Tedford's Last Stand

I make no secret about the fact that the football team was a major factor in my decision to enroll at Cal; given my love of the sport and the school’s reputation as one of the better football schools on the West Coast, and overlooking dismissals along the lines of “It’s only a game,” it was a logical move. Yet as so often happens, the disconnect between the ideal and reality has proven vast. Despite being denied student section tickets each of my first two years at Berkeley, I’ve attended every football game (except those that conflicted with family or religious commitments), and mustered far more school spirit than would be suggested by my extreme enmity towards Berkeley as a university and a city. Suffice it to say by the inclusion of a football entry in this blog, my efforts have not been rewarded.

Since 2006, I’ve seen meltdowns and collapses by teams good and bad; heard 70,000 screaming people fall silent in an instant; sat through a downpour that left me returning home in clothes that weighed 15 pounds and shivering through a hot shower; and heard no fewer than 15 sorority girls discussing at full volume who they’d had sex with since the semester began. I’ve watched the uninspiring efforts of players less athletic than me, coaching decisions that showed less foresight than Custer’s declaration of victory at Little Bighorn, and execution far more brutal than that of Louis XVI. Yet the last 2 games have been the worst of my tenure here – indeed, of the Tedford Era – and have thrown the team’s inadequacies into the spotlight beyond the point of return. In Cal’s two losses to Oregon and USC, the team was outscored 72-6; they went 108 minutes and 12 seconds between their two made field goals. The coaching, incredibly, managed consistently to overshadow the team’s atrocious play, as evidenced by the almost comical number of times the team resorted to running its offense in the gimmicky “wildcat” formation – which, as former NFL coach Brian Billick was heard to say in an NFL game two weeks ago, “never works.”

Like the school’s problems in other departments (discussed in the backlog of posts here), the football woes would seem to be inescapable. There are two contributing factors. First, the self-perpetuating “black hole of talent” seen in today’s college football means that underperforming schools recruit inferior talent – and are thus, usually, forever robbed of the chance to escape mediocrity. More damningly, though, just as UC administration is unwilling to “trim the fat” in response to the current financial abyss, so too is the management of the football team unwilling to recognize that the coaching of this team does not work. History has already shown that head coach Jeff Tedford did a miraculous job of turning an abysmal program into a distinctly above-average one, but also that his self-destructively conservative play-calling and inability to instill a disciplined, winning attitude in his squads make him unable to transform Cal football into a good program, much less an elite one. Yet he will stay in place as long as the University’s systemic complacency remains intact, as, for the most part, will his squad of assistant coaches and coordinators.

Today’s contest was the Joe Roth Memorial Game – the annual home game against USC or UCLA designated to honor the only man whose jersey has been retired by the University, and whose outstanding career and life were cut short by melanoma at the age of 21. Though the team’s disgraceful performance was more than enough to render this a woefully unbefitting tribute to one of the greatest players in school history, even worse was the fact that the sole reference to the night’s being dedicated to Roth was an advertisement for the sale of a memorial T-shirt during a media timeout. It’s abundantly clear that despite whatever our fish-out-of-water Canadian Chancellor Robert Birgeneau tries to suggest at games, the football team is nothing more than a cashcow for Berkeley, and one which will, on the strength of the unflinching loyalty of fans like me, remain profitable no matter how badly the program is allowed to stagnate. It’s an unpleasant discovery to make and one that provides a dreary outlook for the decade to come: records wavering between 7-5 and 8-4, and boring, inappropriately close victories in the Sun, Emerald, and Vegas Bowls.

I maintain that choosing a football team is a perfectly legitimate reason to select a university for those so inclined, and believe I always will. I’m also certain now that anyone doing so should save themselves the ordeal and forgo becoming a Golden Bear.

Take a Long Walkout Off a Short Pier

Moments of fiscal crisis have traditionally proven heart-wrenching, difficult landmarks of American history; images leap to mind of bankrupted investors jumping to their deaths off New York skyscrapers and of Dorthea Lange’s immortal photograph “Migrant Mother.” Evidently, under the present circumstances, UC Berkeley’s faculty and students have decided to take a decidedly less heroic stand for posterity.

As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, the University is set to suffer widespread budget cuts, which will inevitably lead to fee hikes – potentially, massive ones. UCs are by no means alone in their plight: my father, a professor in the CSU system, is going to have to take furlough days, as will all other members of the faculty. And yet, predictably, constituent parts of the University of California are set to take it upon themselves to stand against the issue, the only way they know how: public protest.

On Thursday, September 24, UC faculty plans to walkout, in what the University calls an illegitimate strike - one not carried out according to the procedure stipulated in the existing institution-faculty agreement. The demonstrations will include any number of faculty members picketing, and many others engaging in teach-ins purportedly designed to inform students as to what the practical impact of the $813 million budget cuts will be for students. The day is, of course, supposed to be an instructional school day, but classes are likely to be almost universally cancelled, to further heighten awareness of the situation. The move has been met with widespread approval from the collective student body: websites have been set up to organize students in collaborative demonstrations with professors, and on September 13, the UC Student Association unanimously approved a resolution supporting the stoppage.

Perplexing and irritating is the following oversight: in an effort to protest what is perceived as an immoral blow to hard-working students and faculty alike, the powers that be have arranged the cancellation of one of the few remaining days of school under the “reduced” price – one whose tuition has been paid in advance and whose work will need to be made up across the board. Even worse is the disingenuousness of many of the professors, who – though understandably upset about the paycuts – are taking this opportunity to rob their students of lecture time (lest we forget: students pay to go to class, professors get paid) under the pretense of protecting the student body’s interests. Worst of all are the students themselves, who have evidently bought into the idea that by proving their willingness to pay tuition for a day of no instruction, they’ll convince the University to reconsider the fee hikes and furloughs.

This is the sort of logical travesty I’ve gotten accustomed to over my 3+ years at UC Berkeley; I guess now, at least, I can take solace in the knowledge that I was getting it on sale.

(Don't) Panic of 2009

I hail from San Francisco, and one of the main benefits I derive from summer is the chance to detach myself from the world of Berkeley – including both the psychos wandering its streets and the sadists responsible for apportioning grades. This detachment is so thorough (excepting the contact which I keep with my Berkeley friends) that, happily enough, I haven’t so much as visited this blog since I posted the last entry. Sometimes, though, Berkeley reaches me while I’m away, as it did today, with an email marked “URGENT” from Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau.

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.

O Brother, Where Art Thou?

A bizarre man came by Wednesday afternoon as I was tabling for Tikvah: Students for Israel. He wore BluBlockers manufactured during Kurt Cobain’s lifetime, a purple bucket hat, and black trousers with the fly proudly agape. He said he was born in Ethiopia, had immigrated to Berkeley in 1968, had joined the Black Panthers shortly upon his arrival, and had used and enjoyed great quantities of psychedelics in his lifetime; I believed him on all counts. He seated himself at the table and proceeded to talk continuously for around 25 minutes, telling me that “Israel” meant “god” in Ethiopia, and that members of the group should have faith that everything was going to be all right and work to make peace with the people in Students for Justice in Palestine. It was weird deriving nuggets of wisdom from the chain of blather, yet he noted that Israelis and Palestinians were brothers – a point which, I replied, people too often overlook. It made me reflect, though, on the last contact I had with SJP as a group.

Several Wednesdays ago, I was with a two or three other friends of Tikvah at the table, situated at the edge of Sproul Plaza, near the ramp that leads to Lower Sproul. While we were talking, the guys tabling for SJP began packing up and loaded everything onto their cart. As they reached the top of the ramp, all the stuff fell off the cart, and I (followed shortly by my friends) ran over to help them pick the table and chairs up. I certainly didn’t expect any thanks, but what I got instead was the coldest stare I’d received since I told my o-chem lab professor that I hoped I wouldn’t have to do lab on my broken foot.

In my eye, a rather half-assed stab at détente.

I’m certainly not tempted to jump to conclusions: I wouldn’t assume that that seething animosity is representative of the group as a whole, or necessarily, even of the individuals from whose eyes the thunderbolts of unrepentant frost emanated. Yet I’m inclined to point out from this particular incident that when I stood up to help them out, I didn’t do so in spite of their political stances: I did so without any concern for their politics, because that’s what I do for other people. I also wouldn’t feel compelled to draw attention to this in even so meaningless an arena as this blog, if it hadn’t been part of an unbroken chain of hostility I’ve encountered from members of SJP – on some occasions, even outside of moments of participation in the pro-Israel debate.

The Almighty and my parents have already teamed to provide me with the only two brothers I’ll ever really need. So if members of Students for Justice in Palestine decide to settle for treating my friends and I with the same basic decency I hope I treat them, I’ll be as satisfied as I will surprised.

Day 101

To begin, a concise statement of my stance on domestic politics. I wouldn’t align myself with either of the major American political parties (nor, for that matter, with any of their wacky little sidekicks); however, I believe the Democratic one to be by far the worse of the two. Its espousal of traditional liberal values is, in my eye, undermined by the amorality, incompetence, hypocrisy, and duplicity it employs in pursuing its goals – which is a shame, given that many of those goals (e.g., equality) are ones I agree with wholeheartedly. I didn’t support Barack Obama in this past election because I considered him an inexperienced politician who might potentially become a tool of the party I believe to be far more dangerous than its counterpart.

Perhaps surprisingly, despite the fact that the candidate I would have chosen was not elected, I support President Obama, feeling as I do that Americans are best served to place faith in the man selected their Commander in Chief. Under ordinary circumstances, I wouldn’t feel at all compelled to write about him here. However, the Berkeley deification I’ve described in the past has continued, and especially amidst all the hoopla surrounding H’s 100th day in office, locals have felt compelled to pontificate on conditions in the Obama Era.

This last phrase is what brings me here: I consider it faulty and irritating for a number of reasons. First is my belief (I refrain from using “the fact” because this is only exceedingly-likely conjecture) that the phrase would be used regardless of which Democrat had ascended to office back in January. This is to say, had the primaries and national election worked out that way, the Berkeley streets would be drowning in conversations about the “Clinton Era,” the “Edwards Era,” or even (try not to laugh) the “Kucinich Era” – anything, so long as it meant no Republicans past the White House lawns.

Second, tenure. H’s 100 days in office place him roughly halfway between the nation’s two shortest terms of office, which lasted 31 and 199 days, respectively. Though perhaps history will eventually vindicate them, as it stands today, one doesn’t frequently hear about the Garfield Era, much less the W.H. Harrison Era.

Finally, and most importantly, lack of change. Regardless of how much that term gets thrown around these days, any close examination of affairs will reveal that very little is different today than it was when Bush Light left office. Racism and partisanship still exist – the former, I fear, probably more so now that a black man holds our country’s most visible position. Public schools are still the punchline of thousands of jokes told in European lower learning institutions every day, and we’re still engaged militarily in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Finally, as far as the raging fiscal storm for which H was supposed to be our proverbial high pressure front, the fact that every commercial on television begins with the phrase “In times like these” belies the lack of improvement.

When I posed this last point to an Obamanaut I was having a conversation with a few days ago, she responded with, “Well, you can’t expect miracles.” Oddly enough, she made my point for me: no, you can’t. So far, other than the Obamas getting an unbelievable dog (see right), the tenure of the 44th President has been about as eventful as those of the aforementioned 9th and 20th ones, and does not merit being deemed an “Era.” Not even in Berkeley.

Eleh Ezkarah, V'nafshi Alai Eshpecha

The title of this entry comes from the selection of the Yom Kippur service that commemorates the brutal murders of ten Sages at the hands of the Romans, destroyed for their devotion to their faith. It translates to "These things I remember, and my soul cries out on them." I chose it because it manages to convey that which I cannot put into words - any kind of statement about the Holocaust seems inadequate. However, given how disgustingly lightly the term is thrown around in Berkeley, I feel obliged to say something.

I’m not going to explain the reasons why the deaths of innocent standers-by in Gaza is not comparable to the Holocaust, much less why even the most negligent of beef slaughterhouses or the most wanton destruction of the Amazon rainforest aren’t either. Anyone demanding that sort of argument won’t derive anything from my writings in this blog, anyway. I will simply say that the sentiment behind “Never Forget” is violated when one uses the Holocaust for comparative purposes. Far more repugnant than the idea that those 6 million+ cold-blooded executions in Europe are comparable to anything else is the way such a comparison degrades the memory of the dead – who had in life already been more thoroughly stripped of their purportedly inalienable right to humanity and dignity than any human beings in our species’ long, torturous history.

As much as it is our eternal duty to “Never Forget,” it is our obligation to safeguard the memories we fight to keep alive from those who would willfully defile them.

In loving memory of the 6 million+ martyrs who lost their lives at the hands of the most evil empire I pray the world ever knows.

Electioneering

[An opening disclaimer: the following politically-oriented views are strictly those of their author, and their expression is, both technically and in spirit, completely unaffiliated with any organization, on campus or otherwise. Another disclaimer: the author’s offer of advice regarding this week’s election does not entail his condoning the existence of the ASUC Senate; to the contrary, the author would like here to express his hope that the institution will one day be dismantled, and to emphasize that the following piece is written merely in the hopes of making the best of an unfavorable situation.]

In perusing the voter’s guide for this week’s ASUC elections and reflecting upon my experiences with various candidates I met this week, I was surprised to find a good number who I wouldn’t be loathe to have responsible for doling out our university’s finances. I wish today to make concise arguments for the two candidates I most avidly support: Will Smelko and Matthew White.

I first met Senator Smelko when I attended a number of Senate meetings in the wake of the Eshleman Hall “fight” last Nov 13. He immediately struck me as a man far too good to be working in such a poorly-run, obscenely self-important environment – which is why I wasn’t surprised to discover he had a solid working relationship with Senator John Moghtader. I soon found him – along with Senators Moghtader, Meghana Dhar, and Tommy Owens – to be one of the few ASUC officials I liked, and one of the four I would admit to trusting. In him, I believe voters have not only an intelligent, good-hearted man for whatever reason willing to give yet more of his time in their service, but also an opportunity to elect the first capable ASUC President since my arrival in Berkeley in Fall 2006. Indeed, I believe he would be the only one in this span to have sought the presidency to affect positive change in the student government, rather than to expand his profile or pad his resume. He stands in particularly sharp contrast with CalSERVE candidate Oscar Mairena, who has with every speech and action I have witnessed presented himself to me as a grandstanding tool of Herculean proportions, and actually somehow managed, by dint of the personality he displays in the line of his Senatorial duties, to make me dislike him personally. Independently and by comparison, then, I believe Senator Smelko to be the only reasonable choice for ASUC President – this immediately dismissing Defend Affirmative Action Party candidate Ronald Cruz and with all due deference to SQUELCH! candidate Andy “Vote for Me and Get Laid” Morris.

Though I am personal friends with Matthew White, my endorsement of him is not drawn from my enjoyment of his company, or even from some of our shared political views, but strictly from my faith in his capacity as an elected official. Speaking from a deep bank of personal experience, Matt is an intelligent, ethical man with an unusually wide network of connections that keeps him adrift of developments in Berkeley circles far beyond his own. He has a strong sense of morals, derived both from the sharply-defined laws of kind and proper behavior he follows as an observant Jew, and from his own unrelenting conscience. He is a loving person who makes friends in a manner genuinely blind to race, religion, gender, or sexual preference. He has been intimately involved with a number of campus-tied organizations, and will thus serve in Berkeley’s best interest – as he himself has too much invested emotionally to see conditions decline any further. He will stand above the pettiness of ASUC party politics not because he’s running as an independent, but because he has seen firsthand, as an associate and friend of Senator Moghtader’s, the waste and divisiveness they always cause. He will vote with his mind and his conscience – both of which I guarantee make him more genuinely interested in “preserving diversity” than any of the narrow-minded, self-serving candidates running for CalSERVE or the Defend Affirmative Action Party. In sum, I would trust Matt with my life – so it should go without saying that I’d trust him with an active hand in the future of the ASUC.

I would encourage readers to read through the growing archive of MirvChron posts, which I hope illustrate the reasons I believe the CalSERVE party has shown itself to be a petty assemblage of incompetent, self-serving men and women who do not deserve access to the obscenely large ASUC slush fund. I would also mention briefly that I met, talked to, was impressed by, and throw my support behind the following candidates: Rick “Rollin’” Chen (#64), Serge Sarkissian (#111), J.P. Shami (#113), and Parth Bhatt (#117).

ASUC voting runs from April 7-9; polls can be accessed here. Thank you.