Friday, March 29, 2024

AdvertiseDonateSubmit
NewsSportsArtsOpinionThe QuadPhotoVideoIllustrationsCartoonsGraphicsThe StackPRIMEEnterpriseInteractivesPodcastsBruinwalkClassifieds

Editorial: UCLA continues to ignore student input into decisions regarding CARE director

By Daily Bruin Staff

Jan. 26, 2020 11:21 p.m.

UCLA quietly decided against renewing the Campus Assault Resources and Education director’s contract last year.

And in character with past mistakes, administrators are set on appointing a new director just as quietly.

Students have gone nearly eight months without a permanent CARE director. The saga began in May, when UCLA declined to renew former CARE Director Alicia Oeser’s contract without student input. Administrators quickly hired an interim director, Nicole Green, who also oversees Counseling and Psychological Services, also without student input. And at the beginning of January, Monroe Gorden, the vice chancellor of student affairs, said UCLA was in the process of hiring a new director.

Clearly, UCLA is prepared to push through yet another crucial decision without consulting those most affected by the choice.

But the third time won’t be the charm.

This decision is the latest in a larger pattern of decreasing transparency and keeping students from a seat at the table. UCLA’s decision to quietly appoint a new director fails to support both students and the CARE program’s need for student agency over the leadership they’ll soon depend on. This position is uniquely connected to the lives and well-being of students, and as such, they deserve input regarding the hiring process.

Backroom conversations about hiring aren’t unheard of – after all, administrators often need to maintain confidentiality to make an impartial choice.

But this isn’t a simple shift in bureaucracy.

The CARE director is deeply engaged with the treatment, recovery and experiences of students seeking help. Bruins facing some of the most difficult moments of their lives will come to this person – and now, they will be met by a stranger.

The vocal backlash over Oeser’s termination reflected the importance of this position to students. Students cited the heavy involvement former director Oeser had with them, creating a one-on-one relationship with those affected by sexual assault through preventative projects and consent training programs.

Those students deserved a say in Oeser’s termination. They certainly deserve a say in who will offer them future support and guidance.

UCLA hasn’t given them either.

Student input on these decisions isn’t unprecedented. Jerry Kang, the vice chancellor of equity, diversity and inclusion, will be stepping down at the end of the academic year, and administrators were quick to open public forums for student input on the upcoming hiring process for Kang’s replacement.

They had the right idea in doing so, but it’s the wrong position for them to be worried about. Vice chancellors are undoubtedly important, but the CARE director’s daily work with students necessitates their input.

UCLA may hire the most qualified new director in the world. Perhaps the months of searching were justified. Even so, the problems CARE faces are unlikely to dissipate overnight. CARE is chronically underfunded, understaffed and facing high turnover. It’ll take much more than half a year and a new director to change that – but allowing students a say would be a good place to start.

Administrators seem set on making the same mistakes.

And when those mistakes come at the cost of student well-being, no change feels like a good change.

Share this story:FacebookTwitterRedditEmail
COMMENTS
Featured Classifieds
More classifieds »
Related Posts