BHSA Rep Proposes Edley No Confidence Vote
In a week filled with good ideas, this might be the best one yet.
You might know Dean Edley as the guy behind Boalt's rise in the rankings, the Summer Fellowship Program or the architect of the best LRAP program in the country. I guess one of the 1L BHSA reps was too busy reading memos because the representative in question apparently suggested the BHSA hold a vote of "no confidence" on Edley at last night's meeting. The idea, also apparently, didn't go over well.
Seems like someone caught strike fever.
Anyone want to defend this position? This makes me wonder what other bullshit goes on at BHSA meetings.
You might know Dean Edley as the guy behind Boalt's rise in the rankings, the Summer Fellowship Program or the architect of the best LRAP program in the country. I guess one of the 1L BHSA reps was too busy reading memos because the representative in question apparently suggested the BHSA hold a vote of "no confidence" on Edley at last night's meeting. The idea, also apparently, didn't go over well.
Seems like someone caught strike fever.
Anyone want to defend this position? This makes me wonder what other bullshit goes on at BHSA meetings.
Labels: 0L/1L Advice, BHSA, Rabid Liberals
posted by James at 2:37 PM
99 Comments:
Wait, what? Did this really happen?
I demand confirmation. This gossip is too juicy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Depending on who it comes from, a vote of no confidence in the Dean could cause me to have tremendous confidence in the Dean.
No, I'm not being "ironic."
Based on what I read, it seems that the 1Ls really have no sense of context of Berkeley Law.
For 1Ls to complain about unnecessary construction, I wonder what they would whine about in the 1950's classrooms that their predecessors sat in.
For 1Ls to complain about Dean Edley, who has been the best thing that has happened to Boalt Hall since the establishment of the school, I wonder if they knew what happened under previous Deans, and how Boalt was perceived in the public.
1Ls should focus on getting good grades in this economy, and investing more time in due diligence before voicing frivolous complaints.
--Boalt 07 grad
Based on what I read, it seems that the 1Ls really have no sense of context of Berkeley Law.
For 1Ls to complain about unnecessary construction, I wonder what they would whine about in the 1950's classrooms that their predecessors sat in.
For 1Ls to complain about Dean Edley, who has been the best thing that has happened to Boalt Hall since the establishment of the school, I wonder if they knew what happened under previous Deans, and how Boalt was perceived in the public.
1Ls should focus on getting good grades in this economy, and investing more time in due diligence before voicing frivolous complaints.
--Boalt 07 grad
James, thank you for writing this post, which is sure to bring some much-needed attention to BHSA. Since I'm a 3L Rep for BHSA and was there, I'd just like to clarify three things before they get muddied in the uproar:
1. I'm 90 percent certain the 'no confidence' vote was proposed by a 2L, not a 1L, but I don't have the meeting minutes. (I'm not going to name the individual, but I have sent him a link to this post if he wants to come here and explain his reasoning.)
2. The proposal was to have the student body - not merely BHSA - vote.
3. Your comment - "This makes me wonder what other bullshit goes on at BHSA meetings." - suggests that BHSA meetings are held in secret, behind locked doors. That's not true - every meeting is open to the public.
[Takes BHSA hat off.] As for the rest, I personally think the idea is silly, and I have a great deal of confidence in DE. Some people appear to feel differently.
How about a no-confidence vote on said 1L (or 2L as the case may be)?
3. Your comment - "This makes me wonder what other bullshit goes on at BHSA meetings." - suggests that BHSA meetings are held in secret, behind locked doors. . . .
No, it states that the author wonders whether bullshit goes on. I don't think it suggests anything about doors, open, closed, wooden, or wax.
No, it states that the author wonders whether bullshit goes on. I don't think it suggests anything about doors, open, closed, wooden, or wax.
You're looking at the grass on the surface; I'm looking at the dirt underneath. In any case, the point here being that if you want to see the bullshit, you can - and should - come watch.
1. Whoever it was it'd be great to hear their perspective.
2. This might be a worse idea than just having BHSA vote, although it's sort of like deciding whether you're rather die in a car crash or a train wreck.
3. It does make me wonder. The real question is - Does it make me wonder enough to attend? Do people say crazy shit every week? If so, I will come.
Aside from that, I'm glad at least one BHSA member is willing to discuss it.
I think we should have this vote. It would show the tremendous confidence the student body has in DE.
I have a few things to say. First, this "rumor" is taken totally out of context and misrepresents the individual who spoke, the BHSA, and the conversations that took place at last night's meeting. Before speculating on what happened and trying to hunt down who said what, let's get on the same page.
Second, I'd like to note that all BHSA meetings are open to the public, including the one last night (everyone left, even after we said they were welcome to stay!). I think it's incredibly important to hold your elected officials accountable, but that also requires showing up!
Finally, I have been incredibly disappointed with the tenor of the conversation on N&B regarding anyone who is concerned with the fee hikes, the labor union strike, the future of a public university, etc. In these categories, I include all students, because I think we are all generally thoughtful, nuanced, interesting people and have something to say about all of these issues. While we may disagree on many things, I have always been humbled and appreciative of Boalties' ability to treat one another with a basic level of respect, not go on withhunts or try to silence one another by rumor-mongering and scare tactics. I think these posts (saying "vote of no confidence in the 1L" and "1Ls don't know how good DE is!") and trying to out, by name, the student, have a chilling effect on the ability of all students to engage in an open, thoughtful dialogue with one another. I really hope we continue to engage one another, as opposed to posturing on N&B.
Just my $1.50.
This might be a worse idea than just having BHSA vote, although it's sort of like deciding whether you're rather die in a car crash or a train wreck.
This, of course, assumes that we vote we don't have confidence.
Having thought a bit more about it, I think we ought to have a poll:
How much confidence do you have in DE?
1. A plethora of confidence.
2. Tremendous confidence.
3. Much confidence.
4. Some, but not too much, confidence.
5. No confidence.
6. What's confidence?
Oh, and I wouldn't say people say crazy shit at all the BHSA meetings. But I'm also on the People's Park Advisory Board. It meets every month on the second Monday of the month, from 7-9pm, at Trinity Methodist Church (on Bancroft, across from the gym). If you want to hear some crazy shit, you should check those out.
Fair point, Matt.
Camille - It's not technically a rumor as I confirmed it with someone who was present before writing this post.
You're teasing us when you say something was taken out of context and then don't give the context.
The attempt here is definitely not to silence anyone. In fact, if you read what was written, I explicitly asked for people to talk.
As for the tenor - I think you're being overly sensitive, but that's ok. :)
Oh, and I wouldn't say people say crazy shit at all the BHSA meetings. But I'm also on the People's Park Advisory Board. It meets every month on the second Monday of the month, from 7-9pm, at Trinity Methodist Church (on Bancroft, across from the gym). If you want to hear some crazy shit, you should check those out.
Like, "we need lights"?
Camille,
if the the student is being misrepresented then please clarify what was actually said/intended. Also, is BHSA actually considering this proposal or was it just an idea that was floated and quickly disregarded?
Actually, Armen, the highlight of the last meeting was a member of the public claiming that freedom of speech was not a fundamental right. A couple hundred years of Supreme Court jurisprudence and one constitutional amendment just being waived away...it's wild.
I'm confused. Are you talking about a couple of hundreds of years of jurisprudence failing to incorporate the First Amendment to the states, jurisprudence severely limiting the reach of the First Amendment until the Warren Court, or what? Eugene Debs and I are dying to find out.
I am not a proponent of a "no confidence vote" per se, but I do feel the need to comment on something that's been bothering me for a few days...
It seems many of the older students and alums don't think current students - and particularly 1Ls - have a right to complain about the fee hikes, lack of transparency, etc. The arguments these sage commentors have put forth essentially boil down to:
1) Things used to be worse, so shut up;
2) There's nothing you can do about it, so shut up; and
3) I don't hear any alternative solutions, so shut up.
I take issue with these arguments because a) any 4-year-old could make them, b) they completely fly in the face of what Berkeley has stood for historically and presently as an institution, and c) they are largely irrelevant to our present situation.
Regardless of how decrepit Berkeley's facilities were in the past, didn't students receive a decent enough education at an affordable price? Can you fault current students for demanding the same?
Even if there's nothing we can do about the changes going on now, do you suggest we roll over and let DE feed us euphemisms and cutesy witticisms in lieu of real information?
Finally, do we really need to have brilliant alternative solutions in order to assess whether or not our current situation is s#($?
I think not.
In sum, I do not fault the student who called for a vote of no confidence. If that student is dissatisfied, then more power to him/her for voicing it rather than caving to the rampant cynicism that seems to have invaded the thinking of our predecessors.
James,
I take offense to the tone of your post. As the 1L rep you refer to I would like to provide context to the remark you so boldly reproach with little or no reference to its function in the meeting which you apparently did not attend. It is irresponsible at best, and only feeds the polarizing and cynical approach of Nuts and Boalts to open this suggestion to a forum without more respect for its context.
In the emergency BHSA meeting to gather student opinion after the media release of the proposed tuition increases many ideas were discussed. The students there were very upset, many, including many 1L's feel that tuition increases were fundamentally misrepresented. Students wanted action steps, they wanted ideas and thoughts about what we students and BHSA could do to address policies many feel to be egregious at best. As a BHSA representative my role calls for articulation of more than just my own point of view. A vote of no confidence is a tool. Recognizing the power of such a tool I would be remiss to not offer it as one, among many, potential actions to address the administration's policy which contradicts students' own vision for our school.
This was spoken as a suggestion, one among many ways of taking actions, such as a strike, a walk-out, or a policy articulation. It was not a motion before BHSA, it was not proposed as your language alludes. BHSA is a vehicle for student opinion, sometimes that opinion differs from our own. I was not saying that I would even support a vote of no confidence myself, but merely that it is too valuable a tool, in too important a situation to be taken off the table because of its controversial nature.
Furthermore I would like to say I am incredibly disappointed in the level of respect people at Boalt give each other. Beware before you enter the public forum, lest you incur the wrath of alum's ever so willing to attack via Nuts and Boalts.
I'm now 100 percent certain I was wrong when I said I was 90 percent certain it was a 2L, and not a 1L.
L'Alex, when you turn opposing arguments into childlike caricatures, it's a bit easier to claim a four year old can make them. Watch:
Current 1Ls have put forth the following argument: "Whaaaaah, we don't like paying higher fees. Whaaaaah." Therefore, they are crybabies.
See?
But I don't want this to devolve into bickering over respective modus operandi. So, just raise your hand if you want a rapist dean, no wireless, no power outlets in the classrooms (except the 'cord' up front), broken chairs, far fewer faculty, even fewer course selections, journal offices on top of each other, power outages, a Legislature robbing your coffers like a you're wearing an ipod on Telegraph, rankings putting you on par with Cornell and UCLA...but lower fees.
No one's telling you to shut up. But if you're going to speak, then understand the subject-matter of your speech. Appreciate why/how it is you got there. And then offer whatever criticism you have that's at least semi-cogent. Even now, I really don't understand what you're complaining about other than "I didn't expect the raise in fees to be this high."
"Regardless of how decrepit Berkeley's facilities were in the past, didn't students receive a decent enough education at an affordable price? Can you fault current students for demanding the same?"
L' Alex,
Why does everyone seem to assume that fee increases are going only or even primarily to the construction (a large chunk of which is being paid for by DE's amazing fund raising efforts) instead of helping to retain and enlist the best faculty, provide low income students with grants, and create one of the best LRAP programs in the country? Am I missing something? Moreover, if you just want a "decent enough education" then maybe you shouldn't have come to boalt, which has made no secret of the fact that it was going to substantially raise its fees in order to preserve its excellence.
On a different note, I do agree that the blowback against the protesters and certain 1L's has been a little harsh at times, but thats the internet for ya.
I didn't read much of what people said after Matt the 1L wrote, but does anyone know how much say DE has in the fee hikes? I was under the impression the Regents determined fees (most likely with input from DE, but their decision in the end). If that is the case, what is the point of a no confidence vote in DE?
I think the tenor against the protesters on this blog might not reflect the tenor on Boalt's campus relating to the strike. It might have something to do with the lack of diversity amongst the people who are are able to initiate posts on this blog.
First, from the looks of it, it seems that out of 23 people who can create posts on this blog, listed on the right-hand side of the homepage, 15 of them are "senior status." What does that mean? Does that mean they don't even go to school here anymore? As much as it is interesting to get tidbits of advice from former students, I don't think they really have their fingers on the pulse of what is going on on campus.
Second, from what I can decipher from the posters' names, out of the 23 people allowed to create posts, only 4 are women. I can't assume that women would necessarily have different opinions, but this creates a little skepticism on my part that the diversity of opinions at Boalt are being well-represented on this blog.
I think "Nuts and Boalts" should open up to a wider range of posters, lest they risk becoming the Fox news of Berkeley blogs.
anonymous above,
you do realize these "blogs" you speak of can be started by anyone, right? and for free even.
if you don't like this one, its contributors, or its content, i have a suggestion for you.
good christ, 5:35, total logic fail. ten of the twenty-three names listed are ambiguous enough as to be TOTALLY gender-neutral. you cannot therefore conclude, for example, that because McWho is gender-neutral, it must be male.
it's bullshit, it's pointless, and it's sexist in itself.
signed, a proud possessor of two X chromosomes
Hasn't Armen been very open to having new bloggers join? (People who can initiate posts?) Very few of those with senior status post anymore; in fact, other than Armen, you'd be hard-pressed to find a post from the last year by anyone who was not a current student when the started the blog. Furthermore, anyone can post in response to the posts. So if more women or more current students want to mix it up, go right ahead. Armen will welcome it!
These student punks need to learn that we alumni know what's best, even if we haven't been on campus since the summer of '04 (what a lovely time).
We walked up the hill both ways to class, WROTE our notes,didn't even have professors! (We taught ourselves).
Do you want to know what the Socratic Method was back in our day? Savage beatings!
I, for one, am not going to allow crusaders like Armen and Carbolic to be pushed around by these currently-attending-Boalt know-it-alls!
So, a BHSA rep did propose a no confidence vote on Edley. Or rather, "suggested" it.
And the missing context for which James has been criticized by two BHSA reps? Er, students were upset.
Well! I'm really glad that was cleared up. Otherwise, I would have really misunderstood what happened.
This is the most irresponsible post I've seen on Nuts & Boalts.
First of all, I doubt the rumor is true. If the rumor is true, what's the purpose of bringing it up here, if the BHSA saw fit to not go through with the proposal?
Its one thing to make fun of someone anonymous for being an idiot in the comments on this blog -- this is a public forum after all. Its another thing to take something that the BHSA discussed behind closed doors and put it on this blog so that the Dean, the Administration, Faculty etc. can see it.
Everyone knows where I stand on the strike, since I've been posting like mad the last couple days. But trying to find particular individuals to burn at the public stake is pretty lame. Its not the same as making fun of some Anonymous on this blog.
I would encourage everyone to not treat something that was said in the BHSA meeting like its fodder for comedy on this blog. Its absolutely not the same as making fun of an Anonymous comment.
Someone who posts as Anonymous has made a decision to separate his identity from his comment, and nobody has to take responsibility for an Anonymous comment. This person on the other hand had the courage to stand up and say what he wanted to say. That deserves respect.
And in fact, anyone who is criticizing him while signing in as Anonymous as actually a gigantic coward. I think that much is pretty obvious.
Hersh,
1. It's not a rumor; it's just been confirmed by two BHSA reps. (I assume 5:03 is legitimate because the bombastic umbrage would be too difficult to fake.)
2. The comment wasn't behind "closed doors" if "all BHSA meetings are open to the public."
3. The guy who stands near Sproul Hall singing, "happy, happy, happy" while waiving an apocalyptic and racist placard has the courage to speak publicly. That doesn't mean that the content of his speech deserves respect or preservation from criticsm. (For the record, I love that guy.)
4. This is particularly the case when the speaker is purportedly a student representative.
Does anyone here actually know what lack of transparency means? I don't think anyone does.
Besides, we are consumers. Consumers don't get a say in how businesses are run. You don't purchase and then make demands about how a business operates. If you are not pleased with business practices, you don't consume and then complain. You just consume elsewhere.
5:35 here.
5:42,
No offense intended to the people who create posts on this blog. I actually really enjoy reading their posts and they obviously care about the school. I hope my previous post didn't come across as a personal attack on them, because they do a great job and it wasn't intended that way.
I'm just saying that the posts on here may not be representative of the overall sentiment on campus. And one of the reasons why that might be is because of the relatively small number of current students who can create posts compared with the large number of ex-students.
So, you're right, maybe there should be a new blog. The truth is, though, I LIKE THIS ONE. I do think that Nuts and Boalts would be more relevant, useful, and legit if they opened it up a bit, though.
5:53,
True- I shouldn't make sexist assumptions based on a a name. Thank goodness for the bloggers' profiles. It looks nearly all of the bloggers list themselves as male, with the exceptions of Earl Warren, Max Power, Carbolic, and Jackie O., who do not list any gender at all, and Bekki, LÁlex, and Maude, who list themselves as female.
So, for a gender breakdown we have:
16 men
3 women
4 unknowns (two "male" names, 1 "female" name, and 1 neutral name. (Yes, it is really sexist to label names "male" or "female," but I thought I would point it out. True, Max Power could be Maxine Power.))
5:58,
Hmm...I don't know. Armen, how do you get to be a poster on this thing? Is it open?
Yeah, and I do think you have a point about the site being open in the sense that anyone can comment, but I do think there is value in being able to take the initiative to create a new post.
Concerned Alumnus,
HA!! LMAO.
Camille, you are wrong about holding elected officials accountable. It does NOT require showing up.
I know you are very politically vocal, but how often are you in Sacramento? Or Washington?
The BHSA can't, and shouldn't, hide behind the whole "it's open to the public" nonsense.
Apparently, Hersh @ 6:21 posted his comment without reading any of the preceding comments. At least someone is being "responsible." Kudus to Carbolic for putting him in his place.
I thought diversity was about bringing in a diverse set of opinions. We often use gender, race, etc. as a proxy for a diversity of opinions, but that doesn't mean diversity will change anything.
I mean, who knows, maybe the women who step up will be Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and Michele Bachmann. Let's throw in some people of color too. Let's see... how about a Clarence Thomas and a Condoleeza Rice (double diversity points for that one!).
So now when we add all those people to Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, and Glenn Beck, we really have a super diverse crowd!!!!
Um no. Sorry. That's not how diversity works.
So to say that this blog can't possibly represent the diversity of the school because there are only a few women is sort of silly.
SF to 190k!!
EW is a man ... trust me.
I'm curious as to what the Berkeley Law Organizing Committee is? Is it just a couple of self appointed students who chose the name to sound official?
Hi 7:01,
5:35 again.
I don't think that its "silly" to raise the issue that this site might be slightly gender-biased because only 3 of the 23 bloggers list themselves as women. That is a pretty skewed gender ratio, and since we are holding BHSA accountable in this forum, it seems appropriate to make sure that we hold this forum accountable as well.
I agree that that we should be cautious about assuming that gender can serve as a proxy for opinion, but you fail to recognize that a diversity of experiences directly affects whether a diversity of opinions can emerge. Men can sympathize with women and opine accordingly, but the fact is they have not experienced being a woman and their opinions thus will be inherently limited by their lack of experience.
Yes it is true that women all have different experiences which leads to very different opinions, but hey, that is what diversity is all about.
Justice Ginsburg agrees that in some situations a woman's unique experiences will tend to influence outcomes in the court, particularly in gender discrimination cases. Here is a quote from a NY times article:
"Q: Do you think that some of the discrimination cases might turn out differently?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: I think for the most part, yes. I would suspect that, because the women will relate to their own experiences.
Q: That’s one area in which outcomes might actually differ?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes. I think the presence of women on the bench made it possible for the courts to appreciate earlier than they might otherwise that sexual harassment belongs under Title VII [as a violation of civil rights law]....
Q: What about the case this term involving the strip search, in school, of 13-year-old Savana Redding? Justice Souter’s majority opinion, finding that the strip search was unconstitutional, is very different from what I expected after oral argument, when some of the men on the court didn’t seem to see the seriousness here. Is that an example of a case when having a woman as part of the conversation was important?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: I think it makes people stop and think, Maybe a 13-year-old girl is different from a 13-year-old boy in terms of how humiliating it is to be seen undressed. I think many of [the male justices] first thought of their own reaction. It came out in various questions. You change your clothes in the gym, what’s the big deal?"
Men are awesome and capable of great empathy, but that does not substitute for a diversity of experiences.
Check out this link to the Ginsburg interview if you are interested http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Jesus, just email armen and he will add you as one of the official bloggers or whatever and you can create all the posts you want! Aren't we all about "taking action"?!
Hi everyone!
Matt (the 1L) - If you don't want to be offended, don't propose ridiculous responses to valid concerns. In this case, your contention that a vote of no confidence is a "valuable tool" that you'd be "remiss" to not present is laughable. SWAT isn't brought in for domestic disputes. Analogize from there.
Also, you're a student govt. rep. You said something in public that a lot of people thought was way off-base (including other BHSA members who were there and ostensibly understood this mysterious "context”). Getting called out on it is a foreseeable consequence of that.
The great thing about writing is I get to choose how I present things. You weren't supposed to like my post, but it's certainly not disrespectful in content or in tone, assuming we're playing by big kids rules. :) Also, you're my rep. Many of our classmates know who I am (hell, you might even know who I am. If we’ve met, I’m sorry, I’m horrible at remembering people), so try not to see yourself as the victim of some sort of online, alum smear campaign or whatever. And if it isn’t clear enough already, I take a HST view of journalism, not a Wolf Blitzer one.
Everyone else – I love the identity politics, the bizarre posts, the hypocrisy and the scathing reason being used in these posts.
Seriously. It’s ok for a real discussion to be sloppy, for people to get upset and for people to say dumb shit.
Also, this is my second post and I have to say, you guys have not failed to impress. (And, for those pissed off about the make up of this blog, I got the invite because I said something Patrick liked in a thread and then I emailed him and asked him if I could write. Crazy, I know).
5:35, OK cool, Patrick can I be a blogger on this site?
to james,
great to have you on board. one of the best posts in months.
That's it. I'm changing my name to Rose Bird.
Email me and Armen with your pitch. We'll go have a beer and a talk. If we can work together, we will.
Rumors of exclusionism are greatly exaggerated.
True, I didn't read all the comments.
But I stand by my original sentiment, which is that its lame to gang up on one dude with a sea of anonymous comments. I guess its more legit if you are signing your name. But a whole bunch of "##:##" designated comments is awful, because the guy is getting beaten up, and meanwhile the people doing the beating don't have the balls to show their faces.
I do retract my statement that "he deserves respect for standing up and saying X." If he did make some clown-ass statement, I suppose it would be fine to ridicule him.
However, I'm undecided as to how ultimately insane his proposal is on the Berkeley scale. In an absolute sense, I agree, its moderately absurd. But think about where we are. I've heard much more ridiculous things like, "we should boycott going to classes", etc.
In that context I think the guy's statement (Matt?) is not that insane. Therefore, its still kinda lame to have a pile-on in the comments.
I suppose the source of my angst is that so many people feel its ok to post anonymously when making barbed comments about someone who isn't anonymous. Seriously, don't people have a sense of honor and fair play anymore?
No matter who your hero is, Gandhi or Goldwater, I'm sure they wouldn't endorse this sort of anonymous shit-talking.
Do we really need a Berkeley version of Above The Law?
Let's all just be really clear on one thing: it would be absurd for strikers to claim that "most" or even "very many" students support this strike in any meaningful way. I was on campus today and while a few people were missing, classes were all well attended.
BHSA Matt, you say "the administration's policy []contradicts students' own vision for our school." Really? How do you know this? Perhaps a lot of people didn't attend your meeting because they understand the fee increases, are sad they have to pay more, but recognize that an increase is the best among a limited set of options.
I suppose the source of my angst is that so many people feel its ok to post anonymously when making barbed comments about someone who isn't anonymous. Seriously, don't people have a sense of honor and fair play anymore?
Uh, are you even remotely familiar with what politics is? Or how it works?
Check me if I'm wrong, but this guy ran for something, right? People voted for him. He supposedly represents students? And now he's immune from public criticism because of it?
To quote Lewis Black: "Buhhhhhwhatthefuck?" Are you, in fact, Sarah Palin?
It'd be one thing if people on this blog were launching nasty ad-hominem attacks: "So and so is a douche." It's quite another to say, "So and so had a terrible idea and here's why."
If you can't stand the heat, resign your political position and get the motherfucking out of Padma's kitchen.
Good comment 9:37,
I'm one student and can't speak for others but for I think the administration has a great plan for our school going forward.
Our tuition is going to be higher but students who choose to take the non profit or government route will benefit from the best LRAP program in the country. As somebody who borrowed almost the full cost of attendance but will be working at a large law firm upon graduation I will have no problem paying my loans back.
Also, if the cost of an eduction at Boalt concerns you so much maybe you should have chosen a different law school. There are many fine public law schools around this country to choose from. If you got into Boalt you probably could have gotten a full ride from one of them. But you probably weighed the costs and benefits of those two choices and decided to come to the best public law school in the country.
On the construction of a new building. I could be wrong here but most of these funds are coming from DE fundraising efforts.
For Boalt to remain as one of the best law schools in this country it is going to need a great facility, great faculty, and great students. All of these cost money. I am not only willing to pay the extra money in tuition but look forward to giving money back to this school to make sure Boalt's excellence continues.
9:52,
Exactly right.
I fully support Berkeley's LRAP program, and I am fully willing to fund it with additional fees levied on me.
Strikers, I am going to use the same tone on you that many of you used on me. Why are you against LRAP, why are you against public interest? Anyone student who strikes tomorrow over fees is clearly against Berkeley remaining affordable to public interest students.
I never read this blog, but a friend told me about the posts people have been writing about the strike, so I decided to take a look. I won't be tuning in again.
I just want to say, for any horrified prospective students, 1Ls, or outsiders who might be reading Nuts & Boalts: this is not what most of Berkeley is like.
And to the person who proposed starting a new Berkeley Law blog: you should really get on that.
-A 3L
10:02 -
I agree!
I propose a no confidence vote in BHSA. We just got smacked with an $8,000 tuition increase, Boalt Hall workers are on strike, and not one public word from BSHSA. Thanks guys...
"I just want to say, for any horrified prospective students, 1Ls, or outsiders who might be reading Nuts & Boalts: this is not what most of Berkeley is like." -10:02pm
Hear, hear.
A strangely reoccurring feature on N&B is the anonymous commenter who says: (1) I never usually read N&B; (2) I won't read it again; and (3) someone should start a new blog.
10:02--If you're not an N&B reader, I'm not sure why we're supposed to regret losing you. That being said, your comment is comically ambiguous on the target of your extreme disapproval. The blowhard posturing? The insouciant bitching? The existence of a raucuous and (mostly) unfiltered forum? Various forms of gender confusion by and concerning N&B posters? The fact that Camille doesn't offer $0.50 like other people, but three times as much?
And on the subject of starting a new Berkeley Blog: have at it! Nobody is stopping you. (Just don't post links here to drive your own traffic; that's annoying.)
10:47,
Wow, you are way off base. I am completely against these "strikes", "protests" or whatever. But many members of BHSA have done a lot to try and keep students informed.
Did you read the awesome report from BHSA rep C*mille? It was actually a fairly balanced explanation of what the increases are about?
Did you attend the BHSA emergency meeting discussing this issue?
Did you talk to any of them?
Did you read about how they convinced DE to hold his townhall this semester instead of next?
Did you go to http://bhsablog.blogspot.com/ ?
Please remember that they are students too, and finals are drawing near.
Armen, you ask for well-reasoned arguments. Perhaps I'm becoming cynical myself, but something tells me that any argument supporting the unpopular view on this site would be immediately shot down for one reason or another (check out 5:10's sweet straw man that has nothing to do with my main point, or 6:46's rejection of a concept we've been discussing here and in other posts ad nauseum.)
Several commentors have expressed disappointment with this discussion, and for good reason: there is little to no effort to understand or respect opposing views.
That said, you do understand my main concern perfectly... although you're quick to marginalize it. Whether or not we are partially culpable as students for our lack of knowledge about the increases, many of us were taken by surprise. That surprise was (and continues to be) exacerbated by an acute lack of timely and detailed information on the increases, where the money's going (the status of the LRAP improvements, for example), and what the long-term value added is of departing from our roots as a public institution.
Personally, I'm not asking for fee reductions or any other drastic change in the long-term plan... but I WOULD appreciate clear information about what to expect - and, be still my heart, maybe even a seat at the table going forward. As one of my 1L friends pointed out the other day, many of us got the letters in our admissions packets estimating our 3-year costs here based on our CURRENT tuition numbers. If this plan has been around so long, why didn't the university include the increases in that projection? Why did DE send out that email about $500 instead of treating us like adults and saying - yeah, 22% next year... tough cookies, but we're doing it for XYZ reasons and you're going to realize a serious benefit from it. If he had done anything remotely CLOSE to that, I'd be on board with a s$(%-eating smile right now because ultimately, I'm grateful to be here.
Finally, as one commentor pointed out, we are paying consumers. But rather than agreeing with his conclusion that we therefore have no right to criticize the way our "business" is run - I believe that there would be no "business" without us, and we therefore have a right to demand transparency and clear information from our leadership.
Thank you, L'Alex!
Armen wrote "if you're going to speak, then understand the subject-matter of your speech." I can't help but feel that this is a double standard on this blog.
If you want to tear down any student who chooses to question fee hikes or support campus workers, that standard does not seem to apply.
L'Alex,
I disagree with you, but you have every right to feel upset that you were caught unawares. Ok.
What now? You want a seat at the table. By that I take it you mean that you want to have your input heard. Ok, come to the town hall meeting next week. I get that you are angry, and that others are angry. However, an immediate protest and outcry appears extremely knee-jerk. Why not give DE a full chance to express his views before venting your inconsolable rage.
You are angry that you don't know where the money is going. Fine. Did you read Yudof's letter, and the part where it mentions that Berkeley Law intends to use the money to support LRAP, Financial Aid, and 6 faculty positions?
You are frustrated that there was no fair warning? I simply don't think that is true. How is it that so many other students knew that fees were going up and you didn't? The increases are more than originally planned, but not much more.
Would you have preferred LRAP being cut with no fair warning? Or financial aid?
You are angry because you feel the the law school would not exist without you. Sorry, that's not true. There are hundreds of students waiting to take your spot at the new, higher fees. Many of them have higher GPAs/LSATs/Other stuff. This school would exist without you. It wouldn't even notice your absence (or mine).
So in the end you and I disagree. I hope that was respectful enough for you.
Actually, 11:23, thank you. While you perhaps rephrased some of my points in a different light, I understand your position.
And just for the record - I am not angry, or inconsolably rage-ful. I plan on attending the townhall, with the hope that DE will candidly clear up our questions/concerns.
5:10 here:
L'Alex,
Just to be clear, I was not trying to "shoot you down." In fact, I agree with many of your concerns re budget transparency and the tone of some N and B comments. However, I was trying to address a "straw man" argument you were perpetuating, granted not as your main point, that the fee increases are going towards creature comfort construction projects instead of providing need based grants and LRAP funding. Had the "construction over people" argument not been a pillar of the student striker manifesto, I would not have even commented on your post.
That said, I think you have been extremely reasonable in your comments and I am glad to be at boalt with you, fee increases and all.
11:02,
There absolutely would be a business without us.
There are many people that would be more than happy to take our slots in the class.
For the people suggesting that these comments are not at all representative of Boalt, you're right, but you're also wrong.
Sure, the language is snarkier than usual and the rhetoric more aggressive, but I think if you sift through the various arguments being put forth, you will find a remarkable unity of values in the Boalt community that I suspect you will be hard-pressed to find elsewhere.
Those highly critical of the tuition/fee increases seem driven by concerns that the hikes risk pricing out potential law students who plan to work in lower-paying public interest or public sector jobs and/or have a relatively conservative risk calculus when taking into account future debt (perhaps as a result of not having family financial support/security or an economic background that makes incurring $200k of loans a lot more daunting a prospect).
Those in favor or at least not perturbed by the fee increases seem supportive of DE's plan to capture more money from the majority of students who have a very inelastic demand for a top-notch legal education and utilize at least a significant portion of that increased revenue to strengthen financial aid and LRAP, believing that to be the best way to ensure that Boalt continues to be a leader in public service (with the "service" ultimately helping both prospective students and alumni's disadvantaged clients).
Which is the "right" approach? Well, to use the most trite of law school sayings, it's an empirical question that depends on a staggering array of variables: how elastic is demand for legal education? what percentage of increased tuition will be used to support LRAP and/or FinAid and/or faculty retention/quality? what is the optimal system of financial aid and loan repayment mechanisms for subsidizing a graduate legal education and how close (or far) is our current system from that optimum? who's our competition: what percentage of Boalt students would have gone to the Columbias and Georgetowns of the world if their tuition calculus were different and what percentage would have gone to a different state school or at very least a school that places a high emphasis on public interest like NYU?
Frankly, I'm currently in favor of the fee increases, but if the answers to all the above questions were significantly than what I suspect they are, then I might very easily switch over to the side of objecting the hikes.
In the end, our law school is incredibly unique, and I'm not saying that just to blow smoke up our asses. In some ways, we've started to get less unique and will continue to do so as we raise tuition, but in others, as this thread shows, our values remain distinctly Boalt: the vast majority of people I see in school everyday AND the people who have posted here want this school to continue to be a realistic option for people from all backgrounds and with all interests.
Perhaps the ultimate vote of confidence I can offer DE is that I trust him with these Boalt values, and I trust that his plan reflects a carefully researched belief that by stealing a couple tricks from the private law schools with whom we have the ability to compete but then crafting our budgets in a manner that will continue to embody our distinctly public values, we will remain an incredibly unique law school.
I feel like I'm writing a Jerry Maguire type memo, but it's cathartic, so I can't stop.
Armen, you ask for well-reasoned arguments. Perhaps I'm becoming cynical myself, but something tells me that any argument supporting the unpopular view on this site would be immediately shot down for one reason or another
In the words of Apu Nahasapeemapetilon, "I promise nothing."
That said, you do understand my main concern perfectly... although you're quick to marginalize it. Whether or not we are partially culpable as students for our lack of knowledge about the increases, many of us were taken by surprise.
Judging by the comments, not all of you. And since previous announcements by the admin reported fee increases for the upcoming year within the ballpark, is it fair for me to assume the precise pain point is that the amount of increase was not constantly repeated? Maybe that's being too coy, but I think a fair reading of your argument is that there just wasn't a clear announcement early on about fee increases.
I addressed this argument in the previous thread. First, UC Budgeting is an annual process, where nothing is final either before or after Regents approval. So any administrator to predict the amount of fee increases would be acting grossly prematurely. Second, the last time the UC spoke about fee increases (or the lack thereof) they were sued, resulting in millions of dollars going to lawyers paid for by students--social justice! So there is now an affirmative disincentive to speak about any changes in fees because of a lawsuit brought by people opposed to fee increases, which resulted in fee increases. I know, paging Joseph Heller. Third, I'm certain that the cost of attendance projection also contained a lot of verbiage how it's just a projection and not meant to predict actual fees. Did you take it as predicting actual fees? The reason you take the first year and multiply it by 3 is because the first year is the only concrete numbers the school has. If it did anything else, then it would run afoul of #2 above. Big no no.
So if we combine all of these, and some are shaky assumptions, I admit, then I get the pretty distinct impression that you assumed or at least would not like fees to go up, did not know about the school's plans, and naturally reacted shocked when first learning about the fees.
This raises the question though, if, as you claim, you hope for a "seat at the table" and if you are so concerned about learning more about the school's funding, why did you not inform yourself? This is a very long-winded way of saying I can appreciate the sticker shock, and I know the reaction to announced fee increases all too well, BUT these fee increases have been telegraphed far, far, far more in advance than any other fees. So yeah, I'd say the culpability lies with you. But that's not what upsets me (in fact, further down, I suspect that the admin is not communicating its plans with you based on the fact that I'm doing it).
That surprise was (and continues to be) exacerbated by an acute lack of timely and detailed information on the increases, where the money's going (the status of the LRAP improvements, for example)
The UC, including the law school, budget is public, though it may require some schmoozing to get the more meaningful data. The key point to understand is that increases in the PDF are not going to fund main campus budget shortfalls. They are going straight back to the law school. And no, they don't fund the construction. That comes from the Dean's Capital Fund--based on alumni donations.
As much as DE's plan relies on increased fees, it relies just as much on increased alumni giving. In fact, a law school dean's main job description is to raise money. So, finally an outsider becomes the dean, enacts a multi-faceted plan to change the culture of the school, realizes that public funding for the school is a mirage and likely to disappear year over year (a spot on prediction, btw), begins to truly transform the school to a world class institution worthy of its reputation, and then a few years into that plan some 1Ls didn't see the fee increases coming. Look at it from that perspective. Does the uproar make any sense? Does it make sense to merely suggest in a brain storming session that the students vote "no confidence" in the dean? I just cannot possibly imagine how anyone can justify that position.
Incidentally, this was long-debated and discussed. And yes, the key concern was the loss of an inexpensive public law school. But the dramatic changes to LRAP, the summer grants, the fellowships, the interdisciplinary centers, and other changes more than compensated for the loss.
and what the long-term value added is of departing from our roots as a public institution.
See above. And I'll that again, this was long debated and much discussed.
Personally, I'm not asking for fee reductions or any other drastic change in the long-term plan... but I WOULD appreciate clear information about what to expect - and, be still my heart, maybe even a seat at the table going forward. As one of my 1L friends pointed out the other day, many of us got the letters in our admissions packets estimating our 3-year costs here based on our CURRENT tuition numbers. If this plan has been around so long, why didn't the university include the increases in that projection? Why did DE send out that email about $500 instead of treating us like adults and saying - yeah, 22% next year... tough cookies, but we're doing it for XYZ reasons and you're going to realize a serious benefit from it. If he had done anything remotely CLOSE to that, I'd be on board with a s$(%-eating smile right now because ultimately, I'm grateful to be here.
I think I've explained at least adequately why the school cannot predict more than one year ahead (even though DE's plan is something like a five year plan--a terrible name, btw). But at the same time, that doesn't excuse lack of communication from the admin. I think an area of constructive discussion would how to resolve the overwhelming pressures on DE with the daunting task of managing all the law school entities (students, tenured profs, staff, etc.). When he first arrived, a lot of students expressed concern that he spent too much time attending cocktail hours at firms and not enough updating the students. I felt he was doing his job and every dollar he raised, meant that much more value to my education. Maybe this is a reiteration of that debate. Maybe the fact that I'm the one articulating his plan and the benefits is evidence of precisely the problems articulated by you.
Finally, as one commentor pointed out, we are paying consumers. But rather than agreeing with his conclusion that we therefore have no right to criticize the way our "business" is run - I believe that there would be no "business" without us, and we therefore have a right to demand transparency and clear information from our leadership.
This displays extraordinary vanity. But if your point is that student input into the fiscal plans, capital improvements, and general ethos of the law school is important, then yes, I agree. It's important, but it's not dispositive.
And just as a footnote, what irks me is questioning fee increases that really are the best for the law school in the short and long-term, whose purpose has long, long been debated and vetted, and which has yielded some pretty dramatic improvements that YOU benefit from. So now I understand that this isn't your gripe, but I hope you can see why it can be taken that way.
12:47,
Thank you; you stated it perfectly. I support the public mission of this school. But I think that fee increases to support quality, LRAP, and financial aid are the way to keep the public mission going.
Doesn't it mean something that many of us support taking money directly out of our pockets in order to fund these programs for others.
I just time-traveled to 20 posts from now. [spoiler] Someone will analogize the zealous anti-fee-hike crowd to the Teabaggers.
they should just close Irvine...that would save some dough.
Armen, thanks so much for your response... it does shed light on some of the history for me. I just want to make two clarifications:
1) I acknowledge that DE's plan was vetted/accepted by the community before my time. But since there's a high turnover rate around these parts, with 1/3 of the student population getting replaced each year by students who don't know more than what they can find on the web (since the admissions packets and assuring pre-1L emails don't do a great job of summarizing what's going on), I think DE's plan for the school needs to be reiterated and reinforced frequently with updates and whatever information he can share with us about projected changes. Orientation, for example, would have been a good time to give us an overview of the school's long-term plan, why we're doing it, and how it will impact us during our 3 years here.
2) Of course I do not mean to say that Boalt would collapse without the students currently attending. But philosophically, replace Boalties with a bunch of kids who don't say a peep about how their school conducts business, and Boalt - as we know it - would be no more. Call it vain, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it!
Kudos to 12:47. Well put.
10:02 FOR PRESIDENT!
For what it's worth, I'm a 3L who would've gone to a different school if it hadn't been for Boalt's lower price-tag. I don't know that either Boalt or the cause of Justice would've lost anything if I'd gone elsewhere (I'm going to a firm and have no serious plans to do full-time public interest). But I do think I'm an iota of evidence that demand for a Boalt education is a bit more elastic than 12:47 seems to be implying. That said, I admire 12:47's analysis.
We need to get schticks on N&B. Like "Opposite Guy":
10:23,
I'm a 3L, and I paid more to come to Boalt. I appreciate higher fees and their role in furthering Boalt's commitment to justice. I also think I contribute to Boalt's commitment to justice in ways that nobody else in this world can. And I'm not going to work at a firm.
Opposite Guy,
10:23 here. We should hang out.
10:23,
No, we shouldn't.
-Opposite Guy
10:02 speaks for me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/education/19brfs-UNIVERSITYSY_BRF.html?_r=1&hpw
I vote no confidence. We'll need an interim dean. Perhaps Professor Palpatine could fill in?
To those who have been bashing Nuts and Boalts or bemoaning it as some sort of reflection on the character of everyone at Boalt, here is a newsflash from 1997: Everyone is a Dick on the Internet!
Anonymity breeds ignominy and people are willing to type all kinds of shit they wouldn't say to someone's face. I'm not defending that behavior, but it is what it is and you have to expect it when entering a web forum. So calm down.
Funny how this all dovetails with today's most interesting ATL post. Mmmm, tracking IPs...
EVERYBODY DANCE NOW!
C*mille P*nnu quoted in today's WSJ, page A2 (WSJ online is subscription-based, so no link):
She said she'll pay $45,000 for school next year, versus $27,000 her first year. "I came to Boalt because it was public," she said. "The cost was definitely a factor, but it was more important for me to be at a public university."
I disagree with the unstated assumption behind C*amille's statement that public equals cheap or heavily taxpayer-subsidized. The institution is still public in its affiliation and mission, it just has a more progressive fee/tuition structure: everyone is charged more up front, the law school is not beholden to the jerkoffs in Sacto for funding, and financial aid/LRAP greatly assist those without means during/after law school to finance the cost of their education.
Any thoughts about whether higher fees make Berkeley un-public?
I don't think that was her assumption. She said cost was a factor, but it was more important to be at a public university. Meaning that even if the cost went up, she might still go to Boalt because it's public.
Was tuition really 27K last year?
If so, why weren't we protesting a 33% increase between last year and this year?
The WSJ article continues: "She said that, among other things, university regents failed to focus on alumni donations during flush times and didn't lobby state lawmakers hard enough to sustain higher-education funding."
Staging hyperbolic protests isn't really the kind of that's going to convince alumni to boost up their annual giving. Given the anticipated $20 billion deficit in the state budget next year, it's hard to argue that subsidizing professional degrees is more important than funding Medi-Cal or primary education. (Particularly since the great majority of Boalt graduates can earn over 4Xs the average per capita income of a California resident.)
I really hope that the student strike doesn't boil down to: "Somebody else should pay for my gold-plated professional education! I shouldn't bear the cost for the training for which I will be directly benefiting!"
We might be public, but our sense of entitlement will give any elite, private law school a run for its money.
Which begs the question - Where are all the hard drugs?
Carbolic,
As someone who plans on donating absolutely nothing back to Boalt, I have to say that a hyperbolic protest may be the sort of thing that nudges my wallet open a bit. Not this particular protest, but maybe something a little more coherent and less silly.
I suppose this may bump the protest out of the "hyperbolic" range.
Toney, in a short few months you will face a deluge of what is effectively public shaming to give to the class campaign, with the stated goal of reaching 100% participation from the 3L class to show alumni that current students are just as committed to the school. But this doesn't reconcile with the "strike" against fee hikes. And we on this side get a sense that student commitment to the betterment of Boalt is just a facade / gimmick to get us saps to give more.
So in that sense, I think your position might be sui generis. (And to avoid any confusion, I know all Boalties--for or against the fee hikes--care about the school, but statements to the national press like the one above can have unintended consequences.)
BHSA, get on your shit and denounce the protesters who intentionally pulled the fire alarm when there was no fire.
James is a giant tool, as is anyone else who reads Nuts & Boalts.
I love you, too. :)
NO JAMES! THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO START A FLAME WAR. I DIDN'T EXPECT YOU TO GO ALL JESUS ON ME.
Last night I had the pleasure of reviewing some Nuts and Boalts. Hadn't been on here in a while; I'm usually too busy, you know, reading memos.
So I see the "BHSA" tag and think, "Well I was a 1L Rep, might as well click on that." A couple of threads down, I run into this one. It was a joy to read, until I started skimming. People sure do love hearsay! And writing and thinking about hearsay.
I'm a proponent of Dean Edley and his vision for Boalt, always have been. It wasn't me who called for a no confidence vote back in November. Other BHSA 1L Reps last year included Matt. Also a proponent, as he flatly stated in this very thread.
So that leaves... well, we were the only 1L reps. As I become a 2L, I have learned a lesson. Blaming 1L's makes juicy gossip...and that's all it makes.
If you'd like to debrief more, find me at school. Name's Alex Rivera. Too bad I got to this thread months too late, and no one will ever read. Peace
Post a Comment
<< Home