top
Santa Cruz IMC
Santa Cruz IMC
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

City Upon A Shining “Science Hill”

by Darwin BondGraham
If UCSC is a proverbial City Upon A Hill, a “shining example” to be followed by all others as this name has demanded since Winthrop’s sermons, then just what does the LRDP mean for the future of higher education and science in America?
einstein.pdf_600_.jpg
Perhaps the clearest statement of UCSC’s horrible transformation is captured by a simple robotic voice, the voice of the Metro bus system’s androgynous speaker who automatically announces each stop as it approaches. When the system was first installed it announced only the major stops around town, “Mission and Bay,” “Metro Center,” “Soquel and Branciforte.” I recall riding it one day a few years back up to campus. The voice announced each stop on the way up Laurel Street. When the bus entered campus it went silent. But then the one announcement came, the one stop worth mentioning, (according to UCSC and the city’s bus operator that is), “Science Hill, U-C-S-C.” I wondered why at the time Science Hill got to be the main stop on campus given its distance from the Quarry Plaza and administrative buildings.

UC Santa Cruz has always called itself the “City On A Hill.” Truly it is, at least for 9 months out of the year. But the phrase is worth unpacking, especially given the campus’s past, present and future. UCSC adopted the moniker early on, back when it was something of an experimental campus in the UC system, one that would focus on undergraduate education and the liberal arts. The phrase is a reference to the “City Upon A Hill,” mentioned in one of John Winthrop’s 1630 sermons. Winthrop summoned the title as an inspiration and challenge to the English colonist at Massachussets Bay:

“we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken...we shall be made a story and a by-word throughout the world. We shall open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of God...We shall shame the faces of many of God's worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses upon us til we be consumed out of the good land whither we are going.”

In other words, UCSC, the City On A Hill is nick-named after the self-aggrandizing ideal that puritan settler colonist bestowed upon their invasive force during the European conquest of North America through joint stock corporations and religious transplants. It’s interesting that within the City On A Hill that is UCSC, it is “Science” that has now come to occupy the tip top of the “Hill.” This is not mere coincidence or symbolism. UCSC’s administrators along with the UC Regents and powerful business interests and benefactors based out of Silicon Valley (like Jack Baskin) have sought now for several decades to recast UCSC into a major research university with hard science and engineering at its core. In doing so they have adopted the self-righteousness and mission-zeal of puritan colonists, even if their ideological drive is different. They have truly colonized UCSC and now they expand into the woods, the “natives” be damned. Profit, prestige and power rely on physical expansion and transformation into a knowledge factory.

This remobilization of the “city upon a hill” runs parallel to other invocations of the phrase. In his farewell address to the nation, Ronald Reagan waxed emotionally:

“The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the ‘shining city upon a hill’ [America]…. And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years ago…. And as I walk off into the city streets, a final word to the men and women of the Reagan revolution, the men and women across America who for eight years did the work that brought America back. My friends: We did it.”

Of course Reagan’s idea of bringing America back was to slash social spending on health, education, and housing, to scale back the gains made by the Civil Rights Movement, to stonewall the women’s movement, pour trillions of dollars into high tech weaponry including nuclear arms, and give trillions more in handouts to the wealthiest corporations. Reagan’s vision for the city upon a hill was, in these respects, remarkably like the more particular vision that UC administrators and Regents have had for UCSC all these years: after several decades we find the quality of undergraduate education falling, housing prices stretched, working class students priced out and indebted; students of color – especially blacks – have been virtually expelled from UC; departments such as Feminist Studies are marginalized and where is Ethnic Studies!?; and there has been a creeping militarization of the campus alongside the coming of corporate big science and corporate styles of management. My friends: they did it.

UC President Clark Kerr pronounced the UC Santa Cruz experiment dead not long after it had begun. It was clear after only a couple decades of operation that the campus could not sustain its small size and isolated character. In truth, the idea of the “Oxford on the Pacific,” (this was Kerr and Dean McHenry’s second favorite nick-name for UCSC) was always an elitist scheme that was ill-suited to serve the people of California. For most of its existence UCSC has been an institution benefiting California’s most privileged, mostly white communities by polishing their sons and daughters. However, Kerr’s vision of the multiversity that UCSC’s administrators are now pursuing full speed with their LRDP and various big science institutes and contracts is no more socially just or environmentally sustainable than the original plan for the City On A Hill. In fact, it’s much worse.

In the several decades after UCSC’s founding the school was swept up in a remarkable upsurge of democratic activism led by women and people of color. This movement helped to open up universities nationwide to previously excluded populations while critiquing the goals of education and knowledge production as we had known them until that point. The university was recast into a more inclusive space that produced knowledge and diplomas with higher purposes than profit or vulgar patriotism.

But the pendulum is swinging back. Corporate America and the political Right have other plans for higher education and scientific research, and they increasingly have the power to enact these plans. What’s going down on Science Hill today along with the plans for campus expansion up into the hills is part of a larger picture. The political-economic shakedown is simple. Social resources are being funneled into programs and plans that will benefit private interests, businesses, and certain ideological agendas. Pure and simple.

If UCSC is a proverbial City Upon A Hill, a “shining example” to be followed by all others as this name has demanded since Winthrop’s sermons, then just what does the LRDP mean for the future of higher education and science in America?
§Corporate University
by Darwin BondGraham
universityinc.jpg
From http://corpwatch.org
Add Your Comments

Comments (Hide Comments)
by Oh, you mean the Tree Sitting Community?!
Your statement doesn't jibe with the statistical facts offered up by the University.

Here's a link for this years frosh class at UCSC: http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/fall2007adm.html

Total class: 14,881

Total Asian: 5,351

Total Chicano/Latino: 3,295

I'll stop there, because I've already reached the point where 8,600 of this years 14,881 students aren't mostly privelidged and mostly white. You can run the pdf yourself to see the rest of the percentages.


Now, if we look at the tree sitters and attendant protesters from last month? I'd estimate that crowd as 95% white and priveleged.

I think that's the real story here. It's not students against growth. It's some of the students who are already in and who have other options against growth.

Many, if not most of the underrepresented and lower income students support the growth, because they want their shot at a better education.

Those lucky enough to already be there want to shut the door...but they're shutting it in the face of their underrepresented minority bretheren in line behind them.
by the facts
What is the point of this? Somehow from the fact that one bus stop on campus is named "Science Hill" you draw out these conclusions? I always thought of the College 9 and 10 stop as the "main bus stop" in the central part of campus, and there are clearly many academic departments at higher elevations than the science departments whose position at the "tip top" of the hill you seem unhappy about.

And exactly what corporate influence are you attacking? Only 1% of the research funds at UCSC come from corporate sources. Why are you attacking the same scientists who are spending their lives dedicated to their students and their research on global and local problems like malaria and global warming?
by (from "Oh you mean...")

I agree with your premise. What's wrong with corporate grants and funding? Like that automatically means it's evil? Juvenile logic.


Some good info. here: http://www.ucsc.edu/osp/annualreports.html

Some fun tidbits from that linked report:

-Over the last 5 years, UCSC has received over half a billion dollars in external funding.

-Of that half a billion, 78% came from the Federal Govt.

-The single largest funding source was NASA, who ponied up $18 million.

-"Evil" foundations donated 13% of the half billion.

-And as you stated, private industry donated a total of 1% of the entire half billion given in the past 5 years. 5 million out of 500 million.

Clearly, they have taken over and prostituted the system.

by Darwin
In terms of racial representation at UCSC, the figures are more complex than "Oh, you mean the Tree Sitting Community?!" makes it seem.

For the run of UCSC's history it has graduated far more white students than people of color (as has the UC on whole). It was only through the political activism of Black, Latino Native America, and Asian youths that the university was opened up. The current figures you sight are the result of these struggles, not the benevolent grants of UCSC's administrators or the UC Regents (the same people now pursuing UCSC's mass expansion).

Plus, the majority of UCSC students are incredibly privileged, even if they're not white. Among the Asian and Latino students attending, most are the children of the upper class (especially Asian students). The working classes of these racial groups are still excluded, as are white working class youths.

UCSC's expansion is often conflated with providing access to working class and racially underrepresented students in California. This is not the case. Consider how many prisons have been built over the last several decades compared to how many new UCs. Consider how many more beds have been added to already existing prisons in California compared to how many spaces have been added at already existing UCs. Youth of color and all working class youth are being excluded and funneled from "dropout factory" hyper-segregated high schools into prisons and the clasps of the legal system, or else into under-employment.

UCSC's expansion is primarily about making this school into a multiversity that can better serve the interests of capital, the state and the military. It's also driven by the self-interested and power hungry administrators in UCOP and UCSC. It's not about creating racial justice or true inclusion.

As far as the racial/class make up of the tree sitters, yes, they do appear mostly white and many probably do come from well to do households. The split between the anti-war/environmental movements and racial justice movements among progressive students is well known and highly problematic. But this doesn't mean that UCSC's expansion is suddenly a racially just initiative. It just means that racism and classism are so powerful (to say nothing of patriarchy) that they operate even within supposedly progressive circles.


Now, for the point raised by "the facts" (who is probably the same individual as the other two posts here).
I never said that corporatization of the university entails direct funding of science research or academic functions from universities. In fact, I'm saying the opposite. Corporatization is primarily accomplished through the use of public funds for research and university work that benefits private corporate interests instead of wider and more diverse publics. This is the profundity of the swindle: corporations pay very, very little to profit very much. All they must do is control and influence the political-economy, not the actual day to day administrative operations, nor the details of research contracts, nor do they have to waste their own money on research or facilities (although they sometimes do as is the case with many institutes, endowed chairs, or contracts). Corporations have accomplished this feat through their hegemony of the political system, through their representation on the UC Board of Regents, and through a creeping corporate culture that has overtaken university administrators (who since about the 1980s or so began paying themselves much more than professors).

Final points worth making clear:
I never said corporate funding or military funding is "evil." I'm saying that its domination of the university produces a specific sort of institution that benefits corporations and the military more than other parties, it equals corporatization and militarization. These things are bad in our present context because they benefit a tiny minority of the US population while stringing out the middle class into debt and into fields of work that deal mostly with making missiles and fighter jets, or else drilling for oil and selling useless crap to American consumers. It's all very unsustainable and relies ultimately on an imperialistic state and economy.

Anyhow, I trust most readers to give my article a better reading that sees the complexities and connections I'm trying to draw. Your characterizations of my thesis are mostly silly. I wonder what interest you have in the LRDP....

by blot

You point out that working class and students of color are decreasing in the percentage enrollment at UC Santa Cruz. There is a sign at the camp objecting to the lack of a distinct ethnic studies department. The LRDP's website states as one of it's top two objectives, an opposition to increasing enrollment of 4500 additional students at the Santa Cruz campus.
How are these two ideas compatible? It isn't just speculation that students near the cutoff for the top 12.5% of high school students in the state who are admitted to the university are more likely to be either working class, or latino, american indian, or black. This is fairly well documented by the people to do admissions, and it isn't surprising. They give extra GPA points for AP classes, and California has some really wealthy neighborhoods in ORange County and Silicon Valley where students attend private schools or can take 8 AP classes. Doesn't it seem like the part of the anti-LRDP petition which opposes new students is explicitly making the campus even more slanted towards the traditionally wealthy and already upper class?
by Darwin
Sure, if the opposition of those tree sitting up on Science Hill were just about blocking UCSC's expansion then your point would be true. But this would be to grossly misrepresent their intentions.

Here's the point some of us are getting at: instead of expanding UCSC, why don't we just build another UC (Merced ain't enough)? In fact, we could put it in a bio-region that can support the facility, and we could put it geographically somewhere not so isolated from the communities that UC is supposed to serve. And as it's built up, let's make sure it serves everyone, not just those with the $ to dictate its mission.

While we're at it, why don't we direct some greater portion of state and federal funds away from big science research and military spending or corporate tax handouts, and put it toward K-12 education and higher ed, so everyone can go to college. The big pot of money controlled by the state is being shrunk by fiscal conservatives and greedily monopolized by corporations and elites.

Instead of building a dozen prisons up the 99 highway, why don't we build some UC's up there?
(By the way, read Ruth Gilmore's book on the California prison boom, it will give you a richer analysis of the political-economy of surplus population, capital and global economic restructuring that has led to the massive expansion of prisons while the university system atrophies.)

I urge people to be critical of the tree sitters and LRDP resistance movement, but first and foremost you have to get what they're saying. Go visit them, talk with them, see where you truly agree and where you differ. I've found much in common with their critique, although I have some serious differences.

But stop the misrepresentations.

by (from "Oh you mean...")
Dude, you are blowin so much smoke that it makes a smoggy day in L.A. look pristine.

You're the one who made the incorrect statement that "students of color have been virtually expelled from the UC sytem", not me. I simply showed the statistical facts that refute your fantasy.

Only after that refuting of your false statement do you become interested in discussing the nuances of the statement? Weak tactic, but okay, lets discuss the nuances!

A) You seemed content to portray it as a racial issue between white and non-white, until I showed you incorrect. Suddenly after that, you now want to change your tune and make it about haves and have nots, and race be damned? So now, only poor people of color are worthy of inclusion in the statistics? You've given up on "it's mostly whites" and turned to "wealthy POC don't count" in your analysis? Weak.

B)You said "For the run of UCSC's history it has graduated far more white students than people of color (as has the UC on whole)" . Well, for the run of it;s history, UC ran in a state that had far more white students than people of color. That's a weak effort to use changes in demographics to prove your point.There are myriad stats comparing the changing demographics of the state's ethnic composition in comparison to the UC's changing population to show they've done a fair job of changing.

C) The ONY reason that students of color got into UC was because of the efforts of those students? The rest of the state, and the UC system, was a racist cabal aligned against them? That seems to be your allusion, I invite you to state it clearly and unequivocally so that we can debate it further . As it stands now, it's a contention that implies that the citizens of CA, in general and in majority, are racists aligned to thwart the educational opportunities to people of color. If it is your point, I refute it as B.S.

And most importantly, the nimby issue....D:

D) You're comfortable telling the next generation of students that they can go to UC Merced, live in the valley, and go to a school that you've decided is an acceptable choice for them. And yet you, my selfish poster, has CHOSEN the schools of your choice. UCSC for undergrad, and UCSB for graduate school.

It must be nice, to pick and choose for yourself, then turn around and dictate to those behind you from your seat of benevolent knowledge. Why didn't you set an example and go to UC Merced yourself? Hmmmm.....not your first choice, eh?


by Darwin
First, it's interesting that whoever you are, you know that I'm a grad student at UCSB. Anyone who would look that up must bear some kind of personal grudge. For the record I think UC Merced sounds great and that it was high time the Regents built a campus in the Central Valley.

Anyhow, we could debate till no end, the fact is that university expansion at UCSC is not designed to include under-represented students which include working class kids and people of color (and yes, working class Blacks and Latinos and Native Americans - this is called intersectionality, I can suggest some readings if you're interested in how race/class/gender combine to form particularly enduring and structural inequalities of which I allude too in my comments above). UCSC expansion is designed to benefit certain parties such as the hard sciences, engineering, business corporations, and UC administrators. But it makes sense why you all would try to sell it as some sort of "racially just" program when in fact it's a terribly flawed form of "development" that neglects certain possibilities in favor of others.

UC's own studies have concluded time and again that: "African American and Chicano/Latino students achieve UC eligibility at much lower rates than other groups, and their numbers on campus remain small." (http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/.../0308_meeting/Data_release_summary_FINAL_Mar_8_20041_with_data.pdf)
This all the while campuses have been expanding decade after decade in line with the LRDP and similar documents for other UCs. Drops in enrollments are due to a number of factors, but yes, many students were virtually expelled and blocked from getting to UC because of Reagan era rollbacks of Civil Rights gains, and later the repeal of AA.

A racially just UC and state of California wouldn't be so fixated on LRDP-like initiatives for campuses that just don't need to expand anymore. I could outline what better policies would might look like, but we're just going to disagree because you're clearly only interested in trolling indymedia and supporting your personal interests which clearly include UCSC's expansion.

You probably didn't get my point about the "City Upon A Hill." Perhaps I wrote poorly, but what I'm trying to hint at in part is the connection between ideologies of the past and the present. When the puritans settled the Americas they had a particular idea about who they were and what they were accomplishing with their "shining city" as an example. You UCSC profs/admin/Regents/business leaders have similar ideas of progress based on a very flawed trust in scientism and capitalism and technological fixes that will lead to some supposedly better future - and you resist calls for immediate social/political fixes to our collective problems because it would mean diminishing your power and profits.

Anyhow, I think your best option is to write your own analysis or take on LRDP and submit it (under your real name) and let the readers judge for themselves.

Peace,
Darwin
by Facts
You complain that I've made it personal, yet it was you who first raised the issue of character by questioning my interest in the lrdp and then suggesting that I was self-posting replies to agree with myself.

As for this statement by you: "First, it's interesting that whoever you are, you know that I'm a grad student at UCSB. Anyone who would look that up must bear some kind of personal grudge."?


I found that out by visiting your blog. You know, the one that you linked? That has all the articles about you and UCSB? If that's "looking someone up" because of a personal grudge, then all blog readers are stalkers. *lol* Don't flatter yourself.
by blot

Thank you. This is what I wanted - where you explicitly are suggesting alternative plans for increasing enrollment elsewhere, by directing new construction towards central Valley locations. I'm a staff member and I've attended movies and events by the tree sit which I think is fun, but my private problem with the whole affair has been this emphasis on blocking growth. Showing the website and story to other people off campus, we discussed how this seems very NIMBY, and moderate rather than progressive in nature. In a way, when the curmudgeonly Santa Cruz 'locals', or students who don't want to compete for the few apartments etc. are calling for stopping growth, they are saying "do me a favor and leave this pretty place for me with low rent. You go live in an uglier spot". It raises the question of why other people should grant this favor. Also, the whole Non-Local section of indybay tends to focus on border issues. At a larger scale, nativist and some working class americans want a border wall and wave their arms about immigrants breaking the law, when really their position is "all you additional people are going to make rent go up, make wages go down, and make things crowded. Do me a favor and stay in your place, and keep begging work at a maquiladora for subsistence wages". My own solution is putting up a tall dormitory block of 8 storeys or so with a small footprint.
I do support the concept of colleges put in spots that aren't in college-town areas where all the students live in dorms, but near a town where older students can commute and attend part time.
Maybe in future newsletters, there could be concrete suggestions for plans for college expansions elsewhere, or a workable tactic for increasing underrepresented admission.
by Darwin
I have no patience for NIMBY movments.
Much of Santa Cruz's enviro-movement history has been nothing more than mostly wealthy and middle class white folks "protecting" their little eco-heavens at the expense of broader critiques of environental racism/toxic imperialism (forms of enviornmental injustice that these groups perpetuate through hostile privatism).

Some people involved in the LRDP Resistance mobilization might be motivated by NIMBY concerns (though I haven't met any), but most of them I've talked with are not. In fact they have a very systemic and thoughtful analysis of why UCSC expansion is bad for most of us. Read their lit.: http://lrdpresistance.org/ I encourage everyone to talk with those resisting LRDP, not to assume that they're all selfishly interested college kids who don't want to let others in on their privileges.

For further clarification of some of the ideas I've tried laying out in the essay above people can check this out:
http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~darwin/universitycrisis.htm

If we are really interested in racial/socio economic justice we wouldn't be arguing about expanding UCSC. We'd be arguing over a whole redirection of public funds and state functions. Instead of expanding elite colleges we'd be talking about restructuring the K-12 educational system, its funding mechanisms, its administration; we'd be talking about the prison boom v. college stagnation; we'd be asking why the UC Regents are attacking community colleges; we'd be digging into the inbuilt class/race inequalities that exist in the California master plan for higher ed (that purposefully makes state and community schools inferior to UCs; we'd be questioning admissions policies; we'd critique the corporatization of higher ed;...............and on, and on.......

But UCSC expansion isn't going to allow more underprivileged students to attent UC. This is not what it's designed to do, and it will not have this effect.

I suppose this is the big stumbling bloc for those of us trying to find a way out of this mess: how do white activists who emphasize ecological and militaristic problems join up with the leadership that students of color and working class folks have shown over the past several decades to create a movement that can incorporate everyone's needs?

In the meantime UCSC, corporate America, and similar institutions will use this wedge to their advantage (like they always have).

For the record, I think the US-Mexico border is a terribly repressive apparatus. I see no contradition in being for immigrants, for the working class, for people of color while opposing UCSC's expansion. This isn't some either or choice: there are countless alternative plans we could dream up to support the expansion of higher ed in California for everyone, while also not devestating a particular ecology and giving massive handouts to corporations.
by blot
Instead of expanding elite colleges we'd be talking about restructuring the K-12 educational system, its funding mechanisms, its administration;"

Yes - it seems like half of this is due to proposition 13, freezing property tax assessments. On zillow.com or redfin.com you can easily look up the taxes that different houses pay. Also, you can pass on your evaluation to an heir - which is extremely biased against immigrants. It's also going to amplify the mortgage default panic next year, because even high earners who owe a lot of taxes can only deduct about 28% of the property taxes on their federal taxes. So when all the middle class suckers who just had family values and decided to buy houses in Salinas in 2005 that were beyond affordability are pinched with $4000 payments, they will get hit for thousands more for taxes that their neighbors do not similarly owe.
My landlord bought our complex for $1.4mill in 2004 and pays $16,000 while many of our neighbors with similar real values pay $500 or $3000 because they've been living here a long time. This factor makes poorer communities veto school levies.
by oehlberg
"Social resources are being funneled into programs and plans that will benefit private interests, businesses, and certain ideological agendas. Pure and simple."

The largest and most recent construction on campus is the digital arts and new media building and the Humanities and Social sciences buildings. Those two do not support the hypothesis that UCSC is taking money away from the arts and humanities and funneling it into science/engineering. For a well rounded argument you should address this issue. Perhaps the solution is to point out how these two buildings will benefit private interests, businesses, and certain ideological agendas.

You have challenged your readers to talk to people at the tree sit. I think you will be happy to learn that I have in fact talked to those at the tree sit. They have in general been caring and passionate. I have a counter challenge. Talk to researchers and faculty in the sciences. From Blumenthal's own words from http://lrdp.ucsc.edu/remarks.shtml :

"The campus’s deliberate investment in research infrastructure and in partnerships has resulted in two examples of the “big science” research partnerships that have benefited UC as a whole.

UCSC is headquarters to UC Observatories, which is a managing partner (with Caltech) of the world's two largest ground-based optical and infrared telescopes at the Keck Observatory in Hawaii.

The University Affiliated Research Center at the NASA Ames Research Center is part of our Silicon Valley Initiative. UCSC is managing a national research program valued at more than $330 million under an agreement with NASA. This 10-year contract is a first-of-its-kind for NASA. Although UCSC manages the program, it benefits all of UC."

So go talk to people involved in "big science" at Santa Cruz. Those that work with observatories and with NASA. I think that you will find people that are caring and are passionate about science.
by Gwendolynn
"Here's the point some of us are getting at: instead of expanding UCSC, why don't we just build another UC "

So let's take a city of 30,000 people and increase THEIR community to 45,000. No..not here....somewhere else. I'm sure that the people in the selected city would be very happy to hear that you want to push growth onto them.
by Darwin
"The largest and most recent construction on campus is the digital arts and new media building and the Humanities and Social sciences buildings. Those two do not support the hypothesis that UCSC is taking money away from the arts and humanities and funneling it into science/engineering."

Actually these two projects come only after the addition of the new Engineering 2 building, the construction of a massive parking garage for science hill, the equally massive Physical Sciences Building, the Interdisciplinary Sciences Center, and the Center for Adaptive Optics. Plus, don't forget the UCSC Silicon Valley Center.
These were the priorities for the last several Chancellors and thus were built first, before the two buildings you mention.

In the pipeline are a few more big science projects and only a couple humanities/social science projects (http://planning.ucsc.edu/capital/docs/MCIP.10-31-06.pdf). The direction the campus administration wants to go is clear as day; this is why so many of the recent Chancellors have been drawn from engineering [Denton], biology [Greenwood], and now astronomy [Blumenthal]. Consider what UC President Robert Dynes had to say about Denton when she was hired:

"She's going to set Silicon Valley upside-down,'' said UC President Robert Dynes, who wants Denton to make the University of California a power player in Silcon Valley." (http://lazowska.cs.washington.edu/denice.sjmercury/)

When MRC Greenwood was appointed Chancellor UCOP made special note of her unique qualifications for the job of converting UCSC to a big science mecca:
"From December 1993 to May 1995, Greenwood took a leave of absence from her duties at UC Davis to serve as associate director for science in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. In that position, she advised the Clinton administration on issues related to national budgetary priorities and federal investment in fundamental scientific research." (http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/10450)

But I'm not trying to promote humanities/social science here - I don't think they're inherently better than physical/bio sciences and engineering. I think they're equally capable of being co-opted for monopolistic uses by the military and corporations. The idea that there is some science/humanities split is not one I subscribe too.

I don't think big science benefits the public, at least not from a cost-benefit perspective. It would be much more just to spend $77 million on basic education, environmental cleanup, scholarships, faculty hires, community colleges, etc., than on some facility like Biosciences at UCSC. To be clear, I think it's okay to fund science and facilities for researchers, but I see the current direction as a privileging of science (particular varieties of it that will produce marketable products which will be made the intellectual property of corporations and universities), rather than the sorts of scientific research that could produce truly practical forms of knowledge benefitting wider publics.

by Darwin
Gwendolynn, there are countless cities and areas in California that would love to have a UC campus, or would love to see their community college, state school expanded and given increased funds.

Again, why don't we build colleges up Highway 99 where they put so many prisons the last 2 decades, prisons housing mostly black and Latino men. Those communities would probably choose schools over prisons any day, but the way things are going they're only being offered prisons - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/05/04/MNG9SPL71J1.DTL

Why don't we invest educational money in other places to make them just as beautiful and worth living in as you all seem to think Santa Cruz is?
by More facts
Don't forget that the "Engineering 2" building is also the home of Economics, and "Interdisciplinary Sciences" is the home of Environmental Studies. The argument that campus buildings have been favoring the sciences doesn't hold water.

I don't understand at all the idea that UCSC is "privileging science (particular varieties of it that will produce marketable products which will be made the intellectual property of corporations and universities), rather than the sorts of scientific research that could produce truly practical forms of knowledge benefitting wider publics." Talk to some of the scary people in the scary science buildings and you find them working on things like disease, pollution, habitat restoration and global warming. You are attacking a bogeyman that isn't there, and totally alienating people who should be your allies. If you are really doing it from Santa Barbara then you don't even have the same excuse as the wealthy local NIMBYs. Do you think it is odd that almost every UC is fighting about growth at the same time the students are looking less white and privileged?
by ..but evolution is lengthy.

Darwin is cherry picking to support his hypothesis. He's picking out other science facilities that were constructed to support his hypothesis, but ignoring the rest. How about a full accounting? Buildings also constructed in the same period as the science facilities he lists included:

-Colleges Nine and Ten, in their entirety. Res. halls, faculty offices, student community rooms, etc.
-Stevenson apartments.
-Kresge apartments
-The Music Recital Hall
-The Black Box experimental performance space.
-The Media theater
-Extended Oaks apartments.
-The Bay Tree Bookstore, inclusive of its Ethnic Resource Centers, 4 conference rooms, coffee shop, copy shop.
-


And while it may be true that "there are countless cities and areas in California that would love to have a UC campus"...he's quoting the reality that brought UC to Santa Cruz 42 years ago. The town pleaded for the campus, needed the infusion of business and money it brought to a dying coastal village. Now that reality has changed.

...just as it will in decades down the road in any town that asks for the next UC campus. Answers are easy when you only look at the short term.



by Grey Wool Knickers
I fear, Darwin, that you've got yourself stuck in a difficult spot vis-a-vis the other people responding to this post by focussing your analysis on the development of infrastructure for the sciences. I largely agree with what you've written here, but I think it needed to be articulated from the beginning that, to the extent that the University has privileged construction for the sciences, it has done so because that's where the money is. I appologize for cross-posting this comment from the previous main article, but it seems pertinent:

"...And I don't understand why this distinction is being drawn between the arts and the sciences, particularly when the "arts" in question consist of Digital Arts and New Media. This, too, functions as a public subsidy for private industry. The growth of arts training institutions such as these points not to the needs of students of the arts, clamoring for an upgrade to their antiquated tools. No, on the contrary, it points to the voracious appetite of the Culture Industry for more well-trained minions. Both the pharmeceutical and biosciences industries and the culture and media industries are at the cutting edge of a capitalist system struggling to commodify entire material and social spaces previously outside the reach of the market economy, and the UC system is happy to oblige in keeping them at the cutting edge, on the "public's" dime."

I gather this is not a thesis you would disagree with, but not addressing this from the get-go has apparently left some scientists (or scientivists) feeling a bit defensive, even though you clarify the point subsequently. The previous two posts are still harping on the point about whether the sciences or the humanities have been privileged when it is clear, no matter which school, discipline or department you're talking about, that the UC is bent on plowing forward with programs catered to marketable knowledge and a rationalized workforce. Of course, I shouldn't single out UC. As far as I know, this is happening at every university, even (and especially) all the way out where I am in Egypt at the American University in Cairo (UCSC was my alma mater and Santa Cruz my home for over a decade, in case you're wondering why I'm commenting here).
by not ben
So now we have a tag team based in Santa Barbara and Cairo telling us what it "is clear" that Santa Cruz is doing, because it must be true because it is true everywhere. So we might as well protest in the trees in a parking lot in Santa Cruz. That will really get the world's attention. Or at least the attention of someone in Cairo and someone in Santa Barbara.
by Grey Wool Knickers
I fail to understand what my current residence in Cairo (or Darwin's in Santa Barbara) has to do with our knowledge of a process and a trajectory that was clear to me at least since the evisceration of the Narrative Evaluation System in 1999. I only left Santa Cruz in May of 2006, and then only to San Francisco. I've only been in Egypt since August. Having previously lived in Santa Cruz since 1991 and been intimately acquainted with UCSC through my graduation in 1995, staying in Santa Cruz through 2006, and a year of publishing a Santa Cruz local bi-weekly newspaper in 2001-2002, apparently all of that goes down the drain when I step out of City Limits for a little while. Whatever. Try coming up with an actual counterargument (and "prove it" doesn't count).
by scmoderate
"So let's take a city of 30,000 people and increase THEIR community to 45,000. No..not here....somewhere else. I'm sure that the people in the selected city would be very happy to hear that you want to push growth onto them."

-Not all cities are like Santa Cruz and not all pieces of land are like the beautiful redwoods. Many (heck, MOST) mid-size cities in California would GLADLY accept having a UC built because of the jobs and cultural opportunities it would provide. Do you think people in Merced were really terrified of a UC? My candidate would be Redding. Well-located in an area of California with little higher education, beautiful surroundings, room to expand and build a university, pro-growth politics, and economy in need of jobs.

The UC HAS to expand to be able to accomodate the boom in population, especially if we are to avoid racist attacks on Latino immigrants and their arrival. The question is where, and I just think that cutting down redwoods to accomodate this is a terrible idea in a state with many flat, untreed landscapes that do not need tree removal to build on.

by Darwin
I'm not anti-science, nor am I lamenting how humanities and social science are supposedly being pushed to the edges of UCSC both architecturally and fiscally - although this has some truth to it. As a sociologist I have ample inside knowledge of how much harm my colleagues have done by selling their research to the highest bidders and uncritically buying into the ideological prerogatives of the US state.

My main point in the article above is that the LRDP expansion and the wider UC-system development plans of admin/Regents is toward a higher ed and research system that is designed to benefit corporations, the state and military, and that this is sometimes couched in a discourse that genealogically comes to us from a Christian puritanical zeal about progress and example. I hold no illusions: UC has always been geared to serve the powers that be, that's why it was originally founded as an agriculture and mechanical arts school - to assist in the conquest of the Central Valley by plantation style monocrop agriculture and develop more industrially rapacious mining technologies. The first board of Regents was a bunch of bankers, planters, rail road barons and industrialists (similar to today, right?).

I'm equally concerned about the uses of humanistic and social scientific knowledge by capitalist enterprise and the warfare state as I am about what they’d like to use physical/bio sciences and engineering for. There's a literature out there on the uses of anthropology, sociology and the development of area studies during the Cold War, and how these discipline were mobilized for the respective goals of colonial domination, domestic repression and counterinsurgency.

There's even some good historical accounts of UC's early professorial complicity, no, promotion of colonialism and white supremacy. Most of the heavy hitters back then who supported US colonial expansion (Phillipines, Puerto Rico) were anthropology, philosophy and history profs.

Here's an example: Prof. Barrows of UC Berkeley who also served as 9th President of the UC (1919-23). Barrows worked under the US military in the Philippines as “Secretary of Education.” He was tasked with “educating” Filipino elites to eventually rule their people in a neo-colonial fashion while also inculcating submission among the general population to direct US colonial rule, which was understandably something the Filipino people were not interested in and were fighting against (they had already had plenty of it under Spain). Consider what this early leader of the UC wrote about his task in the Philippines:

“In the organization of the office of chief executive of great colonial dependencies is involved a political problem of the first magnitude. The responsibilities of the government of an alien race, often permeated with discontent and difficult to control, require the deposit in the local executive of great and impressive powers, but there must be assurance that these powers will be exercised in subordination to the will of the home government and in accord with standards of humane and enlightened policy. Public opinion in a dependency cannot be relied upon for control and is always characterized by moods of hostility. Public opinion and frequently official opinion in the metropolitan country is usually ill informed and incapable of imagination….”
(“The Governor-General of the Philippines Under Spain and the United States.” David P. Barrows. The American Historical Review, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Jan., 1916), pp. 288-311).

Barrows was highly influential in shaping social sciences early on within UC. His racism and will to power is representative of the UC as a whole at the time, and all prestigious American universities.

What I’m arguing is that projects of domination (colonial, internal colonial, neo-colonial, and dominion over “nature”) continue in our society, but that they continue under transformed discourses rooted in those of the past. Just look at what the US is doing in Iraq. The mission there has the complicit and active support of thousands of scholars. Scientists are doing the basic research to build better weaponry and social scientists, legal scholars, philosophers and geographers are doing basic and applied research to find newer more powerful means of politically conquering that nation.

I could name contemporary examples of humanities and social science departments that have been co-opted for narrow ideological missions that support corporate and state power and work to suppress social movements, but instead here's some random reading people can look into if they’re interested:

(Co-optation and resistance to the current and past wars among anthropoligists)
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/11/29/anthro

Colonial Subjects: Essays on the Practical History of Anthropology. Eds. Pels & Salemink

(Berkeley’s torture scholar)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/25/AR2005122500570.html

(Area studies)
Area Studies and Multicultural Imperialism: THE PROJECT OF DECOLONIZING KNOWLEDGE
Schueller Social Text.2007; 25: 41-62

The Politics of Knowledge. Ed. David Szanton

(Sociology’s contributions to white supremacy)
“Sociology and Racism: An Analysis of the First Era of American Sociology.”
James R. Hayes
Phylon (1960-), Vol. 34, No. 4 (4th Qtr., 1973), pp. 330-341
by Jdevries

One more aspect to all this, which I don't think has been raised, is how these important decisions about the future of the university are being made. Even if you happen to think the LRDP is brilliant, or at the very least has some good ideas you can (I think) understand the intense frustration produced by the top-down way it was adopted. I think Darwin's point here is that the LRDP is about more than just which buildings will be built when or what programs get money. It's really about the nature of the university we'll have in years to come. Part of that is in the details of the LRDP but a lot of it is the whole LRDP process as well.

Instead of debating the merits of this aspect or another of the LRDP it might be more worth while to talk about what sort of university system we want to have in this state and how best to achieve those goals. (And then we can double back and check whether the LRDP is really the best way to achieve those).

So even if the LRDP does marginally improve diversity and quality of education (where quality does not mean preparing students for corporate jobs but really expanding their horizons and helping them grow as people), I think Darwin's point is that it clearly doesn't have those at its core and a whole different approach is needed if those are the things we are trying to foster. (And he further points to the historical and corporate contexts of our society as an explanation of why that isn't being done.)

I hope this helps put this discussion in a more productive context.

by Ben
"I could name contemporary examples of humanities and social science departments that have been co-opted for narrow ideological missions that support corporate and state power and work to suppress social movements, but instead....."

Please give us the names of corporations donating money to UCSC, that will benefit from the research done.

by Darwin
Ben, please read what I've actually written:

"I never said that corporatization of the university entails direct funding of science research or academic functions from universities. In fact, I'm saying the opposite. Corporatization is primarily accomplished through the use of public funds for research and university work that benefits private corporate interests instead of wider and more diverse publics."
(see the 7th paragraph of my first comment, "Response.")

by Darwin
Sorry, that sentence was not written well, what I meant to write was:

"I never said that corporatization of the university entails direct funding of science research or academic functions from CORPORATIONS. In fact, I'm saying the opposite. Corporatization is primarily accomplished through the use of public funds for research and university work that benefits private corporate interests instead of wider and more diverse publics."

So it doesn't matter if corps are directly funding university research. What matters is who is influencing the public purse and the capital projects that get built.

Look at UCSF's new Mission Bay campus as a primier example of this. They have a Genentech Hall, Bank of America Plaza, Fischer Atrium.... Corporations paid a little to get their name on the buildings and have spent a pretty penny lobbying government and getting people into high office who, or else being represented by the UC Regents to direct university resources toward big science goals that will produce profitable technologies.
by Ben
But that's not what is being proposed here. You're applying a situation somewhere else to a non-similar situation here. I was asking how the LRDP is proposing these examples...and you're not supporting them with facts.
Is there a planned Genentec Slugmobile, McDonalds Lap Pool, Oprah Winfrey Performing Arts Center, Gap Caffeteria, etc...planned?

by Darwin
"Corporatization is primarily accomplished through the use of public funds for research and university work that benefits private corporate interests instead of wider and more diverse publics."

No direct corporate funding of research necessary, as is the case with much that goes on at UCSC. In fact, this would defeat the whole point for companies who don't want to spend money on things that they can get us to pay for. They want the public to subsidize basic science research that will eventually benefit them. Therefore they buy politicians with campaign cash or else take comfort in that Richard C. Blum, Gerald Parsky, Norman Pattiz, et al. will represent them on the Board of Regents.

This is exactly what's going down with the bioscience facility and with a whole host of other projects under construction across the UC system.
by not ben
Darwin, your argument about scientific research being in thrall to big corporations sounds just about as convincing as David Horowitz saying that the humanities are in thrall to godless radicals. "Oh, look over there, it's Wade Churchill!"

Is there really any serious disagreement that life sciences research is something that research universities ought to do? I understand the idea that people may disagree about how and where to build lab buildings, but trying to argue that biology research is corrupted by corporate connections at UCSC without even bothering to learn about the research or the people doing it, just because of a few political appointees to the UC Regents who probably spend 10 minutes a year thinking about UCSC and a handful of hand-picked examples from other universities, is no more credible an argument than Horowitz's uninformed drivel.

What, exactly, do you think that UCSC ought to do to prove that its scientists are ethically clean, free of motives of "profit and vulgar patriotism"? Or is the real argument that you don't think those grubby scientists and engineers have a place at UCSC at all?

And if your real goal is "to direct some greater portion of state and federal funds away from big science research and military spending or corporate tax handouts" then I'm afraid sitting in a tree in Santa Cruz isn't even a small step in the right direction, even if it had the implausible result of blocking UC from educating more Californians, though I guess reducing the number of UCSC graduates is the one goal on which the far right and the far left can agree.
by Darwin
"not ben," please go back and read what I've written. You repeatedly make counter-arguments to things I never said.

Let me ask you this; why did the UC Regents find it necessary to limit the number of corporate boards a Chancellor or executive officer of UC can serve upon?
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/education/20070117-9999-1n17boards.html

Got your stock answer provided by the article I linked?

Now tell me why UC execs sit on so many corporate boards to begin with.

Now answer me this: who makes science policy at the federal level?

I don't' quite have the time to give a history lesson about the trajectory of science policy in the US over the last 6 decade, but I assure you there are some very excellent books in your library that show in detail how science policy is guided on a fundamental level by corporations and the military.

I can imagine a radically different system of knowledge production in which those with the most money and power don't dictate the terms of research. This sort of science is far from anything we have today. In the meantime scientists unfortunately have to work within the narrow paradigms and fields they are boxed into. You know that phrase, "the fish don't know how the water is," because they're always already in it? Well, that's how most of us university employees, professors and researchers feel. We don't know how it is because we've always been caught in it since before we even thought to questions what it is.

I'm an ally of scientists (not technocrats and functionaries), and I hope someday the majority of researchers can experience the research setting that's not structured from the very beginning by $ and military power. And I know, from my many, many conversations with physicists, chemists, engineers, my friends and colleagues at UCSB and elsewhere that mosts scientists understand what's going on and wish there were some other more democratic and decentralized way.

Finally, and this is really important, I don't think UCSC scientists are motivated by profit and vulgar patriotism. You're misquoting me. I think corporations are motivated by profit (duh), and the militarization of our nation is fueled by a vulgar sort of patriotism. I note that the military and corporations exercise the purse strings for science and engineering research in the USA, either directly (as in military funded research at colleges) or indirectly (as I've outlined above numerous times), and that this structures whole fields of science research.

This is my last response due to time constraints, so if you have further questions/comments, why not just write up your own analysis and publish it?
by ...
You aren't paying attention, Darwin. One more time, you point to some perceived excess at some other institution (this time UCSD). Just how many boards does the UCSC Chancellor sit on? Have you bothered to ask that question? I'm sure he would tell you if you asked. But facts aren't what this about, are they? So much easier to talk about "UCSC’s horrible transformation" than to actually talk about the facts.

How easily you slip back into talking about "military funded research at colleges," trying to hint that UCSC is being funded in some significant way by the military. Whoops, that isn't true either, is it?

Pressed for details, you instead share the important observation that UC's president after WWI was a nasty colonialist, again trying to tie together some things you don't like (UCSC, the LRDP) with some completely unrelated unpleasantness.

I agree that there are things to criticize about the way science and education are funded in this country, and even more that there are some really appalling abuses of law and social science in the Bush administration -- but UCSC is not a sensible target for your attacks. I think if you actually talked to people here, you'd find they were working for the same things you want to see -- open access, open publication, science in the public interest. Maybe you thought smearing UCSC would get more attention than going after the real abuses elsewhere, but hey -- isn't it deeply meaningful that the SCMTD buses have a robot voice that says “Science Hill, U-C-S-C.”

The one statement you've made with which I profoundly agree is "If we are really interested in racial/socio economic justice we wouldn't be arguing about expanding UCSC." And yet here we are, with people in trees arguing over the expansion of UCSC. Draw your own conclusions about how serious they are about real societal change.
by Compromise time
The answer to why the Regents told them to limit their participation on multiple corporate boards: Because they were concerned that it was taking too much Chancellorial time/attention away from running the campus.

The reason why so many sit on so many boards: Because they can make as much money in a couple of weekends sitting on boards as they do in an entire year serving as Chancellor.

I know, many people think Chancellor's are overpaid administrators. But in another sense, they're underpaid.

Take your average UC campus and think of it as a corporation. A Chancellor is responsible for 4 to 7,000 employees (faculty/staff) and a budget in the hundreds of millions. Their average salary is between $350K-$450K.

If that same Chancellor were a CEO of a private corporation, they'd make 10 times the salary they make. If they were the Chancellor of a private university, they'd make 5 times the salary they make.

According to http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/education/20050822-9999-1n22fox.html the majority of UC Chancellors sit on no corporate boards at all. Marye Ann Foxe at UCSD sat on 4, which she joined when she was in North Carolina, and two others sat on two apiece (Albert Carnesale at UCLA and France Cordova at UCR -- both of them are gone now). Maybe not a coincidence that most of the board service is due to the female chancellors, since some corporate boards are themselves looking for diversity. Ever think that maybe chancellors imagine they could be a force for good by engaging in the corporate world?

But it is a little inconvenient to Darwin's argument that the median number is zero, and even with the outliers the average is less than one. Not a very effective corporate takeover.
by not ben, not darwin
but the friendly smiling PR stooge responsible for schmoozing on behalf of his or her university. And the chancellor is a stooge for whom?

Who wields the real power in the UC system? Come on, you already know the answer. No need to set up another strawman argument in limp attempts to distract from the main point of Darwin's article.

Some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in California and the nation sit on the board of the UC Regents. And those people absolutely sit on powerful corporate boards (or have private holdings that wield tremendous power). These men and women make the decisions for the UC system and the chancellors answer to them. They in turn answer not to the state legislature, not to the communities in which their people-factories reside, not to the people of California, and not to you.
by j
In the case of UCSC's Chancellor George W. Blumenthal, there is an exception. Blumenthal is a member of the Board of Directors of the Silicon Valley Network.... which may not technically be a corporate board, but it is a large consortium of reps from the private sector and bio-nano-info tech industry of Silicon Valley, international law firms, and investment bakers, as well as administrators from Berkeley, Stanford, SJSU, and community colleges; and elected officials from local cities and counties.
http://www.jointventure.org/aboutus/boardofdirectors.html

If you check out the list of investors....
http://www.jointventure.org/gettinginvolved/investors.html
You'll see a long list that includes...
AT&T
Center for Corporate Innovation
Amgen (tech firm)
Cisco Systems
Comerica (bank)
Hewlett Packard
Kaiser Permanente
to name a few, with UCSC down at the bottom, right before Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Professional Corporation

Those are just a few examples of who Chancellor Blumenthal, who resides in Silicon Valley, rubs elbows with in frequent (and who picks up the bill for the dinner 'reservations').

Yet perhaps more importantly is the July 2002 document published by the Silicon Valley Network Join Venture...."Preparing for the Next Silicon Valley"
http://www.jointventure.org/PDF/NSVchoices.pdf#xml=http://jointventure.org.master.com/texis/master/search/mysite.txt?q=preparing+for+the+next+silicon+valley&order=r&id=e0f9ba1ab4b5b69d&cmd=xml

This report outlines the blueprints for Silicon Valley's "bio-nano-info-technology revolution", that is going to put Silicon Valley in the lead as the world's leader in the business... combining biotechnology, nanotechnology, and infotechnology... and using universities to do so.
Since the initial dot.com economic bubble popped because the rapid economic growth was a bit overzealous and driven by greed, leaders in Silicon Valley have worked hard to prepare for the new phase, which they say will have sustained growth.
In the process, they are in need of a large workforce... one that is being trained at places like UCSC. It works out well... have tax payers and students themselves foot the bill, and then when they are trained and ready they can be plugged into the industry. It's a lot like a factory.
The same is happening with research in a large part... do the expensive process of exploring the many avenues of science and technology, and then after the research has been refined to the marketable technologies--patent them, pull them into the private sector, and profit.

One of the many questions to ask of this is: will Silicon Valley be able to last? Are all of these robots being trained at UCSC going to actually have work in 10 years? Or will it end up like the last time the Silicon Valley hard drive collapsed, where college graduates were relegated to work at McDonalds and gas stations because the jobs they were promised no longer existed?

And to name a few of those central to the scheming and waiting to profit....

Genencor.... key contributor to the "Preparing for the Next Silicon Valley", and a force behind the Silicon Valley Network.... makes pharmaceuticals and other costly health products...
Genencor got its start as a spin off from Genentech, Inc... pushing forward on a legacy that began when Genentech stole growth hormone technology from UCSF.... which lifted Genentech to be one of the world's leaders in the biotechnology world. They paid a mere $200 million settlement to UCSF, and in the process got a building named after them.
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Biotech-Born-Thief-1978.htm
http://www.ucsf.edu/daybreak/1999/11/22_lawsuit.html

Rudolph & Sletten, a bay-area based construction firm with an interesting list of projects....and their own connections....is a major sponsor of the network
-bid on the proposed Biomedical Science Facility at UCSC, which would cost taxpayers $80 million to build, and then become a mecca for privately-funded research
-Kaiser Permanente hospitals
-numerous contracts at other UC campuses, including a Molecular Foundry at UC Berkeley, which was estimated to cost $48 million, but went $4 mill over-budget
... and interestingly, when Rudolph & Sletten were in the process of that project, the $700 mill-a-year company was inquired by an multinational construction firm named Perini. At that time, UC Regent Richard Blum was a major investor at Perini, and soon divested for a profit.
Perini also does reconstruction work in Iraq and Afghanistan, has built an Israeli Air Force Base, high-rise Casinos in Las Vegas, and the Ronald Reagen Building and International Trade Center in Washington, D.C.... and the list continues. http://www.perini.com/
http://www.rsconstruction.com/

That is just the beginning of it all.... there is more, for instance Regent Blum was also the vice president and 20% owner of another mega construction firm... URS....
.....who, in addition to doing reconstruction work in Iraq and Afghanistan, holds numerous UCcontracts, like the proposed athletic training facility at Berkeley, which has been held up in court and is the site of the Berkeley Tree sit which has been up for an entire year ( saveoaks.com ), and the remainder of extensive development plans at Berkeley...
...URS also nows owns Washington Group International, which manages the nations nuclear weapons laboratories (Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories), which... oddly enough... are managed by the University of California, Bechtel, BWX Technologies, and WGI...

To top it all off, URS wrote the Environmental Impact Report for UCSC's Long Range Development Plan... the topic in question that Darwin began with.

Blum stepped down from his executive position at URS after UC students discovered his incestuous ties and forced him to resign.

So you see, UCSC... and Chancellor George W. Blumenthal and his cohorts, and those that tell him what to do (the Regents, and other unnamed individuals), do indeed have some very close and concerning relationships.

And that is why, on the day after becoming the official UCSC Chancellor, Blumenthal was dubbed "Santa Cruz's Top Banana Slug" by Carl Guardino, President of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and one of the top five most powerful people in Silicon Valley. http://www.svlg.net/about/staff/guardino.html

Guardino said that Blumenthal "has the right vision for our region,"
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_7044109?nclick_check=1

So we must ask.... the right vision for whom? The top 10%? The students, who are tomorrow's leaders? Is this vision the right one for OUR FUTURE?

http://www.lrdpresistance.org

Ah, but who really controls the Regents? Yes, the Trilateral Commission. No, I mean the Jews. No, sorry, the Masons. But maybe the Illuminati are really in control?

This kind of empty conspiracy theory posturing prevents any sensible discussion of real problems in the real world.

If you want a university without any funds from the evil apparatus of the corrupt state or externally funded research, you have that choice. Oral Roberts University, for example. It will cost you $25,000 a year though.

If you want to have most of the cost of education paid for by the state, then you get to deal with the state. Fortunately, unlike most state agencies, the UC isn't controlled directly by the Governor and legislature.

And lets be real about the amount of power held by the (unpaid, volunteer) Regents. They hold their meetings in public. You can read the transcripts. They pick the President, after a faculty committee makes a shortlist. They have minority membership on committees that choose Chancellors. They approve the budget prepared by the university, and the land use plans. But they don't write the budget or the plans, or hire the faculty, or admit the students, or decide the classes will be offered, or teach the classes, or write research proposals. They have very little connection to what the university really does and why. And if you pay attention, you'll notice that they use their political influence much more often to protect the university from the state than the other way around. Have you noticed that no matter how many times the governor tries to kill the labor institutes and K-12 outreach funds used to enhance diversity, they refuse to die?

Instead of smearing a faculty member who has spent his whole career at UCSC with a sterling reputation for integrity, maybe you should look for a single example of a case where a Regent or other member of your corporate conspiracy (filled with McCarthy-esque "unnamed names") has ever influenced the chancellor's decisions in any way. And if you were actually students, you could take a logic class and learn the classical rhetorical fallacies, including guilt by association. But it is so much easier to hint that he chose to live in "Silicon Valley" to be intimate with the power brokers than it is to discover that he actually moved to Los Gatos to split the commute with his wife, a feminist law professor in San Francisco.

But really, is this a protest about some trees, or is this a protest about the evils of capitalism? And if the second, then can you imagine a place where you are less likely to be noticed by the Regents or pretty much anyone else than 50 feet up in a tree in a parking lot in Santa Cruz? I think the wealthy and powerful have you right where they want you.
"...",

First, your characterization of what's being said here as "empty conspiracy theory posturing" shows that you aren't really listening to the critique laid out by Darwin and the other commentators above. What's all this crap about "illuminati, jews, trilateral commisssion"?

Nobody is talking about anything along those lines here. What's being laid out is a critical perspective on UCSC's LRDP and the direction of universities in general, one that identifies the process of corporatization and militarization and explains why it's bad for the majority of the people of California and the nation.

You clearly have a lot of emotion wrapped up in this. Perhaps you personally know Blumenthal or some of the Regents? Perhaps you are close to many higher ups at UCSC? Maybe you are a higher up? You maybe are someone who has benefited from the growth of the campus over the last few years? This doesn't make you or any of them "bad" people.

But your defense of UCSC/UC admin's breakneck desire to grow, further privatize, and enjoin with corporations and the military is straight wrong.

How can you characterize the Regents as altruistic and relatively powerless? You really think Gerry Parsky became a Regent because he felt like volunteering? No, he wanted to restructure the UC's financial organization and specifically to raid workers pensions and outsource some of the administrative work of these funds to private companies. BTW - doesn't the "volunteer" nature of the board virtually guarantee that only the rich can serve on it?

Any cursory look at the Regents shows that they're out to run the university for certain specific ends, and that they don't represent the public or pursue a general welfare.

Yeah, Blumenthal's probably a real nice guy (and his wife sounds super), but that doesn't mean he isn't well connected with business execs over in Silicon Valley who want to further transform UCSC into an institution that better serves the interest of their companies. To say this is not "smearing a faculty member," it's calling it like it is.

The above comments are a power structure analysis, a convincing one at that. It's no conspiracy theory.

And yeah, I can "imagine a place where [I am] less likely to be noticed by the Regents," it's called a Regents meeting. Have you ever been to one and seen how they treat students?

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then....
by Ben
"But your defense of UCSC/UC admin's breakneck desire to grow, further privatize, and enjoin with corporations and the military is straight wrong. "

Where's the "breakneck desire"? The university is currently below earlier student level projections and well below original estimates. Even with the projected increases they will be below the original plans for this time period.

"Further privatize". Corporations donate a very small percentage of funds to the university. There was a comment on here before, and it is backed up, that only about 1% of money raised comes from large corporations

The largest contributor is NASA, for studies in astronomy. Hardly military. Not corporate.

Yes, some corporations have joint research programs with the university. Some of those programs result in students being hired after they graduate. But isn't that what people get their education for? To help them with their careers? After all....Camryn Manheim, Andy Samburg and Maya Rudolph are all UCSC graduates making money working for large corporations that feed off of marketing products that people don't need and creating harmful images of personal development.

Are you a student at UCSC? Are you planning on living here after you finish your studies? Buying a home here, paying taxes and raising your children here?
by oehlberg
"You clearly have a lot of emotion wrapped up in this. Perhaps you personally know Blumenthal or some of the Regents? Perhaps you are close to many higher ups at UCSC? Maybe you are a higher up?"

"for the point raised by "the facts" (who is probably the same individual as the other two posts here). "

"I wonder what interest you have in the LRDP.... "

"Anyone who would look that up must bear some kind of personal grudge."

These side comments and assumptions of character about people attempting to understand and question the arguments for the tree sit are not helpful to the cause of the tree sit.

Jdevries comment is spot on: "Instead of debating the merits of this aspect or another of the LRDP it might be more worth while to talk about what sort of university system we want to have in this state and how best to achieve those goals. (And then we can double back and check whether the LRDP is really the best way to achieve those)." Attempting to achieve a democratic structure to steer the University should be the goal.

*** also points out the lack of democracy at the regents board meetings. Because the regents are not elected positions there is no accountability for when they do not pursue the public good. There is 1 student on the board of regents and that student is appointed by the rest of the board for a 1 year term (compared to many of the regents that serve 12 year unelected appointments).

Th budget for the UC is an interesting document to flip through:
http://planning.ucsc.edu/budget/Reports/profile2006.pdf
If you look at arts, humanities, and social sciences they all get a majority of their funding directly from California state taxes. Engineering and physical sciences get a majority of their funding from grants from people like "NASA ($30.4M), followed by the National Science Foundation ($25M) and the National Institutes of Health ($20.8M)." The thing is that the engineering school and the physical and biological sciences can supplement their California funds with federal funds. It appears that the emphasis on science and engineering is a product of how federal funds are distributed. It would be interesting if someone could dig up a student/square foot of building space broken down by division.
by Steven Argue
I have a much different view of science education than Darwin.

First, science is a good thing, not bad. Science can and does at times serve corporate profit, but it is also a useful tool in things such as saving the environment, breaking people from away from backwards ideas such as religions that serve a rightist corporate agenda, and saving lives through medicine.

Scientific advancements being made at UCSC are generally a good thing. Scientific education at UCSC is also a good thing.

This accusatory diatribe, based on weird evidence of what bus stop was announced, is, in my opinion, another symptom of the fact that there isn't enough science education in this country. It's not your fault though; you have been miseducated and under educated about science. There isn't enough science education in the United States as compared to other countries. This is part of why this country is so religious as well as why many Americans do such a poor job of critically evaluating evidence.
by Loneoak
I think it is shameful that this protest is focused on the Biomedical Sciences building. Two of the primary research projects there will be HIV vaccines and stem cell research/therapies. Neither of which will be 'corporate.'

How are corporations involved in university research? Mostly through technology transfer, an agreement through which a private entity buys access to an invention patented by a university researcher. That money is split between the patent-holder, the department, and the UC. The money the UC gets goes directly into the general fund. And it's all very transparent and public. Ooooh, scary.

Unless you want the state to make our medicines or you want corporations to control all basic research, this is pretty much the only way basic science can make it into our lives. I'm disgusted with AgBiotech corporations like Monsanto, think Big Pharma has way too much power, think UC needs to get the hell away from nuclear weapons research, that the university administration is unresponsive to student demands and quick to use force, etc, etc. But I'm pretty darn proud of the kind of biomedical research this campus will be engaging in. I want UCSC to be known worldwide as the place that came up with the HIV vaccine. I want UCSC to be known worldwide as the place Parkinson's was cured with stem cells.

Do you want to be known worldwide as morons who camped in a tree IN A PARKING LOT in order to prevent that?
by Redwood Cowboy
Loneoak, thanks for bringing the concept of hope back into play. Instead of focusing on a small number of negatives that UCSC is doing everything they can to mitigate, think about the possibility of what innovative research could provide. Public universities have always weathered storms of criticism, that is the burden that they have to bear. But childish 'locking yourself in the closet' protests are counterproductive. If you engage in dialog, you will be heard. Will all your demands/concerns be addressed, yes, in one way or another. You may not get everything you want, but that is the nature of life.

Learn
by victor
this debate is going nowhere fast. when i read the above article i was so inflamed by the poor writing style and misinformation that i barely made it to the end. i could attack with facts and destroy darwin's puny attempt at a logical conclusion but i believe it's not an issue of corporatization, globalization, or any other -ation's. what we have here is a irrational fear of science that is being fueled by misinformation and being carelessly driven as a guise for a protest.

why are scientists being targeted as the bad guys? we ALL know that the regents are the real bastards here, so if the point of the protest is to derail the LDRP, why not protest at any of the current construction sites (and actually interrupt the construction as opposed to sit on a construction site with a ground breaking more than five years in the future). clearly the protestors are trying to send a message to the science community.

what is that message?

well, as far as i can tell, it's a big big, "fuck you!" the protesters are shitting and pissing in buckets and dumping their refuse into the ecosystem where they have already caused irreversible damage by removing natural ground coverage of the redwoods. maybe the protesters aren't aware but by removing the natural fauna of the redwood forest, they are removing the biotic soup that feeds the redwoods and are slowly killing the trees. moreover, the garbage the protesters have collected in the parking lot is not only an eyesore, it's shameful. the protesters are doing a great job at throwing the birds at science hill. and.. well, darwin, good job... you birds are also well noticed as is your fear of the sciences.

regardless of how you feel about the future of the world, is it too crazy to think that science and technology will benefit us in some way or another? science is no different from philosophy or sociology. all three are really just ways of thinking. not one is more correct than the other. they all overlap, like a venn diagram. perhaps UCSC wasn't always a physical science school, but the fact that the science community has grown is nothing but beneficial to UCSC as a whole. the money that the science community brings in via federal grants (not corporate trusts) is partitioned by the UC regents and the scientists only see 40% of it. where's the rest go? look no farther than all of the housing, the shuttles, the new buildings, ad nauseum. so this begs the question?

why the hate? what did science do to you? what can i do to make you realize that we're (scientists) not the bad guys? what can i do to help the squatters out of the trees and return the forest to it's natural state free of feces and full of fallen tree limbs? because as it stands, this isn't between the LDRP and the protesters. this is between the protesters and me, because i truly care about the condition of the forest and, unlike most of the opposition, i know the score.


by Mackmane
I think Darwin's points are pretty clear, although I don't agree entirely with him. I don't read his essay as a "diatribe" against science per se. Rather, it seems pretty clear, especially when you read through his several responses in the comments section, that he's against certain forms of science and big science funding at the expense of other options. More so, he says pretty clearly that he's against all forms of knowledge that are subservient to capital and the state, and that preclude other forms of knowledge production. He then critiques the social sciences and humanities as they have been used in the past to support some pretty anti-democratic goals - so you know he's not just railing against physical-bio sciences.


Several of you talk about how wonderful it would be if UCSC discovered an HIV vaccine. Okay, fair enough, but there's actually much better ways to deal with infectious diseases. Instead of going for a techno-fix, it would be as simple as funding basic health education. The AIDS epidemic is a rooted in political inequality: this is why it has so thoroughly devastated African American communities (the Reagan administration denied its existence, Bush I did little to address it....). You see, dealing with disease is as much a question of producing political forms of knowledge as it is about science. This is not to say that politics and sociology research is superior to science, though. It can be, and is widely misused.

You also talk about stem cell research. Okay, sure, it needs to happen, but at what levels with what priority over other avenues of government spending? The massive stem cell research bond (3 billion) that was passed by California voters to fund this research was in no small way a handout to some pretty powerful corporate interests that want the basic research done. The largest backers of the prop 71 campaign were venture capitalist who are hoping to make big money off their big science investment. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Institute_for_Regenerative_Medicine

Loneoak, you state that corporate involvement in university research is mostly an issue of "technology transfer." Did you read Darwin's responses? He's telling you it's different. Corporations actually shape the structure of basic science funding in the US through the NSF, and through other mechanisms like prop 71. Corporations exert a form of control that preempts what happens in the university lab.

But again, why are you guys so reactionary and defensive to this little essay? Seems like if Darwin wanted to get a rise out of you, he succeeded. And you still haven't even dealt with the core thesis of the essay - the "city on a hill" trope.



by Redwood Cowboy
Boogeymen everywhere! Conspiracy around every corner. Why not spend some of your misguided energy on convincing people in other parts of this country that we need a change in thinking with regard to pollution, global warming, habitat loss, etc.... Look around you, you are just sliding to the extreme edge of thought in an area that already has enough extremists. We don't support your cause, the condemnation I hear is overwhelming. Its called delusion when you believe you are winning the ideological battle and you are not. Meanwhile, GW is taking more of your freedoms: FISA, waterboarding, ... thats the big picture.
by victor
dear mackmane,
please put your self in the shoes of the people who's daily lives on science hill are being negatively impacted by this protest. it would be too innocuous to say that the protest is a mere inconvenience. as a researcher, who pretty much lives on science hill, i can attest first hand why one would be so defensive. i ride a bike or bus to work so i could give two shits about parking (although that is a valid point) but i would rather see a clean parking lot over what is current situation out there. i go hiking or running once a day in the forest surrounding science hill. i have personally witnessed several people defecating as well as people dumping buckets of raw, untreated sewage into the forest. sorry, but i feel like if i wanted to survey the ground when i'm walking to avoid human feces i'd live in san francisco.

i stepped outside in the middle of writing this only to witness a cranberry juice container of urine being lowered from one platform. one of the protesters carried the bottle to an adjacent cluster of trees where they began to empty the bottle. i insisted that they empty the urine in one of the many available bathrooms. the protester just took the bottle to the forest... wtf?

this is incredibly frustrating. i'm questioned in the building i've pretty much lived in for four years about my identity and right to be in the building by security gaurds that were not present before the protest. i can't walk outside and make a phone call to my mother without being questioned about my association with the industrial military complex.

before the protest, i enjoyed leaving my lab to soak in the beauty of the ucsc campus. now that beauty is being marred by people who unilaterally propound to protect it. there is irony abound here. now if you can understand the frustration that leads to the defensiveness, why don't we start addressing the questions i posted initially?
by Steven Argue
Mackmane asks, "You also talk about stem cell research. Okay, sure, it needs to happen, but at what levels with what priority over other avenues of government spending?"

A very high priority! Especially compared to war funding etc.. This research is highly important in saving lives as well as highly improving the quality of life for disabled people.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$230.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network