NEWS FOCUS // UCI debate runs deep through
cyberspace // EDUCATION: Critics of two task-force
reports burn up the computer lines with concerns and
counterproposals.
DATE 04/18/94
NEWSPAPER THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
SECTION METRO
EDITION MORNING
PAGE b01
STORY LENGTH 37 INCHES
HEADLINE NEWS FOCUS // UCI debate runs deep through
cyberspace // EDUCATION: Critics of two task-force
reports burn up the computer lines with concerns and
counterproposals.
BYLINE/CREDIT DAN FROOMKIN:The Orange County Register
SUBJECT TERMS OC:COLLEGES:COMPUTERS:TECHNOLOGY:REPORT:EDUCATION:REACTIO
N
If e-mail could kill, a lot of people at the University of
California, Irvine, would be dead by now.
Vitriol and consternation over proposals contained in two major
task-force reports not only have permeated campus, but have spilled
into cyberspace via a computer-driven mailing list.
The two task forces were supposed to establish a bold new vision
for UCI's future, while at the same time suggesting dramatic new
ways for the university to adapt to budget constraints.
But during the past two months, a period designated for hearing
public comment, the campus has been ablaze with often furious
reactions, bitter disappointment and sometimes personal attacks.
Virtually every interest group on campus has held meetings and
composed position papers to respond to the reports.
And as suits a campus that prides itself on its technology,
perhaps the most dramatic debate ended up taking place by computer,
as people shot more than 150 pieces of electronic mail to a program
that fired it out to all interested parties.
Consider the damning assessment Professor Alfred Bork zapped to
colleagues about one report's basic themes.
By Bork's reckoning, the themes were as follows: "Ignore the
Future," "Clobber the Weak," "Ignore the Undergraduates," "Ignore
National Problems," and "Whine About Our Problems and Blame Them on
Others."
"I do not like this report," Bork added, in case anyone
misunderstood his position.
Many critics attacked the report on academic issues for being
insultingly contemptuous toward the whole notion of undergraduate
education, while excessively exalting research and graduate work.
The report, for instance, says UCI's undergraduates are not
sufficiently motivated or prepared, and recommends that some basic
classes be shifted to the less-prestigious University Extension
program.
"The rhetoric of the report perpetuates a dangerous polarization
between the aims of graduate and undergraduate education," five
graduate students in English and comparative literatures essayed in
their e-mail.
"If UCI is to attract higher-caliber undergraduates in the
future, it should be careful not to privilege research over
teaching so emphatically -- as though excellence in one precludes
the other."
The report on nonacademic issues came under fire for ignoring
the human factor in its recommendation that vast sections of the
university's support services be contracted out.
"We must also take into consideration the many long-term,
dedicated folks who will lose their employment as a result of such
contracting out," science researcher Janet Ristow wrote.
The suggestion that the university's young, independent programs
in ethnic studies be swallowed up by a larger department also drew
considerable criticism.
The official response from the university's program in
comparative culture, recommended for abolition by the academic task
force, accused the senior faculty members on that task force of
lacking "even a modest understanding regarding the role of ethnic
studies."
Some comments elicited furious back-and-forth e-memos.
When one staffer suggested that contractors might not be as
flexible as in-house workers, engineering Associate Professor
Martha Mecartney shot back that she hasn't been impressed with the
flexibility of some current services.
"I have most extensive experience with physical plant for such
problems as it is raining in my lab and the temperatures are
reaching Sub-Sahara temperatures in the room containing $500,000
sensitive electronic equipment," she typed.
Some defenses probably weren't appreciated by those being
defended.
David Goldstein-Shirley, a graduate student in comparative
culture, argued against the recommendation that his program be
eliminated.
"The problem with the program lies in its current faculty, whose
internal fights have devolved into pandemonium," he wrote. But he
insisted that their "puerile behavior" is no reason to abolish a
program with "excellent graduate students."
Easily the most controversial single recommendation in either
report was the call to eliminate the university's small but
respected department of education as a cost-saving measure.
Professors in the department barraged their colleagues'
electronic desktops with megabytes of rebuttal -- and theirs were
among the most savage attacks on the reports as a whole.
"The document is replete with the type of messages that are
anathema to the public and legislature," associate director Dennis
Evans wrote, in one of many missives reminding the campus that its
obligation is to serve the community.
Some of the postings to the task-force bulletin board -- along
with at least 500 more responses from both inside and outside the
university -- will now be digested by a committee of senior staff
members.
And that committee, in turn, will make suggestions to Chancellor
Laurel Wilkening -- the ultimate arbiter, who has thus far remained
purposely mum about everything except the process.
"I have been very pleased by the high level of participation and
the serious tone of the campuswide discussions about the future of
our campus," Wilkening said in electronic mail to The Orange County
Register on Friday.
"In a university where freedom of expression is encouraged
because of the nature of business, I am rarely surprised by the
tone and content of debate," she continued.
"I believe this wide-open process has been healthy for the
campus, even though it has had painful moments."
University officials say it is quite possible, because of the
amount of reaction to the task-force reports, that Wilkening will
decide to chart a path that includes both recommendations from the
task-force reports and from their critics.
One of the recommendations that emerged from the electronic
crucible was to take radical steps to beef up, rather than back
away from, undergraduate education.