Editorial: UCLA administration should learn from mistakes of other UC chancellors

In the span of just a week, two University of California chancellors announced their resignations.

UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi and UC Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks resigned after a slew of bad publicity, despite both spending thousands in discretionary funds hiring consultants to improve their images.

Katehi has been embroiled in a series of scandals since the start of 2016 and resigned after a UC investigation found she had inappropriately used university fees on personal trips and allowed conflicts of interest to cloud her decision-making. The University is in the process of investigating Dirks for improperly using university facilities and failing to address sexual harassment cases.

Both cases saw desperate chancellors attempting to improve their images in the eyes of the public rather than reaching out to the student body themselves – Katehi’s first controversy erupted when the Sacramento Bee reported on a media campaign intended to draw attention from a pepper-spraying incident at UC Davis in 2011, while Dirk’s decision to build a $700,000 fence around his on-campus residence earned him much ire.

Community relations are hardly as dire systemwide, but reports of administrative bloat and increasing out-of-state enrollment have created general skepticism toward UC administration.

At UCLA, the disconnect between students and administrators may not be immediately apparent, but it’s important that administrators develop strong relationships with the students they serve instead of allowing problems to compound.

The UCLA administration has already taken steps to better involve student voices. Jerry Kang, vice chancellor for equity, diversity and inclusion, is in the process of selecting students for his student advisory board and Chancellor Gene Block has shown interest in undergraduate student government president Danny Siegel’s proposal to involve students in the UCLA Foundation, which screens the university’s donations.

But more can be done to involve the average student and foster a better sense of campus community. Over the past year, protests over sexual assault cases, a racially insensitive raid party and animal rights have all ended in front of Block’s office door. While Block may ultimately be responsible for what happens at UCLA, he doesn’t have all the answers.

A lack of communication between students and different administrators who are more familiar with and immediately responsible for specific issues keeps students behind red tape. One of the few opportunities for students to be heard on campus is Block’s office hour, which gives six students 15 minutes each to speak with the chancellor every quarter. The limited time and scope of this hour speaks to how limited students’ interaction with the university’s decision-makers is.

Office hours with vice chancellors or associate vice chancellors in charge of different issues could help the relationship between students and the administration at large. While Katehi and Dirks were ultimately responsible for outrage at Davis and Berkeley, the decisions that led to their decline were supported by others in their administration.

Katehi’s and Dirks’ resignations show that students have the power to shape the administration. While UCLA remains relatively scandal-free, it may help if the next time students knock on an administrator’s door, someone answers.