Michael Weiner Weiner is a fourth-year
history and political science student. His column analyzing issues
of interest to the UCLA community runs on Mondays. E-mail [email protected].
There was a time when the campus could take pride in the
Associated Students of UCLA; when the non-profit service entity run
for and by students was considered the finest example of student
power at this university; when the notion of leasing large portions
of Ackerman Union to outside operators was considered blasphemous.
That time is no longer.
Earlier this month, the students’ association inked a
five-year deal with Copeland’s Sports to carve out a chunk of
the UCLA Store for the equipment retailer. This marks the first
time ASUCLA has leased space to an external operator in its B-level
store. The store’s ’90s expansion forced the
association to take out a loan from the university in 1996 and to
raise the annual student union fee from $7.50 to $51 in 1997.
But this is not the first time ASUCLA has privatized part of its
enterprise in order to reduce costs. Over the last three years,
privatization has become the centerpiece of the association’s
strategy to prevent a financial disaster that could result in a
takeover by the university administration. Panda Express,
Rubio’s Baja Grill, La Cucina, Campus Cuts and Moby Disc all
occupy space that was previously used for student-owned
services.
In general, these merchants charge higher prices than those
which are operated by the students’ association, because
their goal is not to serve the UCLA community, but to generate
profits for themselves. For example, a Baja Grill Burrito from
Rubio’s costs $4.69 while a comparable burrito from the
ASUCLA-owned North Campus Student Center is priced at $2.79.
For the student-majority board that governs ASUCLA, there seems
to be no other choice but to accept the privatization scheme, which
has been pushed relentlessly by the association’s management
staff. In the five years since the university bailed out ASUCLA
with a $20 million loan, the association has struggled to reach
financial solvency.
Under the terms of the loan, if ASUCLA does not reach a certain
level of viability, the chancellor can appoint additional
administrators to the Board of Directors, thus ending student
control and effectively taking over the association.
Chancellor Albert Carnesale took a premature move in that
direction last spring when he appointed a so-called “joint
operating committee” to “suggest” changes for the
association in tandem with an outside consulting firm. The
committee is chaired by Vice Chancellor of Budget and Finance Steve
Olsen ““ who came to UCLA straight from corporate America
““ and it operates entirely behind closed doors.
Most disturbing is the fact that this committee does not have a
student majority.
What is clear from the deal to bring Copeland’s into
Ackerman is that ASUCLA, under the stewardship of Olsen, is
embracing privatization as the central strategy that can prevent
the university from taking hold of the association.
The question students must ask themselves is: Is it worth
it?
As stated, the outsourcing of space in Ackerman Union results in
higher prices. But it also threatens the status of ASUCLA as the
largest student employer on campus. Outside operators are under no
obligation to hire students, and even if they do, they cannot be
forced to give them flexible hours or relatively high wages, as the
students’ association currently does.
If the thrust toward privatization reaches its logical
conclusion, Ackerman will become little more than a shopping mall
filled with independent retailers, and the ASUCLA board will become
little more than a real estate broker, leasing out space to the
highest bidder. Such a policy will result in a reduction in the
amount of student jobs, an absolute increase in the amount people
are forced to pay for on-campus services and the eventual
irrelevance of the most significant lever of power that students
hold at UCLA.
Of course, if ASUCLA is eventually taken over by the university,
administrators are likely to follow a similar route, outsourcing
all of the formerly student-owned services. Student board members
may take the position that if privatization is going to happen,
they might as well be able to exercise some measure of control over
it.
What apparently hasn’t occurred to board members, ASUCLA
officials or UCLA administrators is that privatization may not be
the solution to the association’s financial woes. In my view,
ASUCLA has overextended itself, expanding too far beyond its origin
as a small co-op run for and by students into a giant commercial
entity that is not sustainable in UCLA’s limited market.
The move toward privatization represents a continued evolution
away from that time when ASUCLA was an exemplar of pride and
student power on this campus. I am convinced that the only way the
association will ever regain that admirable status is by embracing
its past and learning once again to think less like a multinational
corporation and more like a humble, student-run service
provider.