At UCLA, in addition to shutting down the meeting, we demanded that police evacuate the premises, which they did. Further, we declared the Regents meeting to be an unlawful assembly and implemented a people’s meeting. During the People’s Meeting, we were able to sit down with a couple Regents and Chancellors. That said, while Regent Lansing expressed her desire to speak and work with us, she, like Yudof, has yet to do anything to effect change. Yudof and the Regents say one thing, but their actions reveal quite another reality, that of the corporate elite.

Public Education, Inc.

23 Nov

“The American Public University System is a for-profit, online learning institution of higher education that is composed of the American Military University and the American Public University. It is wholly owned by American Public Education, Inc., a publicly traded corporation.”


Inspired by a recent article by UCSC Professor Bob Meister on for-profit education as it relates to the privatization of the University of California, we’ve begun doing a little research on the topic. The following is a provisional introduction to for-profits that borrows from and builds on the sources listed below. It targets, in particular, UC Regent Richard Blum’s links with the industry.

Meister explains how the strategy of dramatically raising both tuition and enrollment at the University of California, begun by former-Governor Schwarzenegger and former-UC President Dynes in 2004, has created a situation in which the federal government is effectively financing the private for-profit higher education industry via student loans taken out by low-income students. It did so by producing “enrollment bottlenecks at the CCC [California Community College] level, where according to a new survey one-third of all students could not get into the courses they needed as compared to one-sixth nationally who face the same problem” (141). This means that “jobless, low-income students, no longer well served by community colleges, find places in federally financed for-profit schools that expand to meet demand and allow them to live on credit and student grants for as long as they are willing to borrow for tuition” (141-42).

Meister’s conclusion? “The California Master Plan for Higher Education is now operating in reverse. Higher prices at UC have produced a downward cascade of enrollments within the public system” (142). Students transfer down from UCs to CSUs to CCCs to for-profits as a result of ballooning tuition and ballooning enrollment. Meister’s full article is well worth your time, but the take-home point is this: Making sure UC and CSU tuition is reduced is crucial for keeping all low-income students in California out of debt.


A more specific point of interest for California students, educators, and residents is that Richard C. Blum is both a UC Regent and the primary owner of one of the world’s largest for-profit educational corporations, with six locations in California alone. Blum is an investment banker, a real estate mogul, the husband of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, and the former chairman of the Regents of the University of California. He’s a voting member of that 26-person board, as well as a member of the finance and governance committees, and as a powerful member of the governing elite he exerts a significant influence on the direction taken by the University of California. Simultaneously, Blum is the primary owner of the world’s second-largest for-profit educational corporation: Career Education Corporation (CEC). Following Meister’s argument, as tuition goes up and quality goes down at California public schools, there’s a downward flow of student and federal dollars from the UCs, to the cheaper CSUs, to the cheaper Community Colleges System, and finally to for-profit institutions, which are monstrously expensive over the long-term. Companies like CEC are thus potential beneficiaries of the tuition hikes that Blum is in a position to authorize and which he has consistently supported in the UC. This is a substantial conflict of interest.



Career Education Corporation was founded in 1994. In fact, nearly all the major for-profit educational companies (besides ITT and DeVry) were founded in the early 1990s. Stephen Burd explains how the “old generation of trade schools gradually died off and were replaced by a new breed of for-profit colleges—mostly huge, publicly traded corporations.” And because they’re publicly traded, institutions like CEC, University of Phoenix, and Corinthian Colleges are obligated to their shareholders as much as to their student-consumers. The numbers for CEC in this respect are clear: in 2010, this “global giant” took in $1.84 billion in revenue, “roughly 80% [of which] came from federal loans and grants, according to BMO Capital Markets, a research and trading firm… up from 63% in 2007” (Goodman).

Although few for-profit colleges report student debt statistics, according to the most recent national data (from 2008), 96% of graduates from for-profit four-year colleges take out student loans, and these students borrow 45% more than graduates from other non-profit four-year colleges (Project on Student Debt).


Burd and others have emphasized, rightly, the high default rates on the loans taken out by students enticed or coerced into attending for-profit schools: “For-profits top the Department of Education’s list for the 2005-2007 cohort default rates, with campuses at ATI and Kaplan reporting default rates far above 20%. Most of the for-profits’ expansion has been in the states of California, Arizona, Texas and Florida, with the metro areas of Los Angeles, Phoenix, Dallas and Miami-West Palm Beach being centers of their growth. For comparison, in Miami, Everest Institute [a for-profit] reports a default rate for two of its campuses to be 18.1% and 20%; Miami Dade College, the district’s community college, which serves as a primary channel for local beginning students, reports a default rate of roughly 10%; Florida International University, a public university serving the Miami metropolitan area, reports approximately 5%” (emphasis added).


“For a while it looked like the meltdown on Wall Street, and the ensuing credit crunch, would put an end to predatory lending at for-profit schools. In 2008 Sallie Mae quit offering subprime private loans to students at for-profit colleges because the astronomical default rates had helped throw its stock price into a nosedive. But the proprietary college industry has found a way around this roadblock, namely making private loans directly to students, much the way used-car lots loan money to buyers rather than going through a third party. For example, in a recent earnings call with investors and analysts, Corinthian said that it plans to dole out roughly $130 million in ‘institutional loans’ this year, while Career Education and ITT Educational Services Inc., another for-profit chain, have reported that they expect to lend a combined total of $125 million” (Burd).

And, of course, “These loans are risky: Career Education and Corinthian recently told investors they had set aside roughly half the money allocated this year for private lending to cover anticipated bad debts” (Goodman). In fact, “Career Education and Corinthian Colleges only expect to recover roughly half of the money they distribute through their institutional lending programs, according to communications with shareholders. Why would they lend knowing they won’t get the money back? Because any loss is more than offset by federal loans and financial aid dollars, which, despite the surge in private educational lending, still fund the bulk of tuition at proprietary schools. Say a student gets a $60,000 federal financial aid package and supplements it with a $20,000 institutional loan. The school comes out $40,000 ahead even if the borrower ultimately defaults. Plus, getting students in the door pumps up enrollment numbers, which makes for happy shareholders” (Burd).

CEC has been among the worst in pushing private loans on students. “Corinthian and Career Education… have faced the most damning allegations when it comes to educational quality and steering students into shady private loans. Other chains have better reputations on these fronts, among them the University of Phoenix and DeVry University. But even they have a spotty record of graduating students” (Burd).


All this affects an enormous number of people. CEC has 90,000-100,000 students, 500,000 alumni, and 13,000-15,000 employees. It has more than 100 programs at over 90 schools in 25 states and 5 countries, over 500 online courses, and over 80 online degree-granting programs. “Enrollment at the 17 culinary schools of the Career Education Corporation—most of them operated under the name Le Cordon Bleu—swelled by 31 percent in the final months of last year [2009] from a year earlier” with the help of private direct loans and methodical advertising campaigns that include door-to-door peddlers and pushy websites (Goodman).

And CEC has at least 6 schools in California alone (not counting the American InterContinental University campus in Los Angeles which was shut down in 2008 after being put on federal probation for non-compliance):

  • Brooks Institute (Santa Barbara)
  • Brooks Institute (Ventura)
  • International Academy of Design & Technology – IADT (Sacramento)
  • California Culinary Academy (San Francisco)
  • Le Cordon Bleu (Los Angeles)
  • Le Cordon Bleu (Sacramento)

According to the small amount of” disclosure” data that the corporation makes publicly available (per federal regulation), Blum’s CEC enrolls roughly 2,000 full-time undergraduate students per year in California alone. To be specific, the number of first-time, full-time undergraduate students who began pursuing a bachelor’s, master’s, or associate’s degree, or a diploma certificate between Fall 2007 and Summer 2008 was 378 for the Culinary Academy in SF; 1,108 for Le Cordon Bleu Pasadena; 316 for Le Cordon Bleu College Sacramento; 0 for IADT; and 384 for the two Brooks campuses. (Data for IADT and Brooks is from Fall 2004.) That’s a significant if not overwhelming number, and it only accounts for enrollment in at CEC’s schools in California.


Don’t be fooled by the fact that CEC seems to have been hurting of late. The cause of company’s slowdown in profits, according to interim CEO Steven Lesnik? “The complexities of the regulatory environment and other issues that have arisen over the last year.” The solution? Increased lobbying of Congress, of course. Nowhere does the company acknowledge that the real issue is that their business model is based on exploiting government programs and coercing students into taking on debt. And that’s not because no one’s told them. Their practices have led to numerous investigations, lawsuits, allegations, exposés, controversies, and scandals. We might do well to add to that list by continuing to investigate and publicize Regent Blum’s conflicts of interest. Such tactics go hand-in-hand with our demand for the democratization of the board of regents itself.


Written by Jeremy Schmidt (UCLA English) and Elise Youn

Where’s AWDU Now?

21 Nov

By Zachary Chance Gill Williams, Recording Secretary Elect

After the resolution of the triennial election last spring, AWDU members began organizing in support of public education and public services  with a broad group of California unions and community organizations.  These efforts coalesced into the ReFund California coalition.  This campaign to “make banks pay” has acted as a larger, statewide alliance from which our own independent attempts to build solidarity and increase consciousness on our own campuses could draw strength.

As our active members prepared for and engaged in outreach to new students and new student-workers in the UC in September, Occupy Wall Street set up camp in Zuccotti park, kicking off a spontaneous wave of protest against inequality, unaccountability, unfairness, and all other injustices those who occupy have brought before general assemblies across the country and across the world.  By the beginning of October, ReFund’s first week of action was already drawing support from occupations that had sprung up across the state in San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, and numerous other cities, making common cause in their protests against banks and foreclosures.  While the 99% demonstrated in the streets, California prisoners resumed their hunger strike against systematic mistreatment.

November kicked off with Oakland protesters shutting down the port of Oakland, while bank transfer day saw as many as 600,000 accounts move from big banks to credit unions.  As a November 16th meeting of the regents drew near, our members participated in direct actions across the state, pressuring  the regents to conduct their affairs with equity and pledge their support to restore California’s commitment to the improvement of public welfare.  While hundreds shut down Wilshire and Westwood, thousands rallied at Sproul Hall at Cal and attempted to set up an occupation, ushering in the first instance in the wave of police violence that has continued across our campuses lately.  UC president Mark Yudof pledged to feebly request more state funds, without any plan with respect to where they would come from.

As tensions between Occupy Cal and the administration continued, violent crackdowns against occupations persisted.  Across the country, the message is clear: corralled and entrapped, tear gassed and concussed, bludgeoned and pepper sprayed – popular protest, unlike corporate political campaigning, must be strictly controlled.  Even linking arms, after all, is not non-violent, according to Berkeley Chancellor Mark Birgenau.

As a result of our union’s efforts, the UC regents cancelled their meeting, in fear of alleged ‘rogue elements,’ and northern California students took to the streets in the San Francisco Financial District, protesting regents at their corporate offices, while students in the south of the state shut down the CSU trustee’s meeting, which nonetheless voted to hike Cal State tuition by 9%, despite objections to the vote’s legitimacy.

Building on these confrontations with the appointed governors of California’s system of public higher education, in solidarity with continued efforts to shut down Occupy Oakland, and as part of their continued attempt to occupy Cal, on Thursday Berkeley students, unable to place tents on the ground, took their abodes to the skies, while students at Davis and UCLA set up occupations of their own.

While Santa Monica police came under cloak of night and arrested 14 UCLA students who refused to disperse from their tents, Davis students, after a full night’s sleep, confronted the UCPD in the afternoon, where a line of prostrate protestors was dusted repeatedly with pepper spray, as they non-violently demanded the release of the 5 students arbitrarily arrested for engaging in the Davis occupation.  Through the power of their presence and their voice, hundreds of UC Davis students then stood down and dispersed the dozens of riot cops who had come to stand down and disperse them.

As the regents scheduled a multi-location teleconference to approve expenditures without a reliable plan for revenues, thus locking in tuition hikes if (and when) state funding fails to arrive, Occupy UCLA briefly regrouped on Friday and pledged to reconvene on Monday, while Davis protesters gave a moving display of the power we all hold as students and as citizens as they silently confronted Chancellor Kartehi while she exited a closed press conference on the brutality of the day before.  President Yudof, however, continues to have full faith and confidence in the chancellors.

If you look through the photos of the marches, occupations, demonstrations, building take overs, sit-ins, and other forms of direct action that have swept the state, you’ll spot AWDU.  Occupy Wall Street may have been evicted from Liberty Plaza, but things are just warming up at the UC.  AWDU’s in it for the long haul; come and join in.


Occupy at UCLA
Take Back UCLA
UCLA Fights Back
Make Wall Street Banks Pay

Occupying the Spectrum

20 Nov

This is a beautiful, thoughtful piece about privilege. Reposting with permission from the author. Please visit the blog (and view the original post) at Occupying the Spectrum.

What It Takes

“Adjust your own mask before assisting others. Adjust your own mask before assisting others.” I repeated the warning to myself like a mantra. See, I’d been perseverating since I left the General Assembly at 4:30 with a blinding, screaming migraine. The migraine was because aside from the Doubleshot I gulped that morning, I had forgotten to eat or drink. I do that. Anyway, I’d been perseverating. For those of you who aren’t intimately familiar with the peculiarities of the autism spectrum, we can use the more familiar “obsessing.” I couldn’t stop feeling guilty and ashamed. I couldn’t stop thinking about the people I was walking away from, how so many of them were risking arrest and violence, and how no matter what I tell myself, I probably won’t be able to stay through the night even once at the encampment.

I simply don’t have what it takes.

What I do have is severe social anxiety. What I do have are communication issues that make me struggle to carry on “normal” conversations in person without a defined script. What I do have is a sensory processing problem that makes loud noise intolerable; under stress, even the sound of human voices becomes unbearable.

For me, Bruin Walk is a gauntlet – huge numbers of people trying to communicate with me, make eye contact, touch me, shove things into my hands, ask me questions. For me, sticking around for a whole class is sometimes a major achievement. For me, a protest is meltdown central – crowds, shouting, chanting, socializing, emotion, words, conflict…

I know all this about myself. But you, fellow protesters and interested bystanders, you don’t know it about me. You don’t know that when I was at the rally in front of Kerckhoff, I began to shake so uncontrollably that my pictures turned out blurry. You don’t know why I had my iPod on and my hands over my ears – not because I didn’t want to hear you speak – I desperately wanted to know what you had to say, but the noise of that crowd was excruciating. You don’t know that I had to sit on the ground at the back of the crowd and rock because I couldn’t bear to leave but I couldn’t cope with the sensory overload. You don’t know that when a fellow occupier at GA asked us to text our friends, I couldn’t think of a single person, because I have been here for months and I still only have classmates (whom I regard warmly but don’t know all that well). You don’t know that when someone suggested small friend groups within the Occupation, I began to panic, suddenly felt out of my depth. You don’t know that as soon as I got home, I fell asleep, and I couldn’t function for the rest of the night because I had been so mentally and emotionally exhausted just by four hours of protest.

But I was there. I took pictures, I thought, I helped with People’s Mic, I even spoke a couple of times. (Abruptly and painfully, but I’ll take what I can get.) I was there because I have the privilege of being there – as difficult as it was for me, it was not impossible, as it is for some. I was there because this movement, this moment, is life or death. Sure, I may have to walk away – over and over – guilty and frustrated – but I’ll keep coming back. I’ll give what I can.

I’m talking about this for a few reasons. First, I want people to know that we are not, as one spectacularly insensitive person claimed on Facebook, just “chilling in Wilson Plaza” because we “have nothing better to do.” I want people to know just how offensive it is to characterize us as lazy miscreants. For this, I think it’s important for us to share our struggle – to publicize our pain – to make it inescapably obvious that for many of us, just being at a protest is hard work, is itself a sacrifice.

Second, I want to shed more light on an issue that’s at the forefront for a lot of us interested in social justice: privilege. Usually that’s a word with negative connotations – it goes hand in hand with marginalization. “Speaking from privilege” denotes a kind of ignorance, an insensitivity that lifts you up at the expense of others. But in this strange situation, we end up with people saying things like “I don’t have the privilege of being arrested,” because being arrested is a privilege relative to being arrested and then deported. Those of us who are able to be at this university, those of us who can take part in this protest, have privilege of various kinds, and it is beautiful and positive to me to see people using that privilege to sacrifice what they can, to dismantle the system that upholds it. But I want us to be mindful that for any given action, there are people who don’t have what it takes, and sometimes the thing they’re lacking isn’t commitment or courage. Sometimes, “what it takes” is itself a kind of privilege.

Third, for my own safety and comfort within the movement, I want to give some insight into some of the different ways in which ASD and other disability might affect protesters at an Occupation. (That’s the purpose of this blog.) I want people to understand that if a person is, for instance, sitting on the ground rocking with her hands over her ears, she might simply be in shutdown from sensory overload, in which case it might be helpful to prompt her to go someplace quiet. (Use caution, though, and try not to be condescending about it.) Also, there is a sad history of police violence and discrimination against people on the autism spectrum, who are seen to be “acting suspiciously” just by being themselves.* While I’m privileged in that I “pass” well enough to slip under their radar, things happen, and others might not be so lucky. I may not, for instance, be able to coherently answer police questions or immediately follow directions, especially in a situation of sensory overstimulation. I plan to take responsibility for this as best I can by monitoring my internal state especially in these sensitive situations, but I want people to be aware that this is a possibility, and other protesters might have similar issues that they are not able to control as easily.

Finally, I want to both reassure and challenge those people who haven’t come out to join us yet. I know you have reasons for not being there, and some of them are very powerful reasons, and I respect that. Adjust your own mask before assisting others. But I want to challenge you to give what you can. Even if you feel like it’s not enough, even if you’ll have to walk away, anything you can do counts. You can learn about the issues from the safety of your home, and even that will be something. Don’t think in terms of why and how you don’t have what it takes – think of what you do have to offer this movement. Then offer it. That’s what I’m doing.

*A note on the links: Some of the language of disability included in these links is problematic. Also, it is powerfully evident that race played a major role in some of these instances of police brutality; they are situated at the intersection of race- and ability-based oppression. My racial privilege means that I cannot speak to these issues as knowledgeably as disabled POC can, but I will make an effort to include those perspectives in the future, if only by linking to them.

11/21 OccuParty at UCLA!

20 Nov

UCLA Faculty’s Open Letter to Chancellor Block

20 Nov

November 20, 2011

Dear Chancellor Block:

In the predawn darkness this past Friday, a large contingent of police arrived on campus to remove a group of students who were peacefully protesting tuition increases, student loan debt, and the collapse of public funding for the University of California. In an act of civil disobedience, 14 students chose to ignore an order to disperse and were arrested.

Their crime, formally, was to violate a campus policy against camping. But in reality they were arrested for engaging in political speech at a time and in a manner that did not please the campus administration. For this political action, they may face disciplinary proceedings.

As UCLA faculty we call on you, to drop any charges that may be pending against these students. The freedom to debate controversial topics is at the core of university life. The students occupying Wilson Plaza on Thursday night were not posing a health or safety risk. They were not disrupting the educational mission of the university. They were holding ongoing discussions—what they call a “general assembly”—to share information and experiences, and decide together how to face the future.

So far UCLA has avoided the bitter conflicts between campus police and students that we have seen at Berkeley and Davis. However, you will recall that in 2009 UCLA Police engaged in questionable use of force that injured students and triggered an internal review. While different people may have different perceptions of the Review’s conclusions about the use of force in 2009, no one would disagree with their reaffirmation that “[w]hen members of the university community peaceably assemble to challenge some aspect of University governance, their rights to advocacy must be respected.” (44)

We have a chance to find another path at UCLA. As UCLA’s own “Principles of Community” declare, “We are committed to ensuring freedom of expression and dialogue, in a respectful and civil manner, on the spectrum of views held by our varied and diverse campus communities.” As anyone visiting the protest site can attest, the protesters were upholding their end of this charge—far better than we see in most of the political debate in this country. To stifle their voice would shortchange the future. At both Davis and Berkeley, campus police have deployed deplorable violence and injured students and faculty. On both campuses, police introduced violence while students, staff, and faculty were engaged in peaceable protest. We call on you to ensure that UCLA does not follow in their footsteps and fail to uphold the principles for which the University stands.

We urge you to drop all charges and disciplinary proceedings against the students arrested in Wilson Plaza, and also to respect students’ rights to protest the pressing issues of our political, social, and educational life.


Tobias Higbie Associate Professor of History

Michael Meranze, Professor of History

Jenny Sharpe, Professor of English and Women’s Studies

Michelle Clayton, Assoc Prof Comp Lit & Spanish & Portuguese

Chris Looby, Professor English

Nouri Gana, Assoc Prof Comparative Literature

Jan de Leeuw; Distinguished Professor and Chair, UCLA Department of Statistics

Joseph Bristow, Professor English

Saree Makdisi, Professor English

Steven Nelson, Associate Professor of African and African American Art History

Carole H. Browner, Professor Anthropology

Jeffrey Prager, Professor of Sociology

Jessica R. Cattelino, Associate Professor of Anthropology

Jack Chen, Associate Professor Asian Languages & Cultures

David Delgado Shorter, Associate Professor World Arts & Cultures

Noah Zatz, Professor of Law

Katherine King, Professor Comparative Literature

Matthew Fischer, Assistant Professor English

Gerry A. Hale, Emeritus professor, Geography Department

Peter McLaren, Professor, Graduate school of Education and Information Studies

Michael Cooperson, Associate Professor NELC

Andrea Goldman, Assistant Professor History

George Baker, Associate Professor of Modern and Contemporary Art

Allen F. Roberts, World Arts & Cultures/Dance

Susan Curtiss, Professor Emeritus, Linguistics

Henry A. Hespenheide, Professor Emeritus of Ecology

Kathleen A. McHugh, Professor, Department of English, Cinema and Media Studies Program

Valerie Matsumoto, Professor, History and Asian American Studies

Sondra Hale, Professor, Anthropology and Women’s Studies

Elizabeth DeLoughrey, Associate Professor, English

Stephen Yenser, Distinguished Professor, Department of English

Robert Brenner, Professor of History

Vinay Lal, Associate Professor of History

Sharon Traweek, Associate Professor of Women’s Studies and History

Susan Slyomovics, Professor of Anthropology and Near Eastern Languages & Cultures

Susan L. Foster, Distinguished Professor, Department of World Arts and Cultures/Dance

Teofilo Ruiz, Professor of History, Spanish & Portuguese

Rafael Perez-Torres, Professor of English

Jason Throop, Associate Professor, Anthropology

Kenneth L. Karst, Price Professor of Law Emeritus

Susan Plann, Professor of Applied Linguistics and Spanish & Portuguese

Alex Purves, Associate Professor of Classics

Helen Deutsch, Professor of English

Yogita Goyal, Associate Professor of English

Michael Salman, Associate Professor of History

Jan Reiff, Associate Professor of History

Chris Tilly, Professor of Urban Planning

Grace Hong, Associate Professor Women’s Studies and Asian American Studies

Lowell Gallagher, Associate Professor English

Arthur Little, Associate Professor English

Carollee Howes, Professor Education

A. J. Julius, Assistant Professor of Philosophy

Robin Lauren Derby, Associate Professor of History

Jonathan H. Grossman, Associate Professor of English

Robert N. Watson, Distinguished Professor of English

Andrew Apter, Professor of History & Anthropology

Calvin Normore, Professor of Philosophy

Victor Bascara, Associate Professor of Asian American Studies

Ching Kwan Lee, Professor of Sociology

Francoise Lionnet, Professor of French and Francophone Studies

John McCumber, Professor of Germanic Languages

Michael Chwe, Associate Professor, Political Science

Michelle Erai, Assistant Prof. Women’s Studies

Felicity Nussbaum, Professor of English

Mishuana Goeman, Assistant Professor of Women’s Studies

Sherry Ortner, Distinguished Professor of Anthropology

Anurima Banerji, Assistant Professor, Department of World Arts and Cultures

Laure Murat, Associate Professor of French & Francophone Studies

Shane Butler, Professor of Classics

Elizabeth Upton, Assistant Professor of Musicology

Sorin Popa, Professor of Mathematics

Elizabeth Marchant, Associate Professor of Women’s Studies

King-Kok Cheung, Professor of English and AsianAmStudies

Zrinka Stahuljak, Associate Professor of French & Francophone Studies

James Gelvin, Professor of History

David N. Myers, Professor of History

John Dagenais, Professor of Spanish and Portuguese

Timothy Taylor, Professor of Ethnomusicology/Musicology

Gary Blasi, Professor of Law

Barbara Herman, Professor of Philosophy

Joanna Schwartz, Acting Professor of Law

Thu-huong Nguyen-vo, Associate Professor, Asian Languages and Cultures and Asian American Studies

Namhee Lee, Associate Professor of Asian Languages & Cultures

John Carriero, Professor of Philosophy

Brian Kim Stefans, Assistant Professor of English

George Dutton, Associate Professor of Asian Languages and Cultures

Samuel Cumming, Assistant Professor of Philosophy & Law

Sheldon Smith, Associate Professor of Philosphy