The communication specialists working for UC’s office of the president (communications@ucop.edu) just sent a message asking UC employees urgently to write their California political representatives and to advocate on UC’s behalf. Here is this letter. We should let them know how great UC is for everyone, how threatened its future is, and how badly we want higher education to be the priority of priorities in next year’s budget. Of course, this campaign is to be done on our own time (furloughs may be used…), it is genuinely personal and is in no way connected with anything official. To quote: “UC faculty and staff should communicate with members of the Legislature on their own time, and as individuals conveying their personal views – not as official spokespeople for the University. Employees also should avoid writing on official University letterhead and should keep in mind the University’s policies pertaining to incidental personal use of University electronic communications services and similar guidelines.” I would guess the electrons in the UC Davis link above are in trouble…

Below is what I answered. It is narrow and too civil, I’m afraid. Frankly, I’m most worried about public education in primary and secondary schools, already so battered, and about programs in higher education that are staffed by lecturers and do much of the heavy lifting.

Dear UC Officers,

I understand the urgency of the political appeal below. The extraordinary circumstances we are in, however, lead me to question the tone of the UC campaign. I think that many people in California, given events that are affecting them more dramatically than institutions, have doubts about UC being the source of their well-being; that apocalyptic predictions might be met with shrugs; and that the people’s political representatives are likely to side with the majority of their voters rather than a coalition of educational interests, however worthy the cause.

I wish the leaders of this great institution would start recognizing, and find ways to express genuinely, how much UC *owes* to the people of California over the generations, how much a good public primary and secondary education are even more essential and key to proper university training, before claiming *also* that UC “is a vital engine of opportunity, possibility, and leadership for California”. Of course, education, including higher education, is fundamental to sustained development and a richer life for everyone. But the tone of this campaign strikes me as tone-deaf in not mentioning that UC is what it is in great part because of the generosity and foresight of the people of the state. And perhaps it would not hurt to admit that the resources of the state have sometimes been misused at UC.

Furthermore, shouldn’t one confront more squarely and publicly the feeling that some aspects of the long, single-minded transformation of UC into a preeminent research institution have been at the cost of its other mission, the teaching of undergraduates? This latter mission was described as “paramount” in a letter to Chancellors from Interim Provost and Executive Vice President Pitts regarding furlough days (August 21, 2009). No matter how furlough days will be managed this year, one result is sure: the quality of education will suffer. But the truth is that this negative effect is one of a series of blows to the quality of undergraduate education. Given the increasing cost of this education to families and students, and given the transformations of an economy in which social differences become so apparent, why would the people of California respond positively to an appeal to greatness? Shouldn’t the approach of UC leaders take into consideration the real fears and frustrations of the voters and their leaders?

Titre d’un livre de Michel Onfray publié par Grasset en 2005. A la fin de ce livre, je ressens, comme si souvent après mes lectures, un goût amer qui tient en partie au sentiment d’avoir passé à côté du plaisir au sens fort, plaisir qu’aurait procuré une pensée arc-boutée à une réflexion historique documentée. Un peu fort de café qu’un thuriféraire de l’hédonisme nous serve du marc.

Ce livre a de quoi faire à vitupérer les trois monothéismes. Il s’escrime à montrer que ces religions sont à l’origine des horreurs commises par les hommes ou de leur systématisation. Que les religions et leurs livres sont humains, qui n’en conviendrait? Que le monothéisme permet la concentration des moyens politiques et militaires (mais pas scientifiques?), aussi bien. Quant à ce qu’il appelle de ses vœux, la tolérance et autres vertus délectables qui accompagneront un renouvellement de l’épicurisme matérialiste et du rationalisme, voyons voir combien d’Epicures, de Sénèques et de Marc-Aurèles le capitalisme pourra nous offrir et si cela peut se faire dans la paix.

Etait-il nécessaire de faire du Feuerbach nietzschéen maintenant? Je crois comprendre que son hédonisme vise à se démarquer de la passion pour la consommation qui s’étend partout, mais pourquoi son livre ne rendrait-il pas service aux gérants de cet hédonisme de bas étage? En tout cas il ne les dérangera pas.