Karen
Nguyen
A02
In
the “A Tale of Two Campuses: Berkeley and Davis respond to Occupy movements,”
it does not come as much of a surprise as to why Davis’s response to the
occupy movements were incredibly different from that of Berkeley’s. The
chancellor of UC Davis, at the time, was the same chancellor who decided to use
university funds to cover up the UCD pepper spray incident. Why? It was because
Chancellor Linda Katehi feared that it would hurt the reputation of Davis and
discourage students from enrolling which in turn would result in less money for the
school. Therefore, the fact that the chancellor, the face of Davis, only cares
about money and Davis’s message concerned only the cost of the damages from the
occupy movements is really not surprising. The university clearly does not care about the
students and their education. UC Davis is a strong example
of what a corporatized university looks like.
Davis
had the chance to show that it did care about its students by responding to the
occupy movements like how Berkeley did. Berkeley addressed some of the main concerns
of the occupy movements and even promoted a plan that would help them (Middle
Class access plan). There was no mention of the costs incurred because of the
Occupy movements. The chancellor of Berkeley also clearly showed that he cared
about the students when he made a speech that addressed some key points of the occupy
movements a couple years before the occupy movements occurred and addressed his students' concerns once more. However, Davis did not do
any of this and only showed that they cared about money.
Question:
If
even universities are slowly becoming corporatized, what part of education is still sacred and will remain purely for education?
References
Markow, A. (2011, December 19). A Tale of Two
Campuses: Berkeley and Davis respond to Occupy movements. IVN. Retrieved
from https://ivn.us/2011/12/19/a-tale-of-two-campuses-berkeley-and-davis-respond-to-occupy-movements/
No comments:
Post a Comment