Posts Tagged ‘UCSD’

Election Grievance: Details of Alleged Violation

In D1 Referendum 2012 on March 3, 2012 at 3:08 pm

Former AS president, UCSD alumnus Utsav Gupta sent out an email to many students containing demonstrably false and misleading information, urging students to vote yes on the DI referendum.

In the email he claims that those on financial aid will not be harmed by this referendum because of its 29% allocation to increase aid funds. This is misleading, since some financial aid comes in the form of loans which must be repaid, and in that case will hurt those on financial aid. He claims that our US News ranking will be improved by a DI program. This is false, since US News does not consider sports in its ranking, and only through increased alumni support (not sports) would our ranking improve. He claims that UCSD is the only DII UC. This is misleading since it implies that all other UCs are DI, when in fact UCSC is DIII and UC Merced is not currently in an NCAA division. He claims that this referendum is a step towards a football team. This is misleading because he does not note the fact that the Feasibility study concluded football was not feasible at UCSD and would entail an additional $33 million to support.

Given 1) the immense influence that this act could have on the election, 2) its egregious impropriety considering its inaccuracy and possibly improper access to a UCSD-wide listserv, 3) previous allegations of serious conspiracy and foul play, given 4) that AS has no authority over Mr. Gupta since he is neither part of an official campaign nor a student, 5) that Mr. Gupta is an employee of UCSD as an Alumni Outreach Officer and that other UCSD employee’s have had their personal opinions on private networks censored in an effort to maintain neutrality, and 6) that requesting an apology or fine will not undo the impact this misinformation may have on the election results:

I ask the AS Elections Committee, Advocate General, and/or Judicial Board to recognize these as exceptional and extenuating circumstances regarding the two-day deadline for considering this grievance.

If these entities are unable to establish exceptional and extenuating circumstances, and are thereby unable to consider this grievance, I ask that these entities, and AS Council to do the following immediately: 1) publicly denounce this email as an egregiously improper effort by a UCSD employee to influence a student election, 2) publicly endorse, promote, and provide access to at polling stations the letter writing campaign I have initiated concerning this email 3) seriously consider the potential for this email to undermine the possibility of this election remaining neutral, fair, and valid.

[This grievance was covered by the UCSD Guardian on March 5th, 2012. Between February 27 and March 9 UCSD undergraduates will vote on a referendum that will raise the Athletics student fee 134%, to a total of $854 per year, in order to fund a move to D1 in the event that UCSD receives a bid from a D1 conference.]

Don’t forget to vote!


Statement of Intentions from the Reclaimers of the Chancellor’s Complex to the UCSD Administration

In California, Privatization on March 3, 2012 at 5:55 am
  • We have initiated a civil, peaceful, and indefinite Reclamation of the UC San Diego Chancellor’s Complex.
  • If the Administration fails to fully implement these six Demands by March 8th, large-scale community action will be taken against the Administration.
  • If the Administration cannot implement any particular Demand(s) by March 8th, they must provide an acceptable justification and a detailed timeline for rapid implementation.
  • Because our assembly is public and promotes transparency, the Administration is invited and encouraged to continue holding meetings in Conference Room 111A for the duration of the Reclamation.
  • We have the right to actively and civilly participate in any such meetings.
  • Furthermore, we insist that the Administration play an advocacy role on behalf of our statewide and national demands.


A coalition of students, Alumni, faculty, workers, and community members. Read the rest of this entry »

International Call to Action and Announcement of Virtual Sit-In

In Uncategorized on February 28, 2012 at 11:59 pm


Citizens of the World:

We the people of Public Education Coalition of UC San Diego seek to globally unite, from Chile to Puerto Rico, from Greece to Spain, from Egypt to Iran, from Occupy Wall Street to Occupied Palestine, from UC Riverside to UC Davis to UC Berkeley, with those who share our commitment to the empowerment of workers, students, and the unemployed through the creation of an equitable and compassionate society. Through collective struggle we will reverse the privatization of our universities and reclaim public education as a human right for all people.

Together, university and state officials all over the world have used the tactics of neoliberalization and privatization to systematically dismantle access to public education by underrepresented, underserved and otherwise invisible communities.

March 1st is one day of action in a growing movement, but there are any number of ways to support it.

When you walk out, teach out, march out, or speak out on March 1st you are demonstrating your commitment to the importance of public education in an egalitarian society. You are demanding your role in shared governance of a public institution, and you are defending future generations who will inherit the political, economic, social and educational systems we create for ourselves today.

This is also a call to VIRTUAL ACTION.

As inheritors of the legacies set forth by millions of student protesters across the globe and across generations, we cordially invite the citizens of the world to become actors in a performance of Electronic Civil Disobedience through a virtual sit-in on,, and

By taking part in this gesture of Electronic Civil Disobedience, you will align yourself in the traditions of non-violent direct action and civil disobedience established by peaceful dissenters throughout world history. Proponents of Electronic Civil Disobedience are borrowing tactics of trespass and blockade from earlier social movements and applying them to the virtual sphere. Electronic Civil Disobedience, as a form of mass de-centralized electronic direct action, utilizes virtual blockades and virtual sit-ins. Unlike the participants in a traditional civil disobedience action, an ECD actor can participate in virtual blockades and sit-ins from home, from work, from the university, or from other points of access to the Net. The virtual sit-in will begin on March 1st at 12:00 AM and end on March 5th at 11:59 PM. To participate, follow or send an email to Details will be posted to the blog and sent out via email tomorrow evening about how to participate. In the meantime: take the flyer attached below and print it, email it and spread it far and wide in the virtual sphere.

If not us, who?

If not now, when?

See you on the streets and the virtual networks of the world.

Sean Estelle, Sophia Lawson, Stephanie Nowinski, Shelby Cohantz

Public Education Coalition (,

Print This - Email This - Spread the Word

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


In California, Privatization on February 21, 2012 at 2:45 am

[Please share this call to action with your friends, professors, colleagues, TAs, PIs, roommates, and who ever else you think should read it]

Students, instructors and staff you have a stake in the future of the UC. The public nature of the UC is under threat, but on March 1st we are coming together to defend it.

Students, mandatory fees set by the regents have more than doubled since 2001 adjusted for inflation.[1] At the same time, UCSD’s average debt at graduation increased 20%.[2] In 2009, 48% of UCSD students graduated with debt at an average of $18,757.[3] Since 1990 expenditure per student has fallen over 19%.[4] At the same time state support per student fell 60% while tuition support more than tripled.[5] The UC shifted from public funding toward personal, private funding. This shift was not and is not inevitable. Students: the ability of many of your qualified colleagues to attend a UC is threatened by this shift,[6] but you can help.

Instructors, between 1995 and 2010, while positions for teaching in the UC system increased 48%, positions in senior management increased 182%.[7] In 2007, a retired UC Berkeley professor estimated the excess growth in senior management to cost the UC $603 million annually.[8] As instructors retire they are not replaced,[9] and some of your colleagues at UCSD were recently recruited to a private institution.[10] The UC is moving from academic to entrepreneur. This movement is not inevitable. Instructors: the priority for the UC to attract, retain and support your colleagues has been misplaced, but you can help.

Staff, starting in 1999 the UC regents began to funnel pension fund money into riskier investments. Since 2004 billions of dollars have been invested through private investment firms which are non-transparent, lightly regulated, highly risky, and which have charged the UC tens of millions of dollars so far.[11] The UC’s pension and investment portfolios lost $23 billion in the 2008 financial crisis, some of which were made against the advice of a former treasurer[12] and in full awareness of the risk.[13] The UC is now asking for workers to pay into the pension system as they cut benefits to absorb its losses.[14] The UC privatized and jeopardized its investments. This was not and is not inevitable Staff: The risks taken by the regents promise to harm you, your families, and your colleagues, but you can help. Read the rest of this entry »

D-1 Pro Statement (Annotated)

In D1 Referendum 2012 on February 15, 2012 at 9:39 pm

[The official publication of this statement is available here]

The Division I and Student Scholarships Referendum does more than just move our athletic community and our student life to the next level. The Division I and Student Scholarships Referendum will raise nearly $8,000,000 per year in scholarships, $3,000,000 of which will go to student grants and aid, not just to athletes.

[If AS wanted to increase scholarships they would not have tagged $14 million dollars of D-I to it. The goodness of D-I is ambiguous and complicated so pairing it with something ‘inherently good,’ like scholarships, improves its chances of passing. While financial aid will be adjusted for the fee increase, much of financial aid is loans which must be paid back. Debt on graduation has increased 20% since 2000, this will not help. [1]]

This Referendum WILL:
+ Increase UCSD’s exposure and visibility.

  • We will play against, and have rivalries with, schools that are more familiar and similar to us Instead of playing against “The Academy of Art,” we’ll be playing against schools like UC Irvine, UC Santa Barbara, UC Riverside, and UC Davis.

[Since the 2008 financial and economic crises UC Irvine has cut five sports entirely, UC Davis has cut four sports entirely, UC Riverside has cut athletic spending by 8.4%, and UC Santa Barbara has cut its sports as well.[2]

Athletics at other schools have not been spared from the general cut in support that has resulted from poor state governance, and system-wide mismanagement. Why would we more than double our support for sports when all divisions and departments of our school have had to cut back?] Read the rest of this entry »

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 »

Letter Warning about D-1 Language Still Unaddressed

In D1 Referendum 2012 on February 14, 2012 at 11:48 pm

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

Dear Editor,

On Thursday February 9th, the Muir College Council failed to pass a resolution against the D-I referendum. Alyssa Wing and Mac Zilber made an appearance to critique the text of their resolution.

Wing repeated a statement which appeared in the Guardian on January 30th, 2012. She said that the concerns in a letter from the Student Fees Advisory Committee (SFAC) had referred to an out-dated draft of the referendum, and that “All of the issues were addressed in the final draft,” as she was quoted in the Guardian.

However, the copy of the SFAC letter I have quotes the referendum as follows: “According to Statement 6 in the Statement of Conditions, ‘The ASUCSD Council must annually review and approve the ICA budget.’ In the same statement, ‘[ASUCSD] shall comply with UC and UCSD policies, NCAA policies and regulations, and contractual obligations of ICA.’”

The text of the referendum currently available to students on the website reads as follows: “The ASUCSD Council must annually review and approve the ICA budget and shall comply with UC and UCSD policies, NCAA policies and regulations, and the contractual commitments of ICA.”

Read the rest of this entry »