Supposing the fee hikes are legal -- what else is to be done? Recall that it was 'politically unfeasible' for the Regents to push through a system-wide fee increase to pay for the Kashmiri injunction. So one thing would be to make it politically unpleasant to proceed with the temporary fee.

I'm not a big fan of organizing pickets in front of the Chancellor's residence and so forth. If you want to get a university's attention, cut off their money. I for one would be willing to tell the UC system that as a UCLA law alumnus and practicing attorney, I will be withholding donations for some length of time -- 5 years? 7? 10? forever? -- in recognition of the fact that they've decided to impose this 'tax' now.

If enough people were to do this, it would get their attention.

Some might say -- withholding donations only hurts the future students. Perhaps. But if the injunction shortfall wasn't paid by me & my cohorts, it would have to be paid by these future students. So as far as I'm concerned, there is direct cost-shifting from the future to the present. I've done my part to financially support those future students.

Not to mention, why should I donate money to an organization that has proven it possesses poor financial management skills?

I went to Harvard during a time where they had revenue shortfalls and were running deficits. Did they impose 'temporary fees' to close the gap? Good lord no. Harvard recognized, as it always has, that squeezing students short-term just costs you in the long-term. Don't piss off your alumni, especially the high-earning ones.

The Regents seem to take the opposite philosophy, which is odd considering that Chancellor Albert Carnesale was provost at Harvard and would know well the costs of a burn-your-bridges strategy.

A well-managed university would not be looking to cover its shortfalls through regressive taxation -- ie. imposing extra fees on the people least able to afford them. Here's some other options: float some bonds on the public market. Do an alumni fundraising campaign. Borrow from capital reserves. These would all solve a shortfall problem without dropping it on the shoulders of a small group of students.

All around UCLA I see large capital improvement projects in the works -- new hospital, new art building, new dorms. I haven't scrutinized the UC's financial statements but I'm betting they made the same mistake as the state of California made -- during the boom years in the late 90s they expanded capital spending dramatically, and then when tax revenues declined (as any financial manager would know was inevitable) they felt an unusually sharp pinch. With more conservative cash management, I'll bet the Kashmiri issue would've been a blip.

But where is the student outrage? Outrage is a lot to ask though. What about sincere displeasure? Mild annoyance? Help me out here peeps. Last I checked the motto of UCLA law school was not "roll over and take it like a bitch". Yet since Dean Schill announced the fee in August there has been a seemingly utter lack of student alarm, interest, or awareness of this situation.

I don't want to impugn those of you who may have been quietly cheesed off. Thank you for your support. However, it's time to come out of the closet. It would be nice to get some collective action going. It doesn't have to be everybody. But I don't know, 20 people? 10 people? 2?

The point to be made is simple. Actions have consequences.

06 Oct 05