In communications emanating from the UC administration, I often see the pronoun “we” and wonder about the intentions of its users (or blurb writers). It’s helpful in sharing or diluting responsibility and more importantly giving (attempting to give) the sense that there is continuity in the “process” by which “everyone” (the “big family”, the “community”) keeps deciding what the fate (the “future”) of the institution will be. What are the borders of this “we?” Does it include the banks which found it juicy to privatize (sorry, “give control” over) UC pension fund assets in the 90s? Or the billionaire club and associated crumb-picking servants who compose the Think Long committee for California presently at work (if one can say that).