Two billionaires and a presidential candidate visited UCSD in the past two weeks, proving once again that this is a prestigious university whose prominence will only continue to grow. When was the last time UC Berkeley saw the likes of Michael “”Dude, you’re getting a”” Dell, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates and Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Joe Lieberman all in the span of a few days?
Guardian
Without a doubt, this is the impression the organizers of these visits were trying to portray. Indeed, Chancellor Robert C. Dynes’ master plan for UCSD seems to entail transforming the campus in three important ways: eliminating undergraduate parking, building engineering buildings and getting famous people to visit the campus. The first two have so far been a resounding success, and we’re just beginning to experience the fruits of the third.
And while these recent visits by such quasi-celebrities demonstrate UCSD’s significance, they’ve also been the most recent example of the university’s growing pains and the disturbing tendency of the administration to ignore the needs of its undergraduates.
The location of Michael Dell’s visit was the first strike against it. Held in the Robinson Auditorium, the “”Discussion with Michael Dell”” was so popular that dozens of people were shuffled into overflow seating in nearby classrooms.
Attendance at the event required an RSVP to e-mail invitations sent to students majoring in a few select areas, such as management science or economics. Most students were not aware that they could RSVP and were subsequently forced into overflow seating. The event organizers should have anticipated these additional attendees and reserved a larger room, especially since the lecture was apparently well-advertised — about half of the audience were members of the San Diego community and not UCSD students.
That’s the second strike. During the academic year, events held on campus should primarily benefit registered UCSD students. When we enrolled in the university, we expected access to all of its resources, including its ability to draw distinguished persons to campus. Our years here may be our only chance to interact with the likes of Dell, Gates and Lieberman. Middle-aged San Diegans have had their chance. If they want to see Dell or Gates, they can sit at home and watch the videotaped replay on UCSD-TV. They shouldn’t invade our campus events, shutting out students in the process.
It’s not entirely their fault, though. The event was open to them, so they had every right to attend — and that’s the administration’s mistake. Somehow the nonaffiliates were able to RSVP and avoid overflow seating, even though students majoring in theater or political science were not. The administration should have banned nonaffiliates from attending, requiring a UCSD ID be shown at the door.
The dignitaries were not here to establish closer ties between UCSD and the surrounding community, but to promote various academic departments.
Dell came to campus to honor the new school of management. Gates showed up to support the California Institute of Telecommunications and Information Technology. Lieberman’s visit was sponsored by the UCSD Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies. The administration needs to realize that UCSD exists primarily to serve students. If they’re included at all, inclusion of community members should be an afterthought.
These problems were multiplied tenfold during the “”Discussion with Bill Gates.”” The queue for the event stretched from the Price Center Ballroom to Library Walk and ended near Round Table Pizza’s outdoor patio. After the ballroom filled to capacity, over 800 people were either sent to overflow seating or turned away. Again, the presence of nonaffiliates was responsible for the exclusion of hundreds of students. The event should have been “”UCSD only.””
Also questionable were the classes from the Preuss School. Other than occupying seats that should’ve gone to tuition-paying undergraduates, they nearly monopolized the question-and-answer period with their inane queries: “”Mr. Gates, how do you spend your day?”” or “”What is most important to you in life?”” Most of these kids probably weren’t interested in the content of Bill Gates’ speech and wouldn’t have understood it even if they were. They were interested only in missing a day of algebra.
Dynes wasted valuable time during the question period, too. He spent a good three minutes — about five percent of Gates’ time at UCSD — asking a ridiculously long question after providing overly extensive background information on a subject about which Gates was already familiar.
When Lieberman came to visit the next day, it was an altogether different affair. Attendance was low with about 30 empty seats left in Robinson Auditorium after Lieberman began speaking. The event was held at 9:30 a.m. and was hardly advertised unlike the considerable publicity given to Dell and Gates. The chancellor was nowhere to be seen, which shows where his priorities are: Gates was a potential donor while Lieberman was a senator from Connecticut. Had Dynes bothered to show up, he would have heard Lieberman talk about the importance of university research and his promise, if elected president, to double the National Science Foundation’s funding.
Another difference was Lieberman’s accessibility to the audience. Where Dell and Gates immediately fled the scene soon after the conclusion of their speeches, protected by a cadre of personal bodyguards, Lieberman stuck around for a few minutes. He talked to the media, shook hands and signed autographs for those bold enough to approach him. His small complement of security agents — some of whom were jacked into the Matrix through earpieces — let people approach him unlike Gates’ and Dell’s hired goons.
Dell was briefly “”accessible”” during the question and answer period of his lecture, only when John Muir College junior Bryan Barton — of “”People’s Parking Party”” fame — rushed the podium to get Dell’s autograph. Gates fled Price Center into his waiting escape vehicle within two minutes of ending his speech.
Unfortunately, Lieberman’s question-and-answer session was also dominated by non-UCSD interests. This time, it wasn’t Preuss School eleventh graders but radicals from the presidential campaign of Lyndon LaRouche who hijacked the microphones.
One after another, LaRouche supporters grabbed the mics and asked Lieberman “”questions”” designed to humiliate him and disrupt the event. A security officer had to escort one LaRoucher out of the building after he refused to relinquish the microphone. With time for only six questions, the three LaRouchers and other nonaffiliates consumed over half of the allotted question-and-answer time. This problem could have been avoided if only the event staff had checked for UCSD IDs at the door.
UCSD has achieved genuine national prominence. Lieberman’s UCSD speech was featured that night on all major news networks, including CNN. Gates’ and Dell’s time is valuable, and they chose to spend some of it at UCSD. It’s great that these people are coming here, but the administrators have yet to come to grips with the university’s sudden significance. They need to understand that the university’s principal purpose is to help its students.
