UCLA’s emergency response has improved since Getty fire but must be standardized

In planning for inherently unpredictable disasters, some measures are better than others.

When the Getty fire threatened UCLA’s campus last fall, some expressed concern over the university’s communication efforts. Students were notified about the fires via email but were not told to evacuate.

In contrast, UCLA’s COVID-19 pandemic response began in late January, with an email notifying students about precautions being taken regarding the coronavirus. The university proceeded to send periodic updates leading up to the March 10 announcement that classes would be remote for the remainder of the school year.

The stark differences between UCLA’s response to the Getty fire and the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic underscore the need for a standardized safety procedure the university can follow in light of fast-paced changes to the status quo. Unlike the Getty fire, students were constantly updated about safety precautions and changes to instruction, which made an overwhelmingly difficult situation a little easier to manage.

Even though the shift to online instruction was days before final exams, safety was put before grades, students’ lives before educational continuity. The university’s proactiveness and commitment to updating students in this most recent crisis should be used as an example for how to handle future disasters.

And since it’s been done once before, it can be done again.

The Getty fire safety response lacked a concrete evacuation plan. Students were first notified about the fire via email in the early morning of October 28. Subsequent emails grew more alarming in tone, but the several thousands of students living on campus were not given definitive answers on whether they should stay on campus or evacuate.

“Probably the one critique I could have is they could have handled that last alarm better,” said Walker Subbotin, a third-year political science student. “Kids didn’t know (whether or not) they’re supposed to leave when the fire is on campus.”

Emails were about air quality and the proximity of the fire. There weren’t any direct orders to shelter in place nor were there instructions on how to find a safe location to remain during a disaster.

“There wasn’t a clear solution for that and so that’s why we have the shelter in place,” said Orion Smedley, a third-year physics student and general representative 2 for the Undergraduate Students Association Council. “Except I think that worries a lot of students because shelter in place (only) hopefully works.”

Beyond that, the university failed to provide students with information about safety measures like possible evacuation routes.

“I don’t really know the protocol (for fire safety),” Smedley said. “I know during the fires, definitely even the RAs didn’t know (the) protocol.”

Beyond the immediate danger of the fire, other repercussions followed, such as concerns about interruptions of midterms for commuter students.

The university should’ve considered other options like pushing midterms back a week to give displaced students time to readjust, Subbotin said.

In contrast to the relative chaos of the Getty fire, the university’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was a slow burn.

Between January and March, about a dozen emailed updates were sent to students, faculty and staff, some of them reaching up to 90,000 people involved with the campus community, Administrative Vice Chancellor Michael Beck said.

These emails reflected the fast-moving pace of decisions and gave students information on the necessary precautions students and faculty members should take. They also contained plans for winter quarter finals and beyond.

“Between the Daily Bruin and the email messages that were going to every student, … I think students were well-informed with regard to what the issues were, what the campus was doing, how it impacted their education,” Beck said.

Even though students were informed, they weren’t involved in the decision-making process. This is especially true of the members of USAC, who felt they were shut out of conversations about students’ well-being.

“(The members of USAC) felt that the decisions were being made without us having advanced privy knowledge of them,” Smedley said.

USAC leaked screenshots about the campus closure hours before it was announced to the general student body. While this represented a lack of oversight on USAC’s behalf, the UCLA administration handled the decision well, given the unprecedented circumstances.

“I think that the entire (USAC) situation shows what happens when students are put in these leadership roles, and they don’t handle it like administrators do,” Subbotin said.

Even though the university was far better in communicating safety precautions during the COVID-19 pandemic than the Getty Fire, there is room for improvement. The administration must establish open lines of communication with students to enable them to better protect their physical safety and to plan ahead during a rapidly changing situation.

The adjustment to final exams, which was announced on March 12, gave faculty increased options for final exams, such as making them optional, extending deadlines or offering alternate assignments.

This was a drastic measure taken to assuage students’ fears about their grades as many were scrambling to leave campus. It showed a marked improvement over the Getty fire, when the university was noticeably silent on what changes students should expect in their midterm examinations.

Students, at the very least, deserve information about their education.

Granted, natural disasters are unexpected and emergency plans must be adapted to fit the situation as it unfolds. Additionally, each disaster is different. This, however, does not negate the need for standardized safety measures aimed at keeping students safe. The university must develop a comprehensive emergency plan that can apply to a variety of potential disasters so communication with students is clear.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that it pays to plan ahead. Other disasters will happen in the future. It may be years or months from now, but we need consistent methods for notifying students of protocols and decisions, as well as reasonable changes to instruction.

Because the last thing students should have to worry about is what to do during a fire.