President Clinton Cancels Commencement Appearance
Former President Bill Clinton had been scheduled to deliver his remarks to this years graduating class but the appearance has been canceled due to a labor dispute.
Given the current political climate and considering the demographic of the group he was to deliver his speech to, this news will probably be received with mixed reactions.
Edit: Given that we are so close to commencement, I'd like to FP this and generate some potential discussion.
2 months ago
Tydides
90 comments
2 recs |
Comments
I have a lot of friends...
Who were really very disappointed at this. You come to college and think that people here at UCLA care about you as students, but apparently a labor dispute can’t be pushed back to give the students a break. The union has actually asked ALL the commencement speakers to refrain from speaking at UCs unless it is resolved before graduation (fat chance). The future leaders of America from the class of 2008 will have a bad taste in their mouths from labor for this.
by Centric on Jun 10, 2008 10:39 PM PDT 0 recs
I agree with this
This is not the way to get the future leaders of America to see your side of the story. To say that all UCs will be affected seems like a powerful message to send…but one that may ultimately backfire.
by Tydides on
Jun 10, 2008 10:41 PM PDT
up
0 recs
And I'd like to add
that at least in my time here, the student body has been pro labor IMO. Taco Bell is in Ackerman now, but it was gone for a year over a union dispute that had student support. Very disappointing that they would choose to hold the soon-to-be-graduates hostage for the sake of their cause now.
by Tydides on
Jun 10, 2008 10:45 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Uhm...
As a student on campus at the time, I certainly did not feel that the Taco Bell issue was supported by most of the students. I won’t go into the details, but it simply was not my experience that they had the support of the general student body – more like the support of the vocal minority. The majority of students I spoke with were upset that such a minor issue (which was found to be an issue with other ASUCLA vendors and not just Taco Bell) resulted in the closure of a very popular campus eatery.
I agree with the sentiment here though – this is very unfortunate for current students, and very short-sighted by those in the pro-labor camp.
by cabz on
Jun 10, 2008 11:04 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I completely agree
I used to eat there on a fairly regular basis and pretty much everyone I knew wanted it to stay. Besides, it’s waaay slower now that is in ackerman and the employees are students. It was much faster when it was taco bell employees.
by drumfool on
Jun 10, 2008 11:12 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Ackerman location
It’s also meant no more pizza in the Cooperage. That was some good stuff.
by jaffa on
Jun 11, 2008 12:47 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Taco Bell sucks, and I wish Coop Pizza stayed around.
by JWongUCLA on
Jun 11, 2008 10:08 AM PDT
up
0 recs
It has been a while
I, too, wanted it to stay, but wasn’t it “officially” supported through the student government? That was the impression I got, but then again, I didn’t pay much attention to student government (because they don’t do jack and if I’m right, obviously don’t represent “us”) so I could easily be wrong.
by Tydides on
Jun 10, 2008 11:20 PM PDT
up
0 recs
100% agree
I recall the Taco Bell fiasco from my Senior year, and could likely count all the people I knew that supported the boycott/shutting it down on one hand, particularly being that, as cabz notes, the particular issue was shared w/other UCLA vendors, and did not even affect the Taco Bell outlet @ UCLA. I guess that’s what you get when you put “students first!”, right?
by bruinhoo on
Jun 11, 2008 6:26 AM PDT
up
0 recs
You folks obviously don't understand or support labor
I am a proud UCLA alum, but I also understand the importance of fair labor practices by our beloved institution.
I think it’s very important for our graduates and “future leaders” to understand the importance of principle, and that sometimes you pay a price for doing the right thing or for standing up for something worthwhile.
by PeterUCLA on
Jun 11, 2008 12:59 PM PDT
up
0 recs
you clearly miss the point
I am graduating this year and this fight has nothing to do with me! I have spent years of my life and tens of thousands of dollars at this school. This is a celebration of the accomplishments of the students, but these disgusting, selfish pigs in the union can’t set aside their dispute for one day to honor the young people who have worked so hard. I may have supported the union before, but I absolutely do not now. I hope they get nothing!! I’ve worked in closed shop industries and these unions are a joke. The 1930’s are over! It’s time to move on and stop blackmailing schools… what unbelievable pricks!
Dustball!
by dustball on
Jun 11, 2008 2:14 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I don't necessarily wish them ill
but at this point it’s mostly because that means the regents win, and I think we can all agree that the regents have not been looking out for the students lately either.
Another thing that just came to me that seems confusing about all of this is that the union is essentially punishing the graduating class – the class with the least stake in the outcome of their fight. We are going to be gone in a week or less. If they were going to make a point using the students, wouldn’t it make sense to find something that affects the underclassmen (and NO, I am NOT suggesting that they do this either) instead? Again, this whole thing seems like very bad planning by the union, and maybe they need to find new leadership, because they’ve handled this particular incident with all the delicacy of a sledgehammer.
by Tydides on
Jun 11, 2008 2:27 PM PDT
up
0 recs
perspective
I understand that you’re upset but I don’t think it is fair to say that AFSCME ruined your graduation. If anything, the drama involved will make for a much more interesting and special graduation. You’ll get to see the new chancellor deal with a delicate situation, and how he does is likely to be indicative of what kind of chancellor he will be for UCLA.
You’re missing out on Bill Clinton but getting to see the birth of Block’s legacy at UCLA.
by brand0n on
Jun 11, 2008 2:35 PM PDT
up
0 recs
As a matter of fact, you do
You’ll find out that no matter where you go or what you do, the guys hustling money for the school can find you. And brother, they will find you. So the answer is yes, you do have to pay child support. (It can be withheld under certain circumstances, as was discussed before December of last year.)
by Fox 71 on
Jun 11, 2008 7:10 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Oh well...
I hope the graduating class isn’t too disappointed.
Sure, Bill Clinton would have been okay. But no one will ever get a better speaker than the Class of ‘05 had:
Cookie Monster. :)
by norcald503 on Jun 10, 2008 11:07 PM PDT 0 recs
blegh
i’m more amped about getting my degree and being part of the alumni than the actual commencement ceremony itself, but this sorta bummed me out. i was really excited at the prospect of bill clinton speaking at my graduation, as my mom identifies him with our family’s success story—her working three jobs at the beginning of his term to send my older brother to UCLA, and by the end of his second term she was a homeowner with a career.
while i can respect the basic idea of fighting for the rights of laborers, to echo the aforementioned comments, i can’t really see how this is going to rally more people behind their cause.
by deepdish on Jun 10, 2008 11:13 PM PDT 0 recs
I am a graduating senior
and my friends and I are pissed. Clinton was the only reason we were going to the big graduation and not just our department ceremonies. Many of my friends from NorCal also had family coming in a day (or 2) earlier than they were to see Bill speak. This doesnt even touch on the fact that getting more than 2 tickets was impossible and people were selling them for upwards of 100 dollars.
by Rivertownbruin on Jun 10, 2008 11:26 PM PDT 0 recs
Ticket scalping to a graduation?
That’s amazing….and now obviously really unfortunate.
by Tydides on
Jun 10, 2008 11:28 PM PDT
up
0 recs
That's life at many other unviersities
Where you have a relatively small capacity of speaking/commencement venue, or an otherwise small ratio of students/guests, and a greater student tradition surrounding commencement (as I recall, commencement was not a big deal, at least for my year – at least half of my friends did not participate, and Pauley was at least 1/3 empty). Heck, I could have sold my 3 Virginia commencement tickets for $50-100.
by bruinhoo on
Jun 11, 2008 6:31 AM PDT
up
0 recs
That really sucks...
The more I hear about it from my graduating friends the more frustrated and angry I get.
by Centric on
Jun 10, 2008 11:28 PM PDT
up
0 recs
What class are you, Centric?
And let me also preemptively wish your class better luck than our class is getting.
by Tydides on
Jun 10, 2008 11:30 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I'm a young'un...
Of the class of 2011. First year at UCLA is coming to a close.
by Centric on
Jun 11, 2008 12:27 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Disappointed but...
I have to say that I was looking forward to going this Friday to my wife’s graduation to watch my hero Bill Clinton speak. My wife was looking forward to this event as well.
However, I’m not going to blame labor as if they are the ones who hold all the cards. I will never cross a picket-line and I think this teaches the students a lesson: The working man and woman should still be respected. How often do you hear that message today?
I’ll go back to paying 5 bucks a gallon for gas in this grand scheme to redistribute America’s wealth to the oil companies by way of a paltry stimulus check and curse the little guy for this minor victory.
by Bruins102NCAA on Jun 11, 2008 12:24 AM PDT 0 recs
I can see where you're coming from...
But I don’t think that that is the message that students receive. The feeling I’m getting from all my senior friends is that labor is a bunch of arrogant whiny children who must have their way even though it defies all logic. If anything, this act makes the future leaders of America disrespect the work force.
I think that there’s a much wiser way to send this message, and really, these actions really seem to lack foresight. The students shouldn’t have to pay for a battle between the administration and the workers.
by Centric on
Jun 11, 2008 12:31 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I'm more pissed at UC than at labor
After all, they raised our fees several times the past few years, then the regents gave themselves a nice big bonus. Meanwhile, the little guy has to fight tooth and nail to make a living wage.
I am disappointed that Bill Clinton will not be at my graduation, but I am more disappointed in UC and UCLA. Our university is supposed to be better than this.
by Thetis on
Jun 11, 2008 12:39 AM PDT
up
0 recs
That the regents gave themselves a bonus
In these times especially, is truly disgusting.
As an aside, good discussion people. I haven’t been tuned into University affairs that aren’t related to sports this year because I haven’t been physically present very much. Getting a lot of good information here.
by Tydides on
Jun 11, 2008 1:05 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Labor is arrogant and whiney?
And the heroic corporations who have to put up with these people arrogantly wanting a decent living wage? Labor is responsible for weekends and vacation time and maturity leave and the 40 hour work week. Sure glad they complained about these things. Oh, and child labor. Remember the children maimed by machines in the 19th century? I could go on and on.
Is anyone from a blue-collar family? I heard that the average worker in this dispute gets 10 dollars and hour while the Regent’s just voted themselves a raise last year. How much do they make? Sure glad there is such a thing as an arbitrary assignment of value to labor in this society or no one would get paid.
I think that it could be worse: Like say if these workers worked for a private corporation but if they are planning on striking, a proposition that I know from experience is not a good one for the worker, something is wrong.
Big business is not virtuous because it is big. You are not a better person because you have money. I’m not going to turn this into a political blog but I will defend labor.
by Bruins102NCAA on
Jun 11, 2008 12:41 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Like I said...
And please do understand that I am not in any way opposed to labor, the issue is not whether they are justified or not. The issue I was discussing was the message that is sent to the students themselves, and whether that message is conducive to future support of the workers’ beliefs.
by Centric on
Jun 11, 2008 1:24 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Your sentiments are misplaced
Should you blame the UC for its unfair labor practices towards the people who clean your dorms, bathrooms, run the labs, do the landscaping, etc. that make the campus work, or the truly “arrogant” ones who make hundreds of thousands of dollars, but would deny others a living or fair wage?
Do you call wanting to make enough money to provide for your family “whiny?” That’s what I would expect from a U$C graduate. I encourage you to hold yourself to higher standard of thought.
by PeterUCLA on
Jun 11, 2008 1:03 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Don't stoop to such lowbrow attacks
If you disagree with a person’s assessment of labor, by all means say so. But it is unnecessary to sink to calling them $Cum because they have yet to receive their socialist indoctrination at UCLA. In LA $10 an hour is not very much, but keep in mind that most of these positions are unskilled labor. Unskilled means anyone can fill the position. The people making six figures at this university are exceptionally accomplished. That is not to say that they deserve a raise more than the unskilled laborers, but certainly what they offer as employees is in higher demand with far fewer potentially successful candidates available.
While $10 doesn’t get you far here and I think minimum wage should be increased to at least $10 an hour, there is an unending supply of laborers hoping to earn that much. If you want higher wages blame the Bush administration for not controlling the flow of unskilled laborers into the US. As long as someone can replace these employees for less they will struggle to fight for a living wage. What incentive does the UC have to cooperate? If everyone walked off they’d be replaced tomorrow. Many of our staff are immigrants and until there is some control over immigration this will continue to be a worsening problem. Tomorrow’s immigrant only hurts yesterday’s.
Dustball!
by dustball on
Jun 11, 2008 3:07 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Socialist indoctrination
Heard that before. It’s funny how when the workers get together and fight for decency, they are accused of being socialists while our president is destroying our country getting his oil buddies everything they ever wished for. Capitalism right?
Yes these are unskilled positions but there are a lot of them and you are unwilling to do them. So, the laborers think, “Hey there are a lot of us and if we stick together, we can do something.” This is completely legal under our Constitution. To deny these “socialists” their rights doesn’t say much about those who, on one hand praise free enterprise and on the other want to make it harder for the average citizen to live their lives, is hypocrisy.
My warning is: Keep denying the majority of the population a stake in this society and see what happens. Don’t cry when they stop believing it should hold them in check.
by Bruins102NCAA on
Jun 11, 2008 4:04 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Actually
These aren’t all unskilled jobs at all.
Of these workers, nearly 5,425 are UCLA employees, with approximately 3,200 patient care and technical workers and 2,225 service employees.
Dustball, I seriously doubt that all of these people could be replaced by anyone coming in off of the street. And if working for a public U is anything like my work for the DoD, there is no way in Hades that undocumented workers will be allowed into the workforce. You either have to be a citizen or have a work visa, IME.
Full Disclosure: Bruins102NCAA is my spouse.
The worst thing about being a classics major at UCLA is having to hear about the #@*#$@*&% Trojans every damn day.
by Thetis on
Jun 11, 2008 4:23 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I work for UCLA
and I have never even been asked for a social security card or any form of identification. I sincerely hope it is nothing like the DoD.
Dustball!
by dustball on
Jun 13, 2008 1:57 AM PDT
up
0 recs
oh
sorry… 40% of the members are unskilled… my bad… clearly an insignificant number
Dustball!
by dustball on
Jun 13, 2008 2:05 AM PDT
up
0 recs
ur right...
u know what I would be willing to do because you know what I have done. You have worked the stupid menial jobs I have for minimum wage to pay my way. Congrats! I work for the university and the people I pass on my way out of the office speak little english and are obviously not from the US. These are good people that I wish the best to everyday. I never made any claim they don’t deserve to be here or that they shouldn’t earn a decent living, but there are people to blame other than the regents. And to take out this issue on the students in absurd.
No one questioned their right to protest or organize, so drop the pathetic “legal under the constitution” crap. I am in favor of their pay raise, and am not a supporter of Bush. However, I think they demonstrated clearly that they have one interest in mind and that is their own. Since I am the one being screwed here, excuse me if I express some disgust.
What majority are you talking about btw? did you lose your mind and flip over to ur talking points memo? Socialism isn’t a 4 letter word unless u make it one… however, it does exist. I apologize if my desire to see immigrants succeed in this country is misplaced, but your naive perception of the world demonstrates nothing but your lack of any real connection to the persons and work involved in this dispute.
Dustball!
by dustball on
Jun 13, 2008 1:55 AM PDT
up
0 recs
How not to think like a Trojan:
You ask “what incentive does the UC have to cooperate?” Ummm….how about because it’s the just thing to do? I know this is a revolutionary notion, but I thought it was worth sharing!
Frankly, just because an employee can be replaced at any time (a description that fits 90% of us) that does not mean that, while rendering that service, s/he does not deserve to be treated fairly.
Correctional officers with only a high school diploma can make more than $80,000 in their first year while a new tenure-track professor with a PhD in the CSU starts in the $50,000 range. Your mistake is assuming that what someone makes is a true assessment of their accomplishments. Instead, it is often a reflection of our misplaced priorities.
by PeterUCLA on
Jun 12, 2008 12:27 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Just a quick thought
Like Fox, I refuse to take sides in this debate or let it be known which side I support, but Peter, your example is a bit unfair to both sides.
Correctional officers in California make as much as they do precisely because they have a VERY STRONG union.
Let us ignore for the minute that C/Os have extremely dangerous jobs and one would think higher pay reflects the high risk of death or serious injury that goes into that line of work. As much as we may like to rib our CSU friends, CSU students are far removed from the men in orange jumpsuits at Corcoran. Not a lot of physical risk there.
I mean, U$C “professors” would have a legitimate claim for hazard pay (given both the location of their “school” and the rampant criminality of their athletic program) but professors at the various CSUs: not so much.
Anyway, again, like I said, not taking one side or the other. Just pointing out your example was a bit off base and if anything, shows how strong unions can be.
by norcald503 on
Jun 12, 2008 8:12 AM PDT
up
0 recs
ur world must be amazing
It would be nice if everyone were benevolent, loving individuals seeking nothing but the best for their global cohabitants. Sadly we live in the real world. There’s a bottom line the regents are being asked to meet.
I feel like I’m having a discussion with doe eyed 3rd graders.
Dustball!
by dustball on
Jun 13, 2008 2:03 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Don't blame AFSCME
This labor dispute has been ongoing throughout the entire year, it’s not like the union purposely picked the date to ruin anyone’s graduation. To accuse to the union of putting their own needs before the students is selfish and ignorant. Labor representatives attended the regents meeting in May when the regents voted to increase student fees by over 7%. They were they supporting the students.
Where were you?
People who work hard deserve fair wages. UC workers earn a lot less than others doing the exact same work. They are simply fighting for some wage equality.
I hope all of our graduating seniors take some time to think about how the men and women who serviced them throughout their years at UCLA are struggling to make ends meet and are forced to strike. I think there is a lot more meaning to be found in reflecting over that than anything President Clinton could have said.
by brand0n on Jun 11, 2008 12:54 AM PDT 0 recs
It just doesn't seem like the smartest tactic
Interjecting this dispute into a ceremony meant to honor the students doesn’t seem like a well thought out strategy if you’re looking to gain or hold support from them. I don’t think the students have any love at all for the regents, especially the way they continue to increase fees. Why give them a reason to stay on the sidelines? They’ll say that the regents are turning the screws on them, but the union is willing to do the same, so why stick our necks out for either side?
I know the reasoning and debate is a lot deeper than this, but that’s not how it’s going to play out in the minds of the graduates and their families.
by Tydides on
Jun 11, 2008 1:13 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Well...
Ultimately, Bill Clinton (because he cares or because he is a politician) will never cross a picket line. The graduates and their families will decide for themselves who to blame. I guess AFSCME is hoping that the graduates will side with the workers.
I don’t think that is a particularly bad tactic. Recent college graduates (who have come of age in the Bush days) are generally going to support the idea of a living wage. I am sure there will be union workers and students actively trying to frame the debate on their side. I think AFSCME is banking on getting more support than ill will from the commencement situation.
Also, they were supposed to strike June 4 and 5, but negotiations started going well so the strike was put on hold. When the negotiations broke down, the strike was called on again. That’s why it has been pushed back.
by brand0n on
Jun 11, 2008 1:25 AM PDT
up
0 recs
That's the thing...
Recent college graduates would usually tend towards supporting the union, but in doing something like this wouldn’t the union actually alienate a potential supporting group? The message being sent is not, “We deserve fairer treatment,” but rather, “Give us fairer treatment or we’ll make things unfair for you.”
Again, I hope I’m not misunderstood here. In normal circumstances I side with the workers, because, as many have said, the little man shouldn’t have to suffer while the upper echelons of society benefit. But in this case, I feel the frustration of the soon-to-be graduates, who don’t understand why this has to happen now and make their departure from UCLA less joyous.
by Centric on
Jun 11, 2008 1:30 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I really need to study for finals...
But if the discussion is still going on when I’m done, I’d be glad to continue it.
by Centric on
Jun 11, 2008 1:32 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Exactly
I think there’s a fundamental miscalculation by the union that doesn’t take into account the already present distaste the students have for the regents. Running out the clock so to speak only gravitates the students to the side of labor, especially in light of the regents giving themselves bonuses while the students get fee increases. What is essentially a punishment of the students and not the administration only confuses the issue, and as I said, only illustrates that both sides are willing to screw over the students to get what they want.
Students are generally very receptive on the “moral high ground” arguments. I can’t imagine that inflicting this kind of collateral damage is going to improve their standing amongst this demographic.
by Tydides on
Jun 11, 2008 1:56 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Not a miscalculation
I think the problem is precisely the fact that the average student does not care about the labor dispute. As stated before, how many people had to work hard to make their experience at UCLA what it was? Honestly, I don’t think the average student cares but rather feels that they are entitled to have things go their way because it is graduation. Although I’m proud of their achievement (my wife’s included) I don’t think that real problems should be set aside merely because they are graduating.
The fact of the matter is that most students aren’t aware of the dispute. I think that very few have an informed opinion of the problem. Clinton’s act forces them to come to grips with the contention that other people are upset and that maybe, just maybe, we should be more inclined to examine our place in society (and the world for that matter) as one of privilege and that a lot of people have to work hard for little money in order to support it.
I mean, we can argue the tactic all day long. I can see how it could be a way for labor to communicate their position to the graduating class. But I tend to think, that if Clinton relented at the AFSCME’s request, this would mostly be lost on students who think they have it coming to them. It’s tough living with the consequences, but maybe the best lesson that can be taught here is that we are all interconnected and that our actions have an effect on others. This is something that we might want to keep informed about.
by Bruins102NCAA on
Jun 11, 2008 2:35 AM PDT
up
0 recs
So then the lesson is
“Life’s unfair, and here’s an example coming in high and inside.”
If the average student is not aware of the dispute, then how does screwing over the students frame the dispute the way the union wants it to? I can sympathize with these previously unaware students, because I am one of them. Unaware of the dispute, but now indifferent to who “wins” because they have both demonstrated that they are willing to screw over a third party. It’s easy to talk about entitlement, but calls for empathy will fall on deaf ears when the callers lack that very quality themselves. In the end, one of them will win and one will lose and the third party will lose either way.
Now that I am aware of the dispute, both sides can go screw themselves. If only there were a way to put both of these parties in the same no win situation the graduates find themselves in.
by Tydides on
Jun 11, 2008 3:26 AM PDT
up
0 recs
sad...
I’m glad life was easy for you, but I paid my way through UCLA. I worked 2 jobs at times, bartending till 3am, working on campus to get additional work study aid, and I am finishing my degree with $100 in my bank account, no job, and $30,000 in medical bills in addition to my student loans.
This self righteous indignation that purports to be on the side of the little guy is pathetically shallow. You have no idea how long and hard I have worked to get to this point, and I am not alone in this. Your disconnect with reality isn’t justification for the union’s actions. Had they encouraged Clinton to support the students despite the dispute there would have been a great deal of support from the graduating class. Instead, I will be happy to support any decision the regents make in regards to the union’s demands. If the union wants to hold the students hostage they better not expect a sudden onset of stockholm syndrome. I’m going down kicking and screaming!
Dustball!
by dustball on
Jun 11, 2008 2:34 PM PDT
up
0 recs
slow down
Like I said earlier, the union was fighting for you to keep student fees affordable at UCLA. Is it that much to ask for us to give a little in return?
by brand0n on
Jun 11, 2008 2:37 PM PDT
up
0 recs
What did they sacrifice?
I’m glad they supported the students! I would have supported them… wouldn’t we then be even? They didn’t strike to stop fee hikes… they didn’t give up vacation pay to supplement student fees… what did they do outside of offering moral support? What was their great sacrifice?
Dustball!
by dustball on
Jun 11, 2008 2:40 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Empathy is not a family value
First, I think what you did to get your education is commendable but I warn you not to make assumptions about me.
I am the first of my five siblings and I to have graduated high-school. My family lived on the street for a time and were homeless. I drove 165 MILES A DAY to attend UCLA. Fortunately, I was given scholarships to pay for my education, otherwise it probably would not have gone down. I know struggle and I know what it is like to fight your way up from grinding poverty but this NEVER blinds me to the plight of other people.
I have to have empathy for my fellow man. Does that make me a “socialist?”
by Bruins102NCAA on
Jun 11, 2008 4:10 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I hope that wasn't directed at me
I don’t think I’ve called anyone a socialist.
by Tydides on
Jun 11, 2008 5:05 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Dustbowl
This is in reaction to Dustbowl’s comments. I think that I had better retire from this discussion.
by Bruins102NCAA on
Jun 11, 2008 5:58 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I still say this is a Bruin SPORTS blog
not a political blog. Having said that, I am reminded of my favorite phrase from the days of the Free Speech Movement . Anyone whose ears were visible was obviously a police informant, but the worst was someone who as an “Imperialist lackey running dog stooge.” I cringed when someone yelled that and looked at me, and at those times I cursed my Irish-Swedish DNA which refused to poke even one measly whisker through my skin, and my dad who made me get haircuts. But I still love the phrase.
To any person who deserves it, listen now and hear me later – you are nothing but an Imperialist lackey running dog stooge!. And that goes for labor, management, the graduating seniors and …. Well, I guess it doesn’t go for the graduating seniors.
(This is my second attempt to lighten the atmosphere, and to persuade the family not to squabble quite so much. I hope all this passes by tomorrow.)
by Fox 71 on
Jun 11, 2008 7:17 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Like a family
everyone will inevitably squabble over things like politics. I don’t think that will prevent us from coming together when it counts (rooting for the school we all love so much).
I am definitely going to try and incorporate “imperialist lackey running dog stooge” into my vocabulary more, though.
by brand0n on
Jun 12, 2008 12:10 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Then we agree
there are students who worked hard to get through UCLA. If you worked hard you are not alone, and YOU are making great assumptions about the student body.
I make no assumption about you except that you believe our student body to be $C students receiving a free pass through life.
“how many people had to work hard to make their experience at UCLA what it was?” Too many….
Dustball!
by dustball on
Jun 13, 2008 2:14 AM PDT
up
0 recs
You don't understand labor-management relations
The union is not “interjecting” its dispute into the ceremony, specifically. Labor, when it is in a dispute with management, has very few options. One of them is to encourage all pro-labor groups and individuals not do do business with management. This is a general tool and is used only as a last resort—when things are pretty bad.
It just so happens that this dispute is going on during commencement, but at other times, labor would be encouraging others, like truck drivers, not to do business with management.
by PeterUCLA on
Jun 11, 2008 1:06 PM PDT
up
0 recs
justice
it was completely inappropriate for UCLA to essentially directly sponsor the Clinton campaign (Clintons have one account, borrowed from their own account to fund the campaign). and Bill has nothing to do with UCLA. i would also have thought it completely inappropriate for obama or mccain to speak here. it was a poor decision on ucla’s part.
Frankly I think Kareem should speak every year, but I’m very happy that my graduation speaker will be the chancellor instead.
by jjreicher on Jun 11, 2008 2:16 AM PDT 0 recs
Bill did speak at the 1994 commencement
as part of UCLA’s 75th anniversary, as I have previously read.
by bruinhoo on
Jun 11, 2008 6:41 AM PDT
up
0 recs
i have no problem with that
i have a problem with the timing. whether intended or not, it appeared that the UC system had selected Hillary as it’s democratic candidate when the original announcement was made. this is what i feel was inappropriate. for you bush-haters, just imagine the ‘04 election if they’d asked bush to come speak. there would’ve been riots. but, hey, he’s the president so it’s not political, right?
by jjreicher on
Jun 11, 2008 9:55 AM PDT
up
0 recs
He spoke at event celebrating our 75th anniversary
inside Pauley and he started his speech by paying tribute to the Coach and the Cathedral of College Basketball. It was perfect. (but it wasn’t for graduation).
And I don’t remember who spoke at my graduation. I was too excited and experiencing too many wonderful emotions to pay attention – I guess.
Passionate thread. But please be respectful to each other ladies and gents.
This is a family.
GO BRUINS.
by Nestor on
Jun 11, 2008 6:37 PM PDT
up
0 recs
fair enough
While I recall that Villaragosa (pre-mayorship) spoke at my degree ceremony in ‘04, I don’t recall who spoke at commencement, except that he was a 60’s era alum that does something in Hollywood. I honestly never got the sense that commencement was a big deal at UCLA.
While the prospect of a high profile speaker such as Bill Clinton appears to have drawn much attention and demand from this graduating class, I don’t recall it being such a big deal, at least in my year. Not that student participation was low; while certainly not everyone attended, there was a solid showing considering the size and disparate interests and circumstances surrounding our class, though looking back at my pictures of the day, the turnout at Pauley that day wasn’t that great, with large numbers of empty seats noticeable. This sense of commencement at UCLA differs greatly from my own experiences outside of UCLA, and those of many of my friends that attended other undergraduate institutions.
by bruinhoo on
Jun 11, 2008 10:10 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Eh
I’ve seen Bill Clinton speak in person twice over the past year. One was at a nonpartisan student summit and the other was at the Democratic State Convention. The speeches were very different. I think Clinton would have kept the commencement speech level and left campaigning out of it.
Regardless of the fact we just got out of a heated primary, he’s still a former president and still considered one of the best speakers of our time.
by brand0n on
Jun 11, 2008 8:38 AM PDT
up
0 recs
that is your personal opinion of Bill
and i’ve tried to keep mine out of the equation. your statements are very debatable, in my opinion, and certainly subject to political interpretation.
i simply think a commencement speaker should be about the students, and i don’t see how anyone can say this was not a political statement by the UC system. for the Clinton fan dems, how would you have felt if mccain was speaking? wouldn’t that have seemed out of place?
in any case, the problem has been rectified and i’m very much relieved. and no, i’m not on the obama or mccain bandwagons.
by jjreicher on
Jun 11, 2008 9:46 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Commencment speakers are accomplished people who have something to share with
graduating seniors. Whether one is a “fan” of Clinton or not, it is clear that he is an accomplished individual who would have had something to share. Just because someone’s a politician, it doesn’t mean that their speech will be all about politics.
Also, just because someone’s a business person, it doesn’t mean their speech will be devoid of politics (in fact, most of the time, business people make very political, pro-business statements that are rarely questioned as political).
by PeterUCLA on
Jun 11, 2008 1:10 PM PDT
up
0 recs
it's a matter of what and who is appropriate
i wouldn’t want a trojan speaking at our grad ceremony, no matter who it was. i just think it’s inappropriate timing to have clinton here. of course anyone up there can say what they want. that’s fine. but it was the fact that the UC seemed to have made a strong political statement, and given that all students are represented by the UC, i did not appreciate the making of such a statement on the behalf of a very diverse group.
Anyways. im very much looking forward to hearing the new chancellor!
by jjreicher on
Jun 11, 2008 5:35 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Clinton Speaking
I suppose it only counts if you are Clinton right? I suppose when Georgie does it, it’s not political. Digest the hypocrisy here, here, here, and here. I could cite the academies which he has spoken at numerous times, but I’ll avoid the entire Commander in Chief argument.
by Bruins102NCAA on
Jun 11, 2008 6:10 PM PDT
up
0 recs

