Posts Tagged ‘UCSD Libraries’

CLICS Destruction

In California, Privatization, Reclaim CLICS on March 30, 2012 at 8:00 am

CLICS is officially closed and shut down.

There is a giant chain-link fence bolted in to the front door, and the side doors are securely locked.

Much of the ceiling has been torn apart, some of the wiring has been pulled down, the study carrolls are gone, and they have even scratched away some (but not all – just the ‘politically charged stuff’) of the art.




Preliminary photos can be found here:




If you want to get involved in fighting back against these oppressive measures, please fill out the whenisgood link here:
 Get ready for a campus-changing quarter, everyone.

Chancellor Fox’s “Response” to the March 1st Demands

In California, Privatization, Reclaim Chancellor's Complex on March 8, 2012 at 5:01 pm

Dear Public Education Coalition:

We appreciate your initiative to organize activities on March 1 in support of public education in California. We support events that draw attention to the increasing challenges our University community faces because of the erosion of state funding, and we fully agree with the call for California to once again support the California Master Plan of Education as an integral facet of economic stability for our state’s families. We will continue to press the case for investment in the UC with out elected representatives in Sacramento.

You also have articulated a series of campus-specific, budget-related demands that range from support for selected academic support programs to access to campus spaces. We have and will continue to work across the campus to fairly accommodate the budget reductions that have touched every aspect of campus life. We take very seriously our responsibility to oversee the campus resources to benefit all. As we make these difficult decisions, we will continue to give strong consideration to input from all segments of the campus community.

Since 1990, the state’s contribution to educating each UC student has dropped more than 50%. The magnitude of the cutbacks cannot continue without seriously affecting the quality of education at the University of California. We share your disappointment and frustration with the deep and lasting budget cuts. Therefore, we encourage you to join the UC Regents and colleagues from all campuses on May 17, 2012 for a march on Sacramento. Our unified support can make a difference for current and future students.


Marye Anne Fox


c: Executive Vice Chancellor

Vice Chancellors

Open Letter to AVP Athletic Relations

In D1 Referendum 2012 on February 28, 2012 at 5:47 pm

[This letter was sent to Aurora Lopez, AVP Athletic Relations, on February 26th. It is intended to address the entire athletic community.]

Dear Aurora,

I am personally writing to you about March 1st because I have been quite vocal against the DI referendum, and because I am sure that the athletics community feels that March 1st is not for them. I entreat you to support March 1st by encouraging athletes to attend, by forwarding this email to your athletics contacts, and by attending yourself.

I want to emphasize to you, and to the athletic community in general, that March 1st is a day for education first and foremost, and that there are problems with our public education system which directly affect athletes. The loss of state funding has seriously harmed athletics programs at UCSB, UCI, UCR and UCD to name just a few. Increased system-wide mandatory fees harm athletes just as they harm other students, if not more because athletes already have such full schedules.

Unfortunately, for many students the fight is against any increase in fees for which they perceive no benefit. Many of the organizers for March 1st fall within that group, and so the issues of state-wide fees (which affect us all) and campus fees (like DI) have been run together. The reaction against the DI referendum is a product of the current atmosphere of fee escalation. If the regents and UCOP were not facing the possibility of raising fees by 16% annually, the D1 referendum would be far less contentious than it has proven to be.

I believe our athletes deserve to advance to DI. We are the largest school in DII and we already have three sports in DI. That being said, all students have been made to suffer through cut backs, and fee increases, not just athletes. We all deserve a better, more affordable education, and while we will have different priorities I believe we can all agree there are problems within our system which are unacceptable to everyone.

Athletics are an important part of a college experience, and neither I, nor anyone I have spoken to, is against DI in and of itself. It is part of the tragedy of our system that many students feel they cannot support program improvements they would otherwise love to have.

Please show your solidarity.


Kevin Quirolo

AS Resolution Endorsing March 1st

In Privatization on February 15, 2012 at 11:40 am

[This resolution was passed by AS on Wednesday February 8th]

Resolution to Endorse the March 1, 2012 Day of Action

WHEREAS, The California Master Plan for Higher Education called for a
tuition free University [1]; and

WHEREAS, Tuition has been consistently increased since the creation of
the California Master Plan, with a 68% jump between 2007 and 2011
alone [2]; and

WHEREAS, students now contribute more into the UC than does the state
of California [3]; and

WHEREAS, the University of California, San Diego, has been greatly
impacted by tuition hikes; and

WHEREAS, CLICS Library, the IRPS Library, and the Medical Center
Library in Hillcrest, have all been shut down due to budget cuts; and

WHEREAS, since 2009, UCSD has reduced its workforce by over 5.5% [4]; and

WHEREAS, current workers have had pay and benefits significantly
reduced [5]; and

Read the rest of this entry »

CLICS Clarifications to Guardian

In Privatization, Reclaim CLICS on February 15, 2012 at 1:01 am

[This letter was published by the UCSD Guardian available here:]

Dear Editors,

Our primary goal is to defend public education by engaging and empowering students. We are not the out-of-touch idealists featured in your article and editorial on January 26th.

The renovation of CLICS was not announced in response to the reclamation last quarter. It was announced in an A.S. Council press release on September 30th, 2011. Last year A.S. killed an $8 student fee to save CLICS, but now it wants to pass a $165 fee for D-1 sports.

Although students have taken responsibility for running CLICS, we have not set its hours, we did not know or plan for it to be open, and University Centers closes the building every night. The administration did not “invite student input” about re-opening CLICS. They re-opened CLICS without communication or negotiation, and only afterwards did they email students.

For a student-run news paper, your editorial board is surprisingly cynical about student-run organizations. The $370,000 you said it would take to run old CLICS is irrelevant to whether students can run a 100 seat study space in the new ‘Galbraith Hall’ (named for Chancellor John S. Galbraith and his lifelong commitment to libraries which have lost 16% of their budget at UCSD).  Running CLICS costs $450,000 annually, but renovation will cost $6,700,000, enough to run CLICS almost fifteen years. Read the rest of this entry »

D-1 Con Statement (Footnoted)

In D1 Referendum 2012 on February 14, 2012 at 11:52 pm

[This statement was submitted to AS to appear on the ballot for the special election occurring between February 27th and March 9th. Footnotes have been added for the skeptical or curious. The official publication of this statement is available here]

Even if you want and can afford D-I, this WILL price some students out of a UCSD education. This will hurt middle-class students struggling to pay for school and who won’t receive more financial aid to cover a new fee.[1]

AS’s D-I Feasibility Study said football IS NOT feasible at UCSD.[2] This new fee will not fund a football team.

There is no hard evidence that D-I would provide employment advantages for UCSD graduates. UCSD already has an INCREDIBLE reputation. Last year, we had the second highest number of applications in the UC system, higher than Cal.[3]

US News, the most recognized ranking system, does not even consider sports in its rankings,[4] and a 2004 study of nine D-I conferences found that D-I basketball is not correlated with increased alumni giving.[5]

Non-student funding for D-I is possible. Most of UCLA’s athletics funding isn’t from student fees.[6]
The move from D-II to D-I is EXTREMELY RISKY. In a 2007 NCAA study all eight programs that moved from D-II to D-I suffered MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR FINANCIAL LOSSES.[7]

Remember to vote!

Read the rest of this entry »

Publication: Report on the Profitability of Education

In California, Privatization on February 14, 2012 at 11:29 pm

The “Report on the Profitability of Education and the Exploitability of Students” was compiled by two UCSD students, based on the ‘Teach the Budget’ curriculum developed by graduate students at UCSC. It contains detailed sections on the cost of UC tuition, the regents, the state of California, student activism, and much more. It is fully footnoted with emphasis on primary sources.

It is available in a digital format, as well as a printable format, which folds into a booklet. References and Appendix are published online as well.