All language subtitles for At.Berkeley.

I guess, I'm thinking about
how do we keep the costs

low for our students?

Because if that self-help
continues to rise,

then both middle-class
students and even our courses,

they're not going to be able
to afford to come to Berkeley.

So how do we do that?

Last year,

we saw over 900 students
become eligible

for the Pell Grant

when they hadn't been
Pell-eligible before.

So something had happened
in that one year

where the economic
circumstance had changed

that made more students
eligible for Pell awards.

I'm solidly middle class,

and it sucks,

because with the
economy the way it is,

my mom's a teacher,
so in our district...

her district rather...

she gets paid less now
than she used to,

and costs for tuition
and room and board

and everything has increased.

So I feel kind of the
obligation to work more

to compensate for that.

And it's just really
frustrating because I'm...

I don't qualify for anything

besides like unsubsidized loans.

And I just feel
horrible, you know,

like, making my parents
go through that.

And it really sucks.

Yeah, no, and I understand
that perspective, too,

and we... so we encourage
students who are

in that circumstance to...

and we understand how
it might be compelling

to try to work more,

but we encourage students
not to work so much

that then their grades
become impacted

or that you'll need
to take more time,

which would then be more
of a financial burden

for the student or
for the family.

So we, we encourage
you to do things

like go to summer session where
the costs aren't as great,

and to kind of be creative
about your living situation,

and to actively fund-raise
for the cost of education.

But we do... we understand that.

It's just that there aren't
enough resources right now

for us to impact more than
we are already impacting.

And the idea with the
unsubsidized loans is,

those loans are at a
6.8% or 7% interest,

and interest will
start to accrue.

But once... with a
Berkeley degree,

the idea is that you will
be gainfully employed

and be able to make
payments towards that.

And as someone who took
out lots of loan myself

in order to get an education,

it was something
that I don't regret,

even when I'm having to
write my repayments back.

Because, I mean, I
really benefited from

a world-class education,
and I wouldn't trade that.

And I would encourage you
to meet with financial aid

anyway to really go through
all of the options

that you maybe haven't
even thought about.

I think one of the biggest
struggles that we find

with our students is

how much, what is my loan...

what is my loan capacity?

And so sometimes that's
even accomplishing

with your family, first of all.

Because, I mean, and it
really sort of I think varies

by income level, by
class background.

What always kills me is the
way in which students,

like around not having
financial literacy,

will go and, you know, take
out credit card debt...

don't even get me started...

or will go and buy a new
car at $30,000 a year

when they get out of college,

and that depreciates the minute
you drive it off the lot,

but won't borrow 30K
to go to college.

That makes no sense to me.

That will never depreciate.

Your education will never
depreciate in value.

So how do we make decisions
around what's, you know,

given the family situation,

what you can and cannot do.

But sometimes sitting there
and talking with someone

directly about your
individual case,

around, "Here's where I am,
here's where my family is.

What are my real options here?"

To really un-turn
all those stones.

I would do that. You
owe it to yourself.

Come on, let's go!

Get it in!

California goal... number
26, Shannon Elmitt!

Assist by number 27...

Erin Magill.

Slam dunk! Yeah!

We get 37,000 work
orders a year,

plus we get another
15,000 work orders

for preventive maintenance.

So that's a lot of tags

that people have to respond to.

And we're struggling.

In preventive maintenance,

the most important
thing you can do

is anticipate a problem and
get out there in front of it,

rather than wait for
that tag to come in.

Which means you've got to go
out and you've got to oil,

you've got to change fan belts,

you've got to change filters,
you've got to oil bearings...

you've got to do
all those things.

And if you do that proactively,

you're going to be able to
slow down the service tags

that we get, the service
requests we get.

So one of the things you've
got to do is understand

how much equipment
you have out there

and where is it and
what's it need?

So we've been working
diligently on that,

and we now know 9,000 pieces
of equipment out there.

But we suspect the total's
closer to 20,000.

So we're still working
to understand

what's out there and figure
out what we need to do

to keep this running
before it breaks.

So that's the most
important thing we can do

in these times of
constrained resources

to actually keep
this place running.

The story George uses, you know,

he talks about 63 roof leaks.

Well, I talk about the fact that
we're down to one lawnmower.

-One lawnmower? -One lawnmower.

I have one person that
mows the lawns on campus.

- The whole campus?
- The whole campus.

Well, that person's pretty good.

He's damn good.

You know, it's incredible.

Yeah, and what's
interesting about it is,

I like that example
because it talks about

the dedication they have.

Even though we've reduced
their staffing over there,

they're still able to keep
this place looking good.

And you know, when anyone
visits this campus,

the first moment of
truth, if you will,

is when they walk on campus.

And what's it look like?

You know, is the
trash picked up?

Is the lawn mowed?
Is the lawn green?

They can form an opinion on
us that could be detrimental

right off if we don't
have our act together.

So this is really important.

What did you think of the
conversation regarding

whether we should be
matching outside offers

as a way of retaining faculty?

You may recall that at
the cabinet discussion,

the data revealed that
85% of the faculty

thought that's what
we ought to be doing,

and 60% or more did not like it.

So the overlap probably was
a large number of people

figuring they can't think
of a better system

for retaining our faculty.

The chancellor's position was,

no, we can transit to
that if we, you know,

if we have the
self-confidence to do so.

To not match offers?

To not match offers.

To announce to the campus.

Now, there are
intermediate strategies.

You don't have to go the
full MIT route of saying,

we don't match outside offers,

but we will prioritize them.

You could exercise discretion.

For recruiting,

when we hire an
assistant professor,

we have our scale for
assistant one, assistant two,

then we do an adjustment
based on the outie data.

So we're already looking
at what the market does.

So I think to say, "we'll
do it at point of hire,

but afterwards we're
not going to match

what the market's
willing to pay you,"

would not be the
smartest thing to do.

I agree with what
Andrew's saying,

is we might be more careful
as to who we match.

And I think we've made
some strides in that with

that "Value to
Berkeley" assessment

where deans and chairs
are being forced

to come up with
better explanations

why we should match
a retention offer.

But if we did away with the
concept of no matching,

even though salary's not
the primary reason,

I think it would send a negative
message to our faculty that,

you know, it's
Berkeley or nothing.

I think there is a
market out there,

and we want the best.

And, in fact, sometimes it
enhances the person's prestige

just for the fact that Harvard
or Stanford want them.

So it's a way of reinforcing
that faculty member

as to how good he or she is.

So I think we should
just be vigilant,

diligent, and careful
in who we match.

Over the last four years,

we've had a number of cases
where very wealthy privates

come in and try
to grab our stars

by offering to
double their salary.

And for equity reasons
within the university

and within the department,
we have not matched,

we have gone halfway, you
know, maybe a 50% increase.

Actually, it wasn't, in the
cases I have in my mind,

it wasn't even 50%,
we went 30% or 40%,

instead of the doubling
they were being offered up,

and they all stayed.

There was three or
four faculty members

who wanted money to fix
up the classrooms,

and that's, again, being
at a quality institution,

allowing that person to do

his or her research
and teaching.

So we didn't match salary then,

but we did spend money
to fix up classrooms,

and that's what made
them stay here.

And that story's not told.

Yeah, yeah.

I think a subset of you...

especially the
experienced chairs...

know that, you know,
one of the things

that George and Shelly and
I and the budget committee

take very seriously
is promotion,

specifically tenure,
and in my case,

it's tenure... the ones,
the cases I actually read

are tenure and above-scale.

And there are a few people
out there who have been

really furious at me

because I haven't believed
their recommendations,

and I take it seriously.

And so if you haven't
had that experience,

I don't want to quite
say this is a warning,

but I want to comment on that.

Okay, I mean, the single
most important thing

at a great university...

I don't have to tell
anybody here...

is the faculty.

If we don't have
a great faculty,

we don't have a
great university.

And so what that means is...

and that's your responsibility,

to ensure that we hire,
nurture, and promote

outstanding people.

And, you know, that
will guarantee

the continuing
excellence of Berkeley.

I have a stack that
high, literally,

on my desk at home.

Reading especially the
tenure cases this year

was really uplifting.

So there just were so many

cases of really
outstanding people,

and just reading their
research cases.

But I do want to comment,

this was not uniformly true,

and there were some cases which
were less than uplifting,

which, and this is directed to

both the department
heads and deans,

which, nevertheless,

from the department
heads and deans,

had strong positive
recommendations.

And we're deciding how
to deal with those.

This is not in the interests
of your department,

and if you're a dean, it's not
in the interest of your area

to say a case that's
manifestly weak.

Partly because of the way
tenure cases were done at MIT

and in Toronto both,

I have a lot of experience
in reading cases

across the spectrum, as
do George and Shelly.

So we're pretty good
at it, frankly.

And so if you sent
us a weak case,

we're going to figure out

within five minutes that
it's a very weak case.

And so, you know, I just
urge you, you know,

and it's your responsibility
to do the triage first.

It's not... we cannot
be a great university

if we don't have
a great faculty.

And it is not the department
head's responsibility

to ensure that every single
person they hire gets tenure.

Because not every single
person works out,

and shouldn't get tenure.

And it's your responsibility,

and it shouldn't be
ours, to act as a veto.

So I just urge you to
exercise critical judgment

on tenure cases,

and please don't send us a
case that starts out saying,

"I'm pleased to,
you know, forward

a really outstanding
candidate for tenure,"

and then you read through.

And, for scientists,
for example, you know,

you go on the Net and you say,

"Okay, what impact has the
person's work actually had?"

And if a case is...

if you think the person is much
better than the case presents,

explain it and be
honest about it.

It will serve that person
and you much better

if you present honest cases.

And I have a personal passion
which some of you know about,

which is that I
understand it's not

uniformly shared
by all of you...

this passion...

and that is that I think of
course we need to use chairs

to honor our great faculty,

which usually means our
great researchers,

but we also need to
honor great teachers

beyond the teaching award.

And so one of my ambitions
is that we will have

a set of chairs which
will go to people

whose primary achievement
is great teaching.

They also have to be good
researchers, good scholars,

but where the recognition
really is for the fact that

they are great
classroom teachers.

And so we hope to
raise a set of chairs

which will help us
create a collegium

of great teachers.

This is one of our ambitions,

is to have
multidisciplinary chairs

where part of the income
from the chair...

part will be used for
the usual purposes,

but part will be used

to fund creative ventures
in the classroom.

And so we're very
excited about that.

And if you have any suggestions,

any of you, for
prospective donors who,

you know, treasured their
experience as undergraduates

or graduate students
at Berkeley,

and you know, might
be interested in

supporting chairs that
will honor great teachers,

we would like to know.

Catch it!

Go, go, go!

E.E. Cummings,

"Anyone Lived in a
Pretty How Town."

"Anyone lived in a
pretty how town,

with up so many
floating bells down.

Spring, summer, autumn, winter.

He sang his didn't,

he danced his did.

Women and men, both
little and small,

cared for anyone not at all.

They sewed their isn't,

they reaped their same,

sun, moon, stars, rain.

Children guessed,
but only a few,

and down they forgot
as up they grew,

autumn, winter, spring, summer,

that none loved him

more by more.

Wind by now and tree by leaf,

she laughed his joy,

she cried his grief.

Bird by snow

and stir by still,

anyone's any was all to her.

Someones married with everyones,

laughed their cryings
and did their dance.

Sleep, wake, hope,

and then they said their nevers,

they slept their dream.

Stars, rain, sun, moon,

and only the snow can
begin to explain

how children are apt
to forget to remember

with up so floating
many bells down.

One day anyone died, I guess,

and no one stooped
to kiss his face.

Busy folk buried
them side by side,

little by little,
and was by was,

all by all, and deep by deep,

and more by more they
dreamed their sleep.

No one and anyone,
earth by April,

wish by spirit, and if by yes.

Women and men, both
dong and ding,

summer, autumn, winter, spring,

reaped their sowings
and went their came,

as sun, moon, stars, rain."

I have a background in chemistry

and bacterial genetics,

and so when I came to do
this kind of cell biology

and cancer biology,
it occurred to me

that some of the things
that scientists were saying

may not really be
completely right,

in that they were saying you can
take a single cancer virus,

and you can make a whole tumor

just with that one gene.

This is a very ugly
tumor in a chicken

that was discovered in 1911.

And this guy called Rous

won the Nobel Prize
50 years later.

And I say to the young
people in the audience,

you hang in there, it may come.

So, it took 50 years.

All right, so if you

dissociate this tumor

and make a filtrate of it,

of the supernatant,

and then take that juice

and inject it back

into another chicken,

you get another tumor.

So people isolated
this virus called

Rous sarcoma virus.

It was the first cancer virus.

And because they could do
it with a single virus,

even in a tissue culture dish,

they said, you only
need one gene.

Right?

And that's what we
have been going on.

The women who have these
genes for cancer, BRCA1,

they have it in all of
the cells of their body.

But they only get breast cancer,

or they get only ovarian cancer.

So if one gene was enough,

the whole thing should

become cancerous,
and it doesn't.

Many years ago, a
number of my students

and myself took
this cancer gene,

and we made it blue.

You see those blue things?

And we injected it
into a chicken embryo.

Chicken embryo.

You see that?

It's a beautiful feather.

And every one of
those blue genes,

supposedly in the
tumor, in the chicken,

could make a tumor, right?

But in the embryo, they don't.

They become part of the
embryo, they change,

they're perfectly compatible
with the feather,

and they just live happily

until the embryo gets
very close to hatching,

then things start going wrong.

So it is clear from
this experiment

that a single gene
is not enough.

It needs something else,

because in the embryo,
it does one thing,

in the chicken, it does another.

And if we take this
embryo and dissociate it

into single cells,

and then put it in a dish,

it gets blue cells overnight

and it piles up like a tumor.

So think about this.

The same gene in the
chicken makes a tumor.

In the embryo, doesn't.

We mess up the embryo,

we put it in a dish,
it does it again.

So that said to me that context,

i.e., the microenvironment
that is around the genes,

probably tells them what to do.

Now, that was a complete
heresy in those days.

So we had to do all
sorts of things

to show people that this,
in fact, was true.

Cancer is an
organ-specific disease.

Breast cancer is not the
same as liver cancer.

You have to do all the details
for every one of these,

and the devil is in the details.

And when I was young and I was
trying to say these things,

people thought I was crazy,

and they wouldn't
give me any money,

and they said, she just makes...

it was hard to get grants.

I got a lot of, whatever.

If you go back to my website,

you will see an article on the
front page of New York Times

on December 29th,
this last year,

and the front page is
something about our work,

and it starts off by saying,
"Mina Bissell never forgot

that she was saying that
the virus is not enough.

And a very famous
virologist took her paper

and dumped it in front of
her in the wastebasket."

Now, that's not funny, right?

It's very nasty.

I mean, I was young.

But the nice thing
is, you survive

and you believe in
your convictions.

You can show it.

They now give me so much money,

I don't know what to do with it.

I'm a good model for
those people who say,

"It can't be done."

And in fact, this is
my favorite cartoon.

He's telling the cat,

don't you ever think

outside the box.

And I say to the young people,

always think outside the box.

Don't listen to your professors,

don't listen to your
textbooks, they are dead.

They don't know
what they're doing.

They're very conventional.

They do incremental.

Anybody who wants to say

something important
gets shut down.

And they should,

because they should
go and prove it,

which is something I have done.

I used to be the cat,

and, unfortunately,
I'm this now.

So I say to them, don't
even listen to me,

go and find your own answers.

The campus network is attacked
millions of times a day...

Think of them as our
first-line security.

From around the world.

So they're the people that
are at the front lines

that are trying to...

Literally millions
of times a day?

Literally, we have
attempted intrusions,

automated botnets,

coordinated state attacks.

Berkeley is a place of
significant research benefit.

So we have, you know, activities
around industrial espionage.

We have a considerable amount of
identity and fraud detection,

where companies
not companies,

but coordinated
groups of individuals

actually act now as
professional organizations

searching for this information.

Men and women have been tortured

directly because of the work

of UC professor John Yoo.

John Yoo is teaching at this
moment at the law school.

The press should go
and ask John Yoo,

what do you do when you have
shredded the Constitution,

and then you're trying to
turn around and teach it?

The press should ask Dean Edley.

John Yoo will appear 20 feet
high on the wall of Boalt Hall,

and members of the
National Lawyers Guild

and the Boalt Hall student body

will debate John Yoo.

Come out tonight,
7:00 at Boalt Hall.

Be there.

Women have been tortured because
of the work of John Yoo...

We're a pretty big
research university.

Professors do really
great research here.

And a really great
thing about that

is that the students
can get involved.

About 50% of our
undergraduate students

graduate with some kind
of undergraduate research

under their belt,
which is really cool.

Students could get out early on,

match up with their professors,

ask them, "What are
you researching?

I really like your class.

Is there any way I
can get involved?"

And they can do research

with their professor.

The discoveries that they
had about this T-Rex

right here was, you know how
you see "Jurassic Park,"

and T-Rex goes out, and he's
like the monster of the jungle

and he eats everybody?

What they discovered was that
T-Rex is more of a scavenger.

He's more like a hyena
than like a lion.

He'll go out, and he'll
chomp on somebody,

and he'll go and run and
hide and wait for them to,

like, stop being so active.

This is what he would look
like if he's running.

He's like running, and he,
like, looked real quick.

And he maybe saw a
meal or something.

Any other questions?

Okay, and so, you know,
insects in general

have all kinds of different
ways they can get around,

their own sort of
deliberate dispersal,

or they can be moved around
by other organisms like us,

or if there is some
sort of, you know,

symbiote or parasite,

they can get moved
around by their host.

And just like we talked
about in terms of

optimal foraging theory,
there are lots of costs

and benefits that go into
an individual insect's

decision to stay or go.

And here's sort of just
an example of a few

of these things that can go into
this decision-making process.

There can be costs

associated with the insects
staying in the place

where it's starting off.

So if they stay where
they're starting off,

they may have to
compete with others

of the same species for limited
foods or nesting resources,

some sort of resource like that.

And in many cases, the
worst competitors,

the most difficult
competitors to deal with

are other individuals of
the same species as you,

because they, of course, like
to eat the same things you do,

they're looking for the
same mates, you know,

mates of the same
species as you,

they tend to live in the
same types of places

where you like to live.

And so in many cases,

competition with others
of the same species

will drive an
individual's decision

to leave a particular place
and seek out somewhere

where resources might
be more abundant.

And sort of related to
this, competition in...

among individuals at
their site of birth

may lead to
competition with kin.

And so through these
competitive interactions,

they may sort of incidentally
hurt their own fitness.

By reducing the reproductive
abilities of relatives,

they may diminish
the amount of genes

they pass on to
future generations.

Kin can also play a role in

deciding the fate of individuals

once they reach
reproductive maturity.

So if you stay in the same
place where you're born

and your kin are around you,

once you've reached
reproductive maturity,

it can be difficult
to find a mate

who you're not related to...

maybe not in the most
recent generation,

but in a couple
generations past.

And this can lead
to lots of problems

associated with inbreeding
and inbreeding depression.

And then if individuals
co-occur together,

they may share pathogens
or parasites.

And this can be especially a
problem if individuals occur

in large aggregations.

The sort of larger
the population size

and the higher the
population density,

the greater the probability
that parasites will take hold

or that pathogens that are
horizontally transmitted

will get bounced around from
individual to individual

within a population.

And so it may be advantageous

to leave that particular
site and go out

and seek somewhere where
population densities are lower,

and hopefully pathogen
loads are lower.

But on the other side
of the equation,

there may be some clear benefits
to staying in the place

where you're born or where
you're starting off.

If your parents have lived there

and they reproduced
there successfully,

changes are pretty good
that this is a place

that has the necessary
resources for you to survive.

This is especially important if,

you know, the food you eat

or the type of place
you live is sort of

very specific or sort of
patchily distributed.

In that case, the energetic
cost of finding somewhere

with the right food or the right
sort of nesting requirements

can be very high,

and that can drive individuals
to stay in the same place

regardless of these other costs

that may be on the other
side of the equation.

Of course, it may be
easy to find a mate

if there are others of
your species around

in the place where
you're starting off

or where you're born.

And if you go off and
wander out into the world

to unknown locations,

you're running the risk of
stumbling into habitats

where there's nobody else
of the same species around

and you have zero,
or very low, chance

of successfully finding a mate.

There may be benefits
associated with interacting

with other individuals.

So benefits of sociality,

such as group defense or
more coordinated foraging

or division of labor in
terms of offspring care.

And those may be
benefits to you.

If you have offspring, it may
be advantageous to have,

you know, siblings around
or your parents around

to help them rear
your offspring.

And, of course, dispersing
often takes energy,

energy associated
with the need to fly,

swim, or walk away.

The Free Speech Movement,
in Mario Savio for one,

gave us much to this campus

as any of its distinguished
Nobel Laureates,

financial benefactors,

or fabled athletic coaches.

All too often,

Americans seem determined
to forget their past.

They view themselves as
exempt from history.

That's most unfortunate.

When history is scarcely
taught in public schools,

when American history ceases to
be required in many colleges,

when history textbooks
are censored,

to provide students
with an antiseptic view

of the government of the past,

we pay a very high price...

historical illiteracy.

Recent studies of
high school graduates

reveal appalling
numbers unable...

unable to place the Constitution

or the Civil War within
the correct half century,

unable to explain the background

of the Declaration
of Independence,

unable to identify
the Bill of Rights.

It's a sad indictment of our
educational institutions.

Before we can
comprehend the present

or contemplate the future,

we need to know
something of the past.

Many of us have no doubt
had the experience

of talking to students
about some central part

of our historical experience

only to find an utter lack of
recognition or comprehension.

One nationwide study found

that we're rapidly
becoming what he called

a "cynical, passive,

and uninformed people,"

fertile territory for
evangelical bigots

who peddle their
political pornography

in the guise of
Christian morality.

History teaches us to
be wary of those who,

in the name of protecting our
freedoms, will diminish them.

The indispensable
strength of America

is a right of dissent.

Making a commitment
to social activism

has never been easy.

Apathy and accommodation are
far more characteristic

of human behavior.

Throughout history,
however, as I've suggested,

men and women have
braved unpopularity

and both state and
private violence

to make such a commitment,

engaged in moral theater,

risk life and liberty

to redeem the
promise of America.

March!

So, what a lot of
people don't know is,

who is exactly to blame
for these budget cuts?

I think that there's a crisis of
priorities on multiple fronts.

I mean, one is that, if you
want to know who to blame,

I mean, it works on
multiple levels.

I mean, one is simply that the
state has ceased to function.

The state government
in California

has ceased to function
largely because you have

this two-thirds requirement
to pass a budget,

a two-thirds requirement
in order to raise taxes

and then you have this state
requirement, you know,

that all states are required
to run a balanced budget.

And under these kinds
of conditions in which

a minority party and
the Republican party

in California led by the single
richest member of Congress,

Darrell Issa from San Diego,

are, have led a
position in Sacramento

that says all of the
Republicans in Sacramento...

though they are a small minority
of the state legislature...

are all made written promises
to never raise taxes

under any circumstances
whatsoever.

So, yachts, fourth
homes, billionaires.

We can't raise taxes on
them, but what we can do

is fire janitors, gardeners,
kindergarten teachers,

preschool teachers, lecturers,
and raise student fees.

That seems fundamentally
out of whack to me.

It's fundamentally wrong.

Public education is the
vehicle for social mobility

in any democratic society and
we're living in a country

right now that is more unequal
than at any other time

in its history since
perhaps the crash of 1929

or perhaps the moment in
which African Americans

ceased to be property and
became human beings,

with emancipation.

So we're at an incredibly
unstable position politically.

There are no countervailing
forces that will

bring things back into line
in terms of egalitarianism

as a fundamental
democratic belief.

We've identified
five focus areas

with respect to the
recommendations that we really

need to pay attention to,

some decisions need
to come out of,

and those areas are
clarity about how

we will manage crisis management

and, more importantly,
responding to protest,

accountability within all
of that, responsiveness,

effectiveness, and, um,
particularly, communication.

And so there was a meeting
on Monday that Ron

is now going to talk
about that I think

is really important for
us to get a sense of

what the city of
Berkeley has done

in its partnership with
us and the commitments

that they have made, so, Ron?

Thank you, Linda.

Linda characterized
the meeting as good.

I would characterize
it as exceptional.

I was very, very pleased,

and I really want you to
pay attention to the,

uh, who is here from Berkeley.

We had all of the
the key players.

The mayor, the police
chief, the city manager,

and those are the folks
who are real stakeholders

in decisions about the
engagement of what happens

with law enforcement as
it relates to the campus

and the local community.

The meeting focused on
the PRB recommendations

that had some
impact on the city.

There are just a couple of them
but they could be summed up

in the relationship
between the city

and the campus,

the communications, how
we go about communicating

using technology, et cetera,

and, most importantly,
this notion of...

we'll say mutual aid at one end

and just this kind
of mutual assist

is another category
that I would place

because "mutual aid" is,
that's a very formal term.

But we really talked
an awful lot about

how we can assist one another.

Now with respect
to relationships,

we should be very, very
pleased that the departments

under the...

They already have
statements of agreement,

document operating plans in
terms of how they operate

and interact with each other,

which I think is quite,
quite wonderful.

They have monthly, for
the command staff,

this is not just the two chiefs
but all their command staff,

they meet monthly and
they are planning

officer exchange programs.

So we're looking at being able
to integrate the cultures

so that people will understand
more clearly what happens

when they come on campus
and we, when we go

out in the city.

On communications, we don't
have the ideal technology

to communicate between
ourselves and Berkeley.

Both entities have committed
to doing everything we can

to improve on those, but
we do have effective means

by which to communicate.

The work team came up

with something, which I think
is very, very important.

The PRB said that we
need to have some

contingency plans some
strategies, some outlines,

how you deal with various
types of disruptions.

And we've come up with
something that we'd call

the "Crisis Management
Incident Severity" system.

And what it allows for
us to rank the severity

of whatever disruption
we might have.

There are three layers.

The first level of an incident

is what we would
consider routine.

Routine, pretty obviously, those
kinds of things that are small,

non-violent demonstrations,

things that can be contained
inside of the campus.

Our police department will
be able to manage that

without much outside assistance.

The next category, slide eight,

which is what we have
characterized as urgent.

This ups the ante a little
bit, and this is where

we would engage the associate
chancellor, Linda,

and the Crisis Management Team.

Their responsibility
is to work with Mitch

and law enforcement to
make sure that we have

a coordinated response

that works well for
both our administration

and our law enforcement
obligations.

Things such as
building takeovers,

blocked traffic.

This is where the city of
Berkeley really comes into play,

where they are invited
to come on campus

to be able to assist us in
this and we want to make sure

that they are very, very
familiar with the campus

so that they will
know our buildings,

know how to navigate on campus,

and those are things that Mitch
and his team are working on.

The thing that I'd want
to say in this category,

which was probably the most
striking thing that came

from me from the meeting
is when the mayor spoke

in unequivocal terms that
the city of Berkeley

is totally on board with being
able to support, assist,

and help Berkeley without the
invocation of the mutual aid,

which is the formal thing.

So that is a really,
really big deal.

So, Ron, one thing I'd like to
point out, too, on this slide

before we move and we
probably will come back to it

later in the conversation
but, in particular, here,

based on what this work
group has been working on,

just the first bullet,
take note that

"building takeovers that are
nonviolent and resolved

within two hours of
ordered to exit."

That is a much, that's
a striking difference

from what we've been saying thus
far so we need to come back

and get some more conversation
and leadership around

whether or not that's something
we really want to exercise.

Remember, we're still talking
about draft responses

to the recommendations.

But, as we all know, we have
been working with, you know,

when the building closes,
then you need to leave.

This is saying to push that up a
little bit on the bar to say,

two hours, out, and where we go.

So I just want to highlight
that because it's easy

to move past it in here,
so we'll come back to that

as further conversation...

Linda, I appreciate that
comment because that is

a pivotal point and I think
much of our discussion later on

in this session will center
around that because there is

a cost to waiting
to act with that.

Of course, there's a cost to
acting precipitously as well.

We're going to talk
about that later.

Yes, we are. We are going
to talk about this.

So that's just a
placeholder there.

On slide nine, that's
the third category,

and that's a crisis.

That is when Mitch, in
consultation with the chancellor

and the associate chancellor and
the emergency policy group,

to the extent that time
permits, would be contacting

and calling the sheriff and
asking for mutual aid.

And that means we have a major,
a major incident on campus

that is beyond our
ability, and the...

and with the augmented ability
of say UCSF, maybe Davis,

and the city of Berkeley.

This relates to "building
takeovers has become disruptive

to campus safety.

Campus is not able to
conduct its business

and severity of property
damage is imminent."

Ron, so does this
cover off as well,

mutual aid going beyond
the city of Berkeley?

Absolutely.

I'm glad you asked that question
because it was suggested

I haven't been as clear
as I need to be.

If we would look at the
two different categories.

I've just kind of dubbed one
of them the "assist" category,

and that would be a
level two essentially,

where the city of Berkeley,

without our calling
for mutual aid.

They are just integrated with
us and willing to assist us

and support us to be able to
help law enforcement actions.

Okay? Then you have
this formal category,

which is labeled "mutual aid."

And when we call in mutual
aid, there's a whole bunch

of other things that are
invoked when we do that.

We're in a very
unique environment.

Where, you know, the university
and the city of Berkeley

each share jurisdiction.

We're in each other's
own backyards

and so we're unique in that,
on the day to day basis,

we assist Berkeley all the time.

They assist us on
occasions also,

whether it's rallies or law
enforcement activities.

So we don't really consider
that mutual aid because

on a day-to-day basis,
we work together.

So we have kind of an
internal mutual aid,

which is within system wide.

And I have additional
campuses; I can call and ask

for mutual aid and bring
other officers in from that.

But when we exhaust
those resources

and there is no other
UC officers or staff

to bring on board and
Berkeley has pretty much

been exhausting their resources,

we would go to the
sheriff's department.

They are the keepers
of the mutual aid.

And they're the ones that
provide mutual aid for us.

They're the ones, the sheriff
calls other agencies

and we might get Oakland
and we might get Albany.

We might get Emeryville
as well as the county,

deputies from the county,
to come and assist us.

And we don't really
have a say in that.

You know, I need 60 cops.
They give me 60 cops.

And it could be from
anywhere within the county.

When you call mutual aid,
it means you need help

and you need it now.

And so everybody drops what
they're doing and they will

send you what you
need to resolve

and to maintain the
peace and control

whatever's going on.

We would prefer and our
thing is to go internally

in getting, in getting service.

I mean honestly, getting another
officer from another campus,

even Berkeley, but
from another campus,

our approach to dealing
with civil unrest,

civil disobedience, protests,
and things like that,

and when we come out there and
deal with something on campus,

for the most part,
it's a student protest

or an employee protest,
there's a nexus.

They're part of our community

and I think our approach
is a little different.

We're going to do what we
need to do to enforce the law

and enforce the policies,
but our approach to that...

And one of the reasons why
we sometimes hesitate to

go outside, you know,
the university to go

to county mutual aid is because
they're coming from all over

and don't necessarily work

in our diverse environment.

Last year, we called
mutual aid for the county

at least three times,
if not four times.

Prior to that, it was
probably 10 years

since we last called mutual aid.

Now does it mean that we should,

if there were events
prior to that,

we should have
called mutual aid?

There was also this
philosophy on the campus,

it goes back to the 60's,
as far as not wanting

to bring outside individuals.

We've always prided ourselves

on trying to take care of
and deal with protests

and civil disobedience
internally

because, quite honestly, is

they are our faculty,
staff, and students,

and we're able to work with
them and negotiate with them

and try to bring these things
to a peaceful conclusion,

and that's our goal, our
goal is to do that.

I think going into this season,
there's a good potential

that I could be calling mutual
aid equal amount of times,

three or four times,
heck, five or six times.

We're going to talk a little
bit more upon October 7.

In a nutshell, we don't
really know what to expect

from October 7th.

There really isn't a
lot of information,

whether it's going to be
just picketing and protest

or a building occupation
and what the numbers...

We think there's a reasonable
probability that we're going

to have non-UC
officers on campus.

I think that message should
get out ahead of time

and understanding this
correlation question, I think,

is important for us to
try to do our best.

Is there an opportunity to
have some cross training,

some folks who would
understand the differences

of coming on to CSU Hayward
or UC Berkeley or UCSF,

how you manage that differently?

It seems to me that that's part
of the challenge we've had,

is that these officers
come in and they're used

to one kind of activity
and we're asking them

to behave differently, and we
need to give them something.

There are already things

that are occurring
at the moment.

We've engaged the sheriff.

We've talked about,
you know, how quickly

we can get their response here.

Typically, they have
crowd management teams.

They're typically brought in
from their jail environment.

And so we're already
reaching out.

Well, I mean because they have
a group of people that are

already there as opposed
to pulling them

from all across the county.

I mean that's just
the way it works.

And then if it goes beyond that,
then they pull more people.

But we're speaking to them about
that as far as, you know,

talking about the
philosophy of our approach

in dealing with
civil disobedience,

particularly, you know,
with student protest.

I mean, because you're right.

When they go, they go to
protest, like the dock workers

or where there's no affiliation,

there's no connection or nexus
with their organization,

and so we are doing that
and we're actually trying

to build in something where,
if we do need assistance,

we have a group that they've
identified that we could go to.

They would be as familiar
as we can get them to

not only the campus environment
but also the diversity

and the demographics
and the philosophy.

And having those officers
come on our campus

when it's not in a crisis mode,

but to come on so that they can
get familiar with the campus,

understand the campus from
our geographics of it,

where things are located,
all of that, is stuff

that's also being worked on and
part of what we have included

in some of the response work.

We should actually exchange

officers for some length
of time with the city.

So have some number of city
police respectively work

as Berkeley campus
police and vice versa

and I think that was really
just a terrific idea.

That came out of
Monday's meeting.

Yeah, which would
serve us really well.

We need to pursue that.

We need to have a student
forum but the student forum

needs to be about the
state of the campus,

not about the police
review board.

And the students need to be
able to, we need to be able

to communicate about
the record number

of low-income students
on the campus this fall.

The fact that we've contained
costs for students.

There's a lot of info
we need to get out.

Yes.

And we need to listen to

things that they're
unhappy about, right?

So, so, and that certainly
shouldn't be...

and maybe we'll learn
something from October 7th.

Maybe there will even
be something productive

to come out of it.

Right? So we shouldn't assume

that it's going to
be all negative.

They have sent us a note that
says, that talks about the 7th,

and says, "We're opening
up communication."

So the recommendation is

to sit down with them
and tell them this.

But we have not
made a decision...

It shouldn't be all negative.

That's what we tried
to do last year,

George and I in particular, and
could have done it better.

But we have to be clear on areas
where we're in agreement.

We're not happy about increased fees.
Right?

Even though it has a side
benefit of keeping down...

because of the way our
financial aid system works...

keeping down debt for our
low-income students.

We're certainly not happy
about impacting courses.

We're extremely unhappy about
disinvestment by the state.

You know, one of the
side effects was having

to do this drastic thing to
intercollegiate athletics.

And so I think we need to
communicate as much as possible

with the students,

the areas where we're in
complete agreement, right?

One of the things
is communication.

It's delegation of authority.
It's making decisions.

It is deciding what
we're going to do

and do it in a timely manner.

And I think in the past,
we have not really

done as good of a job as we can
to determine, "You know what?

This is a path we're taking.

It is an occupation, it's a
sit-in, it's a disruption.

You need to leave and
you need to leave now.

Police, step in and please
take care of this."

When we ask them to leave,

we're expecting you can
get them out promptly.

Correct.

And that would be the
decision that's being made

when we tell them they're
trespassing and need to leave.

Yes. -That seems
reasonable to me.

Right, excellent.

And that you feel like
you have the cover now.

Well, I know I'm supposed
to get these people out

within two hours... I
need to develop a plan

that meets our values and
our goals and gets them out

in two hours, and let me get the
leaders a plan that does that.

That's where we came out.

Self-evaluation.

Learning not only how important
it is but learning how to do it

is one of the most important
things you can do in your career

toward becoming or as a leader.

You need feedback.

The groups and teams you are
working in need self-evaluation.

They need feedback.

You certainly, at some
regular interval,

have to engage yourself
in a conversation about

what are we or what am
I trying to achieve?

What's my goal here?

What are the criteria
for achieving this

or knowing that we or I
am getting to this goal?

How do I measure?

What are the best measures
of these criteria

that are readily available?

And if you don't do this,

you'll find yourself,
or maybe your team,

engaging in activities that are
totally unrelated to the goals,

missions, purposes
of the organization.

But it may be the
organization as a whole

loses sight of its goal,

or mission or purpose.

In other words, this is
not just self-evaluation

or team evaluation, this is
organizational evaluation.

What are we trying to do?
Just asking that question,

"How do we know we're
succeeding?" is important.

If you are trying to
develop a feedback system,

particularly if you are in
a position of authority,

it's very difficult.

As Secretary of Labor, I needed,

I desperately needed feedback
from people around me

who saw my daily performance.

Who could I trust for truth?

Who could I trust
epistemologically

that we shared the same meaning?

Who could I trust who
knew the mission

of the Clinton administration
and the agency, the department,

well enough to tell
me how I was doing?

Well, I had a deputy
who was very good.

We became very good friends.

But he was very
reluctant to speak.

It was desperately difficult
to get him to say anything

and I could trust him,
but I would have to

read between the lines.

Most of the people I
was surrounded by

were people who
said nothing but,

"You did great, Mr. Secretary."

One of the worst problems of
people in formal authority,

leadership positions, is
they're not getting feedback.

They're not getting
useful feedback.

I gave a... I was
on television once

and I knew something was wrong,

and I was on the elevator,
going down from the studio,

and surrounded by PR
people and by assistants,

and everybody's saying, "Terrific.
Oh!"

I said, "Was that Okay?"
"Oh, wonderful, wonderful."

And I knew it was bull.

And from the back
of the elevator,

there was this voice, "You
used your hands too much."

I said, "I'm sorry?"

And she was new in the
public affairs part

of the agency and she had
blurted something out.

She was immediately
embarrassed, she had said.

And I said, "No, what did you
say?" and she looked around

because her superiors
were standing there

looking at her like they
were going to kill her.

And she said, "I think you
used your hands too much.

It would have been more
effective if you just looked

at the camera or at the person
who was asking questions

and didn't use your
hands that much."

And she became one of my
most trusted advisors.

She was honest.

And also, as I discovered
over time, her epistemology,

her meaning, in terms of what
she understood was effective,

was actually true.

It was not just that
she was being honest

in terms of her own
opinion, but she was true.

I shouldn't have used
my hands that much

in terms of effectiveness.

And also, in terms of
mission, she was very good.

And over a period of
four and a half years,

she kept getting promoted.

There are not many
people I could rely on.

Employees quickly notice

if your boss actually just
wants to hear, you know,

that he did a great job and
if you say something honest

and you don't get promoted.

So I mean you have
to reward honesty.

You have to reward honesty

and you've got to beg for it.

And it's not just honesty,

it's also shared meaning
and connecting to mission.

Because the default
position is not

that people would like to be
honest but they're scared

of not being honest.

No, the default position is
they will not be honest.

They will just flatter you.

I remember faculty meetings,
generally speaking,

are just awful.

I mean, I've spent half my life
in the United States government,

admin meetings, and
the other half,

a lot of them in
faculty meetings,

and I can tell you, faculty
meetings go on twice as long.

Why? Not because
faculties are bad,

but people in faculties
like to speak.

They like to talk.

They are used to hearing
themselves speak

and they're used to watching
other people nod in response.

And so a faculty meeting
is very, very long.

But I'll tell you there
are just a few times

in faculty meetings I
will say something like,

"How did we do today?

Let's just... wouldn't it be
useful to just take a moment?

Let's not take more
than a couple minutes.

Just let's assess how
did we do as a group,

as a faculty in terms
of covering this,

because it would
be useful for us.

Wouldn't it be useful for
us to try to do better?"

And I get, Norma, you just
gave me a very skeptical look

and that's exactly the look I
got when I first did this.

It's kind of like, "Oh, my God.
Who is this guy?

He thinks he's better
than all of us."

But, no, there are ways of
gradually changing a culture

in which a group does become
positively self-conscious

about its process, about
how it can improve itself

and be more efficient and more
effective, and also, in terms

of what it defines as success.

You need, in your
professional careers,

to figure it out.

What is your system?

And what is your team's
system for self-evaluation?

The backup childcare
services are maybe

the single most important
thing that you've done

to make junior faculty
feel like you really care,

just really, really successful.

It's been highly successful.

The vendor takes a survey

after each visit to your home

or you take your
child elsewhere,

and there are always
a few complaints

of the person didn't
watch my child,

or didn't give enough
attention to my child.

But the receptivity among
our assistant professors

has been quite positive.

We even had about a half
dozen assistant professors

use the service
outside Berkeley.

You can use this
in the 50 states.

Just call an 800 number and
someone comes to your hotel

if you're out of
town or whatever.

And so, most recently,
someone used like 80 hours.

They get 80 hours a year, and
they used their 80 hours

and I got a little concerned,
so I did some inquiry,

and the person took the
days off to write a grant.

Another good example
recently, a chair calls,

and we're having a
retreat on Saturday.

The assistant
professors can't come.

They have to watch
their children.

Well, call the 800 number. So
the vendor has shown me...

You know, and vendors play
games with numbers...

that we have saved, just
in this year alone...

it's a two-year program...

we've saved about 150 work
days by having people

do the work instead of staying
home, missing classes,

missing meetings, et cetera.

So the program, I think, is
an exceptionally good one

and I'm glad to hear

what your assistant professors
are saying about it.

Well, it's certainly no
surprise that people would

approve of subsidized services.

We all love subsidized services.

And I can see why the university
might want to organize this.

But it does seem like
an odd expenditure

of university money and a
sort of discriminatory system

of spending university money,

especially in this
budgetary climate.

Would you explain why you
think that's the case?

Sorry?

Would you explain why you
think that's the case?

Well, people make all
kinds life choices

that are different
from other people,

and we'd all like to have our
life choices subsidized.

Why this particular life choice?

It seems to me it recognizes

stages of the life cycle

where people are bearing
children, raising children,

and then eventually...

I'm more on the side that

we don't have any

eldercare problems,

but a lot of my colleagues do

at this juncture.

And I think it's win-win
for the individual.

I think it's win-win
for the university.

And I don't have any
problems with it.

One point of view on that
would be that it would be

very uncompetitive of us not
to acknowledge and recognize

the fact that the
assistant professor pool

has this as a major issue

and that most of our peer
competitor institutions

are doing a good job on it,

and frankly, they'll
just go there.

But also I think it's, we're
hiring people to teach

and do research and we
do all sorts of things

to help support that
and this helps them.

The amount of money is peanuts.
It's $40,000.

I paid for this in one year.

We give recruitment allowances,

which says you can
use it for housing.

So we are subsidizing people
to take x amount of dollars

and we give each person we hire

$50,000 to pay down
their mortgage.

Is that any different
than saying

we can help for child care?

And further, if you look

at the APM, Academic
Personnel Manual,

we used to call it a
housing allowance,

it now says recruitment
allowance.

If you read those words
carefully, it says for housing,

childcare, and tuition.

So we're not doing anything
contrary to any policy.

And I just think it's
something we need to do

to help our assistant
professors.

We make a tremendous
investment in them

and we should just help them
achieve what we're hiring to do.

And the competition, in
the chart you prepared

to the Chancellor today, where
we took Duke, Princeton,

Columbia, Michigan, Stanford...

all of our competition.

They, almost all but
one had backup care?

Kerry? So it's our competition.

So we give money for
recruitment allowances,

for retention allowances.

We paid $40,000 for this

to cover 300 assistant
professors.

The money could have
been spent elsewhere.

The way it was done

is we took money that we
were spending elsewhere

that we saw no value
to it, so I think

it's something we should do

and it's really a
minimal investment.

The chapter I sent you
was sort of a draft

of the introduction so far,
and I just thought I'd,

you know, lay out the
basics in terms of sort of

translational control
and the big picture.

And then sort of

mechanisms of both the general
translation initiation pathway

and then introduce Hepatitis
C virus and sort of

why we care about that as far
as, you know, as a virus,

and sort of current
treatments that are out there

to sort of motivate the
high-throughput screen

for inhibitors.

And then sort of
introduce the mechanism

of the HCVRS within a
section about the role,

the role of viruses
more generally.

As I was working on the other
appendices, I realized that

there is a fair amount
of mutational data

from the pseudoknot project

that didn't actually
go into that paper,

but that I've sort of been
working on just, you know,

summarizing and some
simple figures.

And I was thinking
maybe the best way

of dealing with that would
just be a sort of addendum

at the end of that chapter

which would basically
be the paper.

But again, just not worrying
too much about the writing

but just making sure
that, you know,

all of the approaches
or hypotheses

that we wanted to sort of test
mutationally where I had,

you know, data that
are meaningful

but didn't work their
way into that story

are sort of documented, so
that people in the future...

That's really important.

Well, we may have another student
that joins this project.

Right. I mean people
within the lab.

And ideally they could
then use that as a way

to pick up the project
and get going on it.

Yeah.

Or, who knows, maybe
we'll actually

get another collaboration
going at some point

on small molecule
screening, and, um, again,

those data would be very useful
to have, I think, for that.

Right. I think.

Some of the mutations, some
of the mutational data

that didn't really work their
way into the first story,

if we're able to solve the
crystal structure, you know.

Yeah.

We didn't have a clear
interpretation for why

those mutants behaved
the way they did,

but maybe everything will
become clear once we really see

what the RNA looks like.

I hope so. Yeah.

So maybe some of that will
get packaged in there,

but I think for now it just
makes sense to sort of,

yeah, to have it all
clearly outlined

for future generations
in the thesis.

That sounds very good.

Oops. I'm sorry.

Yeah, I think that
one's probably like...

Shelly's predecessor
as vice provost,

Jan de Vries, once said,

you have to combine
passion with discernment.

And when I think of that... and
I've thought of it often...

what it suggests is that
the coin of the realm

in academia is
rational argumentation

and marshalling of evidence.

And that's where the
discernment part comes in.

Passion is necessary for
a variety of reasons:

to maintain your morale,
to maintain the perception

of you as committed,

and in order to energize you
to pursue the ambitions.

But discernment is
equally important

and so you'll probably be
talking about this later

when you're talking
about the preparation

of academic personnel cases.

Have faiths that you
have a better chance

of convincing people of
what you want done...

whether it's in academic
personnel cases

or in other forms of advocacy...

have faith that
rational argumentation

and the marshalling of evidence,
as opposed to mere cheerleading,

is the coin of the realm.

And people who succumb
to just cheerleading

and don't back up their
cheers with the evidence

and the logic get very,
very frustrated,

because, whether it's the
budget committee or the dean

or the vice provost or
myself, we see through that,

and we don't reward
cheerleading.

We do reward making a good case.

It would be hard to find

any staff member on this
campus who is opposed

to achieving operational
excellence.

I think a lot of people feel
that they've been struggling

to achieve it for
a number of years

and they're very excited

and welcome institutional
support for change.

On the other hand, I think
it has to be acknowledged

that OE is first and foremost
a cost cutting initiative.

And that in times
of relative plenty,

there wasn't an OE initiative
that set out to make sure

that Berkeley had a world
class administration

to match its world class
teaching and research.

And I was struck that

in introducing the
design phase of OE,

Professor Pisano made
clear that the university

has underinvested in its
infrastructure for decades.

So I think that staff
are feeling very torn

between wanting to
whole-heartedly support

any effort to make the
university run more effectively,

run more efficiently,

and seeing that the largest
area of recommended savings

is what is labeled
"organizational simplification,"

which is being understood
as a further reduction

in the size of the staff.

So to bol...

you know, how do
you bolster morale

in that kind of situation?

I mean, we feel
it's very important

to continually reinforce a
vision of where we're headed

and I think you've
been doing that

and we encourage you to do
that ad nauseam really.

How are we going to
emerge from this process

stronger and better,

not only for students and
for faculty, but for staff?

And at the same time, the
painful part of the process

has to also be acknowledged

over and over again
and addressed

because otherwise
credibility is lost

if it's a purely positive message
about what is a painful,

is going to be a painful
experience in some ways.

Thank you.

You know, I don't like
laying off people

any more than anybody
else, right,

and especially in this
kind of a climate

and meeting some of the
individuals who got laid off...

So it was a really
difficult year

and we had to do some
difficult things.

But...

Which included furloughs for
everyone, which is now over,

but furloughs saved
460 jobs, right?

Mostly of lower paid
workers actually.

So I'm really proud
of the community.

And I think, for those of
you who were here last year

would have heard me say this,
but for those who weren't,

just as we were about to
institute the furloughs,

I happened to be at a small
meeting in New Haven,

where I was in a circle
with the president of Yale,

the president of Princeton,

the president of Michigan, and
the president of Stanford,

and I said what
we're about to do.

And they said at
their institutions,

basically, faculty
would not cooperate.

That you could not get
faculty to participate

in helping the staff by
taking a cut in salary.

And I said, well,
Berkeley faculty will.

Now, not everyone
congratulated us on it.

But they did, right?

And we didn't give faculty
days off for teaching, right?

So, you know, I think that I
wanted that to go by, right,

that we acted as a community
to save jobs for staff,

mostly lower paid staff, right?

And we got through
that, so I think

we should all feel
really good about that

and when we're feeling
bad about our morale,

we should think about the 460
people who still have jobs.

Right? Because, if
faculty had refused,

I wouldn't have gone ahead
with it, just so you know.

I would not have
introduced a system

where staff suffered
preferentially.

So, from my point of view,

either both faculty and
staff participated

or no one participated. Right?

So we got through that.

The fee increases, students were
manifestly unhappy about it,

and we got to hear a lot
of noise about that.

I wasn't happy with what I
thought was the honesty,

the way some of the
students presented it,

because many of the
protestors were

students from
privileged backgrounds

and they were saying that
increasing fees meant

that there would be
no room for Chicanos,

no room for African Americans,

and no room for lower
income people.

Actually, because of our
financial aid policies,

which are very robust,

we have the largest number of
low income students this year

on the campus that we've
had in our history.

Correct. And because our
people in student services

have done a really good job,

their costs are actually
lower this year than

they've been in the
last several years.

Okay. So the system actually
worked in the way we did it.

And the number of
underrepresented minorities

went up slightly.

We have to do some
more work on that.

So, middle class people are
in a different situation.