Sunday, February 28, 2010

"Good Speech" Mark Yudof Lobbied Against and Arnold Vetoed

Mark Yudof writes: "As always, the remedy for bad speech is good speech. For that reason, we call on all members of the UC community -- students, faculty and staff -- to affirm and defend the values of the University of California. We are speaking out and ask that you do the same whenever, wherever and however you confront behavior that violates the principles and values of this university."

Yet, just a few short months ago,in October 2009, Mark Yudof --with his UCOP crew and Arnold Schwarzenegger-- fought against and VETOED whistle blower protections for University of California workers!

Staff and students see the headlines, the alumni and taxpayers see the headlines listed -see side column to your right- --and the stench of the hypocrisy and corruption at UCOP REEKS..

Mark Yudof forgets that he lobbied heavily for a VETO of "GOOD SPEECH"

1 comment:

  1. Mark Yudof take action on UCB Chancellor Birgeneau Loss of Credibility, Trust
    The UCB budget gap has grown to $150 million, and still the Chancellor is spending money that isn't there on expensive outside consultants. His reasons range from the need for impartiality to requiring the "innovative thinking, expertise, and new knowledge" the consultants would bring.

    Does this mean that the faculty and management of a world-class research and teaching institution lack the knowledge, impartiality, innovation, and professionalism to come up with solutions? Have they been fudging their research for years? The consultants will glean their recommendations from interviewing faculty and the UCB management that hired them; yet solutions could be found internally if the Chancellor were doing the job HE was hired to do. Consultant fees would be far better spent on meeting the needs of students.

    There can be only one conclusion as to why creative solutions have not been forthcoming from the professionals within UCB: Chancellor Birgeneau has lost credibility and the trust of the faculty as well as of the Academic Senate leadership that represents them. Even if the faculty agrees with the consultants' recommendations - disagreeing might put their jobs in jeopardy - the underlying problem of lost credibility and trust will remain.