This particular communiqué addresses the continued dire financial straits in California, and the continued budget cuts to the UC system assumed to be pending. The good news it sends is that Berkeley’s $145 million deficit has, via several adjustments, been trimmed by $45 million. The bad news is that lingering $100 million deficit. Now, the Chancellor’s tone reads like one of wary optimism, based on faith that the ingenuity of the constituency of our institution will carry the day, despite any obstacles. He also assures that, regardless of what the as-yet still undetermined budget ends up saying, “We will not sacrifice Berkeley's commitment to breadth and depth of academic excellence.” Despite their comforting airs, though, his words of fortitude leave one wondering from whence the money is going to be drained; the rest of the email makes it clear that he’s not quite sure of that himself. In the public interest, I’d like to suggest some guidelines.First: that on a probationary basis, strict limitations be placed on the ASUC Senate, as warranted by its extreme ineptitude and tendency towards financial waste last year. Any faith one has in the incoming personnel of the Senate should be overridden by these kind of lingering concerns, and besides, as I’ve spent pages arguing by this point, the Senate’s Constitution limits the institution’s power to the point that even if it was staffed by hardworking, earnest students, it wouldn’t be able to accomplish anything, anyway. In effect, it’s a waste of money no matter how much the Chancellor and his crew decide to allocate to it, and so should be the most obvious target to be trimmed.
Second: that the university should allow profitable businesses to rent out campus space and charge them accordingly. Berkeley’s antipathy towards chains is irrational. To use a pertinent example, the reason Panda Express hasn’t been allowed on campus is not because it, say, pillages the rainforest, or runs sweatshops in third-world countries, but because it’s a chain, and chains are inherently evil. A better approach is to understand that chains aren’t big principally because they’re unscrupulous, but rather, because they’re markedly better at providing their products and/or services than their competition. Allowing Panda Express (among others) on campus would provide a new, major source of revenue for the university, and give thousands of students cheap access to food they enjoy, to boot. As for the opposition, frankly, how the university parcels out its property should be for the administration, not the student body, to decide.
Third: that landscaping projects, no matter what size, should be drastically scaled back. Last year, there were an appalling number of construction sites to be found around Sproul Plaza, and presumably, many more in less visible places. None of these, so far as I or anyone I know could tell, were anything more than cosmetic modifications. Yet as anyone who’s ever had to deal with home repairs knows, even small projects inevitably prove costly – and I doubt I’m making too bold a leap in assuming that replacing Sather Gate was rather more expensive than installing new light fixtures. Granted, keeping up appearances is important in attracting new students, but if maintaining the “breadth and depth of academic excellence” really is the university’s top priority, the concrete botox needs to stop.
Finally: that the inevitable cuts should not be made “across the board.” Though this was mentioned in the email, where the Chancellor meant that larger departments would be experiencing cuts proportionate to their size, I mean that the university should make its most significant cuts in its least significant departments. Though I won’t enumerate which departments I feel are relatively unimportant, this should be perfectly clear: they should be those without notable faculty members; those with smaller numbers of students; those with smaller numbers of applicants; those not ranked as highly in the polls as so many of Berkeley’s departments are. It’s time that Berkeley acknowledged that the Cuneiform and Forestry departments simply are not as important as MCB and English are. Yes, this will mean some unfortunate losses of some fascinating subjects, but in economic downturn, the university should focus on what it does best, and save its “hobbies” for days when it has more resources to throw around.
Sadly, it’s hard to believe that Chancellor Birgeneau and the other parties responsible will consider any of the above arguments. Unnecessary expenses will continue to drain finances; the few obvious chances at supplementing income at the expense of someone other than California’s taxpayers will be rejected; unimportant departments will receive funding they simply don’t merit. I have faith in this country, and in the perpetuity of its history of economic fluctuation, so I’m sure that at some point, the UCs – including Berkeley – will once more have access to the budget they deserve. I just hope management hasn’t run the damn things into the ground by then.
