Budget cuts present big challenge to UC

EDITORIAL BOARD Editor in
Chief  Timothy Kudo

Managing Editor
 Michael Falcone

Viewpoint Editor
 Cuauhtemoc Ortega

Staff Representatives
 Amanda Fletcher
 Kelly Rayburn
 Marcelle Richards
Vytas Mazeika
Corey McEleney
Linh Tat

Editorial Board Assistants
 Maegan Carberry
 Edward Chiao

  Unsigned editorials represent a majority opinion of
the Daily Bruin Editorial Board. All other columns, letters and
artwork represent the opinions of their authors.   All
submitted material must bear the author’s name, address, telephone
number, registration number, or affiliation with UCLA. Names will
not be withheld except in extreme cases.   The Bruin
complies with the Communication Board’s policy prohibiting the
publication of articles that perpetuate derogatory cultural or
ethnic stereotypes.   When multiple authors submit
material, some names may be kept on file rather than published with
the material. The Bruin reserves the right to edit submitted
material and to determine its placement in the paper. All
submissions become the property of The Bruin. The Communications
Board has a media grievance procedure for resolving complaints
against any of its publications. For a copy of the complete
procedure, contact the Publications office at 118 Kerckhoff Hall.
Daily Bruin 118 Kerckhoff Hall 308 Westwood Plaza Los Angeles, CA
90024 (310) 825-9898

In a perfect world, there would be no budget cuts. Unfortunately
for Californians and the University of California, we do not live
in a perfect world.

It is even more unfortunate that Gov. Gray Davis has saddled the
UC Regents and UC President Richard Atkinson with the unpopular
task of having to prepare for a budget cut of up to 15 percent for
the next fiscal year.

But in all this is an opportunity.

The university stands at a crucial moment in its history. Having
come off a period of historic economic growth and a governor who
proclaims that his top three priorities are education, the
university has prospered and expanded its role as the one of the
top universities in the nation.

In the current budget, money is allocated for student services,
there is funding to expand enterprise scientific research through
the Institutes of Science and Innovation, and the funding for
outreach efforts to improve the chances of high schoolers to
matriculate past high school is at its highest level ever.

But all this now stands in jeopardy.

Budget cuts are a no-win situation. The university must look
toward the future in deciding where these cuts will be made and the
best way to do that is to look at the mistakes of its past.

In the early ’90s, a recession caused massive cuts to
student services and pushed the university’s growth to the
back burner. Student fees rose, salaries were capped (or dropped),
and the university was left without the funds it would need to
expand and educate the largest incoming class in history more than
a decade later.

When the ax fell, it fell on the students who depended on this
university and the workers who made it run. We cannot repeat these
mistakes now or ever again.

The regents and Atkinson must take a hands on approach and
solicit input from groups that will be affected.

They must listen to the students, the workers, the
administrators, the professors and the people of California whose
children’s future depends on this institution; and they must
do it in a more respectful and meaningful way than is gotten from
2-minute sessions at the public comment period of their meetings.
These groups must likewise make themselves known.

It is especially important for the two student regents, faculty
and alumni representatives who sit at the board to step up and
ensure that student interests are represented to the fullest.

The best way to determine how to cut the budget is to learn from
the groups themselves who have vested interests and who, like all
members of this university, care about the whole more than any
part.

How the university acts in the coming months will immediately
affect the student who will not be able to afford coming to
college, the worker who can’t provide for their family, or
the professor who leaves to a private college with more financial
backing.

Depending on how seriously the regents take the university they
run, the long term implications could be far more dire
““ or far better.