The higher administration of UC San Diego receives a disproportionately large salary compared to professors, according to a database of California public employee salary records compiled by the Sacramento Bee. This reflects the appeal of finding a job in the UC administration, which has increased in numbers by more than 200 percent in the entire UC system. As the salaries of the UC administration seems to have been prioritized over that of teaching faculty, several high-ranking professors have made the choice to seek employment elsewhere.

It is no secret that UC San Diego professors earn less than their contemporaries at equivalent universities. UC San Diego compares itself with 8 other universities: Harvard, MIT, Stanford, SUNY-Buffalo, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, University of Michigan, University of Virginia, and Yale. Harvard, for example, pays its professors on average $193,000 a year.

In 2010, the average salary of all full-time professors of the Mathematics, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Economics, Linguistics, History, Literature, and Music departments was a whopping $129,300. This includes overtime, bonuses, housing allowances, sick leave pay, vacation pay, and many other forms of cash compensation. The average salary varied between departments, as Linguistics professors earned an average of $84,000 while Molecular Biologists earned around $169,700.

But even the compensation for science professors seems pathetic in comparison to the salaries of our upper administration. In 2010, the average income of our Chancellor, Vice Chancellors, Assistant Chancellors, Assistant Vice Chancellors, and Deans was $262,850. On average these members of UC San Diego’s upper administration earned $130,000 more than instructors.

Of course, the state government bears responsibility for this disparity to an extent. Indeed, it is disheartening to see that a professor of UCSD who uses computational modeling and psycholinguistic experimentation to explain cognitive language processing earns considerably less than a correctional officer at the Fairfield State Prison. Obviously, there are many fiscal decisions on the state level that demand serious reform, but the UC system can no longer afford to blame the state budget for the severely unbalanced allocation of funds.

As the system stands, there is a greater economic incentive for professors to set aside their lectures and pursue a position of authority within the administration. The primary difference between the responsibilities of senior administrators and instructors is essentially a matter of power.

The Vice Chancellor for External and Business Affairs, for example, has worked for the past twenty years managing business operations for the entire campus (at least his salary of $286,215.96 would appear to suggest so). There’s no denying that his job is potentially demanding, yet there are many tenured professors at this university who have been teaching for over 20 years and barely make six figures. This income disparity is even more disconcerting after recognition of the unquestionable authority of our professors in their respective fields of studies and their devotion to the education of their students.

What motivation is there for decent professors to maintain their teaching positions at UC San Diego, when they are offered more money to work as an administrator or teach at a competing university?

For the UC regents, the solution is a fancy accounting gimmick. In August 2011, the majority of the UC faculty that currently earn less than $200,000 was granted a three percent pay raise. However, this pay raise is actually a pay cut, because professors are now obligated to contribute 3.5 percent of their income to the University of California Retirement Plan, effective as of last July. Effective next July, they will have to contribute 6.5 percent, which ultimately reduces their take-home pay to less than it was before the “pay raise.”

In a letter addressed to the chancellors regarding the “three percent pay raise,” the University of California President Mark Yudof surprisingly acknowledged that most of the senior faculty across the board are compensated below market levels.

Yudof explained, “During the furlough program, employees at the higher end of the scale saw their salaries reduced at a proportion far greater than their colleagues in the lower ranges. But, I am confident that these senior employees, notwithstanding their enormous contributions to the University, will understand that the fiscal pressures we are under make it imperative that we focus this merit pool on our faculty and those of our non-represented staff who are not at the high end of our compensation range.”

Even President Yudof seems to sense the danger of losing more research professors to higher paying institutions at the expense of compensating the administration. It is no coincidence that his letter was released shortly after the top physicists Jose Onuchic and Herbert Levine and the biochemist Peter Wolynes, left UC San Diego to conduct research at Rice University, where they will now earn 40 percent more than they did at UCSD.

Economic incentives aside, the UC regents should consider what their students want. Students have made our opinion clear time and time again: we just want to be taught. Students in the UC system compete for internships and lab positions in the hopes of having an opportunity to work directly with our instructors. UCSD students boast an average GPA of over 3.0 – the result of an exceptional discipline to our courses. It is a figure reflected during the final exams of Fall 2011 when at least a hundred students were caught breaking into the closed Center for Library & Instructional Computing Services (CLICS) just to study. CLICS library had been permanently closed by the administration last spring in a desperate effort to save $450,000. Yet the Vice Chancellor of Health Sciences raked in $737,500 just the year before. Granted, the library budget and that of Health Sciences are separate, but the former is a direct service to the students. Ultimately, the UC regents need to ask the question, “Who is worth more?”

Brian Chapler

Several recent state-by-state studies paint a bleak picture of California. These surveys on “best and worst run states,” economic freedom, state services and benefits, income inequality, and interstate migration reveal California is the worst-run state in the nation and is ranked 24th for economic freedom. Although California has some of the highest levels of services and benefits amongst the states, it also has some of the highest levels of income inequality. Given these rankings, it is perhaps not surprising that Californians are fleeing California faster than the residents of any other state.

A review of financial health, standard of living, and government service data was conducted to determine how well each state is managed by 24/7 Wall St., LLC, a Delaware financial news and opinion company. According to their analysis, Wyoming is the best-run state in the nation, and California is the worst. California scored below average in every category except median household income—scoring last (tie with Texas) in high school graduation rates—and next to last in unemployment and foreclosure rate. California also has the worst credit rating, being the only state in the country to be rated A-, the lowest rating ever given to a state by S&P.

In their 2011 Economic Freedom of North America report, the Frasier Institute – an independent non-partisan research and educational organization based in Canada – compiled comprehensive economic freedom ratings for US states and Canadian provinces. The Frasier institute develops an index of economic freedom that measures the extent to which rightly acquired property is protected and individuals engage in voluntary transactions. Their annual report consistently finds economic freedom to be a powerful driver of growth and prosperity, which is confirmed in the 2011 report. California came in 24th amongst the US states at the “all government” level but falls to 43rd at the subnational level. The overall scores are based upon rankings of size of government, takings and discriminatory taxation, and labor market freedom.

In another survey by 24/7 Wall St., government spending was examined to identify how much states spend on their residents. Naturally, those states that provide the most money and benefits to their residence have higher tax burdens. The analysis also finds that these states have particularly high costs of living. California is ranked 10th in providing money and benefits and ranks in the top ten for average pension benefits (8th), temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) per month (2nd), and number of months of TANF received (7th). Interestingly, the study finds that these states also have high levels of income inequality, despite the fact that the poor and the dispossessed receive the most from government services. According to this study, California has the 7th highest level of income inequality. This result is supported by a study conducted by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute, which finds the gap between California’s richest and poorest families to be the 8th largest in the nation, and the gap between the richest families and middle-class families to be the 3rd largest in the nation. This study finds the growth in income inequality in California since the late 1980s between the richest and poorest families to be the 18th largest, and 5th largest between the richest and middle-class families.

Altogether, Californians may be becoming increasingly dissatisfied by the poor performance of their state and are now “voting with their feet”. In their recent Geographical Mobility: 2011 Report, the US Census Bureau reveals that Californians are leaving California at a faster rate than residents leaving any other state. In fact, four out of the top ten most common state-to-state relocations from 2009 to 2010 were from California. These include California to Nevada (35,472 movers), Washington (39,468), Arizona (47,164), and the most common state move in the nation, California to Texas (68,959).

Brian is a gradute student in the Physics Department.

For further details on these studies (And where the information for the graph was gathered) see:

• http://247wallst.com/2011/11/28/best-and-worst-run-states-in-america-an-analysis-of-all-50/
• http://www.freetheworld.com/efna2011/Complete-Publication-CA.pdf
• http://247wallst.com/2011/11/11/the-states-doing-the-most-and-least-to-spread-the-wealth/
• http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=255
• http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/mobility_of_the_population/cb11-193.html

Originally posted on The Word From the Wise, Alec’s personal blog.

According to Samer Naji, the Vice President of External Affairs for the Associated Students at the University of California, San Diego, due to complaints and “various concerns raised about the Occupy Resolution, the External Affairs Office decided to draft a different resolution directed mainly towards our campus.”

Therefore, instead of passing a resolution to support the occupy movement, they decided to focus their efforts on passing a resolution in support of Reclaim UCSD.

However, the AS office of External Affairs does not stop there. Instead, their new resolution decides to overturn their former Resolution Upholding Commitment to the Principles of Community that was passed last April. The new resolution states: “LET IT BE RESOLVED, the ASUCSD shall rescind their decision to maintain neutrality in regards to world events and political issues and instead shall take a more proactive approach to allow the association to partake in relevant political affairs that deeply impact students and are significant to their student lives.”

This clause effectively overturns AS decision to remain neutral regarding world events and national political issues. Sadly this clause in the current resolution is completely unnecessary. The Resolution Upholding Commitment to the Principles of Community only restrains AS from remaining neutral on “divisive external political issue[s].” Although divisive, Reclaim UCSD is an on campus issue and does not fall under the purview of the Resolution Upholding Commitment to the Principles of Community. Therefore, the AS Office of External Affairs is effectively trying to once more assert itself as a partisan organization by seeking to repeal the Resolution Upholding Commitment to the Principles of Community.

It was your actions and your emails that got the AS office of External Affairs to update its resolution. Keep up the hard work. To express your disapproval for the Associated Students at UCSD passing this resolution, email asvpexternal@ucsd.edu or contact the council members directly: http://as.ucsd.edu/council

Attached is the updated resolution: Resolution in Support of Reclaim UCSD

Originally posted on The Word From the Wise, Alec’s personal blog.

On April 13, 2011 the Associated Students at the University of California, San Diego voted to endorse a principle of neutrality on political and divisive issues and refrain from passing resolutions.

Yet this promise has faded quickly, with the announcement that the AS Vice-President External Affairs Samer Naji will be introducing a resolution on Wednesday, November 30, 2011 that will explicitly announce the Associated Students support for the Occupy movement.

Although I am generally sympathetic with some of the goals of the Occupy movement, such as their concern that big business is in collusion with government and that bailouts for banks are wrong, yet other claims, such as debt forgiveness for all and “magic” money for every pet project they could imagine are hollow demands and are stupid. In addition, the recent acts of violence in Washington DC, Oakland, and San Diego (among others) has slowly eroded their positive attributes.

In addition, the resolution conflates the recent protests that have been met in some cases with what could be characterized as “excessive force” in the UC System with the Occupy movement at large. The resolution opens with statements claiming: “reckless greed committed by Wall Street firms and Executives,” “corporations prey[ing] on the hopes and aspirations held by millions of people with the simple and selfish aim to maximize profit,” “these corporations are responsible for the eviction of millions of people from their homes due to predatory lending practices.”

Most concerning of all however, this resolution calls upon the “Associated Students [to] provide support for protests and or occupations, should students decide to set up an occupation on campus.” This means that the A.S. will be using your student fees to bring the Occupy movement to UCSD and then proceed to disrupt traffic and interrupt classes and speeches. If members of A.S. want to use their stipends to cover the “Occupy Movement,” then that is their prerogative. But it is a shame that the Associated Students at UCSD continue to try to misrepresent more than 23,000 undergraduates, display their biases in a official capacity, and for revealing their belief that they know whats best for you.

I hope that UCSD students will tell AS to keep itself out of political and controversial matters and let them get back to problems that they have direct influence over, such as improving the parking situation at UCSD, dining dollar inflation, and restoring SunGod.

To express your disapproval for the Associated Students at UCSD passing this resolution, email asvpexternal@ucsd.edu or contact the council members directly: http://as.ucsd.edu/council

Below is the Resolution in full.

***

Resolution to Support the Occupy Movement

Whereas, individuals in the United States and across the world have been severely impacted by the reckless greed committed by Wall Street firms and Executives;

Whereas, these corporations preyed on the hopes and aspirations held by millions of people with the simple and selfish aim to maximize profit1;

Whereas, the profits made by the major businesses and corporations are being used to influence the American political system and the choices it makes, regardless of the impacts to ordinary individuals2

Whereas, these corporations are responsible for the eviction of millions of people from their homes due to predatory lending practices3;

Whereas, University of California, San Diego students, faculty, staff, and workers have been deeply impacted by the 2008 Financial Crisis and following recession that was caused by reckless management of domestic and international financial systems;

Whereas, billions in taxpayer dollars were committed to bailing out selfish and predatory corporations at the cost of neglecting Main Street America and cutting public funding for vital public services4;

Whereas, funding cuts to institutions of higher education, including the University of California, have led to skyrocketing tuition and fees, service cuts, and faculty, staff, and worker layoffs;

Whereas, personal and student debt has and continues to skyrocket5;

Whereas, concerned individuals have committed to peaceful occupation of symbolic centers in protest of the symbiotic relationship between corporate and government institutions, in addition to protesting public service cuts and the continual reduction of their standards of living,

Whereas, the demands made by the various occupations are closely aligned with the demands made by the University of California Student Association, including but not limited to:
The demand for corporate accountability,
The demand for a separation between corporate money and the American political system,
The demand to reform Proposition 13 to raise corporate property tax rates,
The demand to return for public higher education to return to be fully publicly funded and affordable.

And whereas, local police departments, including the University of California Police Department, have resorted to forceful eviction and suppression of peaceful demonstrators, in violation of their First Amendment rights to peacefully assemble6;

Let it therefore be resolved that the Associated Students of the University of California, San Diego endorse the Occupy movement;

Be it further resolved that the Associated Students provide support for protests and or occupations, should students decide to set up an occupation on campus;

Be it further resolved that the University of California, San Diego Chancellor sign a pledge, ensuring students’ rights to free speech and assembly on campus;

And let it finally be resolved that the Associated Students strongly condemns and demands that the University of California, Davis, and the University of California, Berkeley Chancellors and Police Chiefs resign immediately for authorizing the use of force by the University of California Police Department on UC students, faculty, staff, and workers

1. http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/109/bradley.html
2. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/10/13/the-10-biggest-corporate-campaign-contributors-in-u-s-politics/
3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12184365

4. http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/200904_CREDITCRISIS/recipients.html
5. http://www.npr.org/2011/05/16/136214779/college-student-debt-grows-is-it-worth-it
6. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/03/occupy-militarisation-policing-protest

Iran dug itself into an even deeper hole on Tuesday when a collection of United States federal agencies foiled an Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador in Washington. In addition to this plan, it is also widely suspected that Iran was planning on attacking the Israeli embassy in Washington.

As the story goes, two Iranian citizens held a meeting in Mexico in May of this year seeking assistance with the assassination of the Saudi ambassador. That is when U.S. federal agents began to infiltrate the plot which then led to the September 29 arrest of Mr. Arbabsiar, one of the two men believed to be a part of the conspiracy.

Politically, this has come at a very bad time for Iran. The Iranian regime is currently seeking a nuclear program, whether it is for power or weapons. In response to these Iranian actions, the U.S. Congress has passed sanctions against Iran in order to slow down the Iranian financial sector. Congress’ hope is that this pressure will grind Iran’s nuclear program to a halt. Not only does the United States fear a nuclear armed Iran, but so do regional actors such as Saudi Arabia and Israel and others as confirmed by Wikileaks. Although up to this point the United States has spoken somewhat rhetorically in regard to an attack on Iran in order to prevent the advancement of their nuclear program, it seems that this Iranian attempt might be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back.

First and foremost, the United States has been reluctant to advocate a military option due in part to its recent military engagements in the Middle East. But now, it would not be surprising to see the American stance on Iran become slightly more hostile. On this point does this whole hypothesis rest: if the United States increases its threats against Iran, even moreso will Israel and Saudi Arabia increase their threats against Iran. Thus, these threats could turn into action and an attack could be eminent. Below, a potential attack on Iran’s nuclear facility will be played out.

Understandably, the Saudis are not going to take the Iranian threat lightly. Saudi Arabia and Iran have had poor relations for many years. As a client of the United States, Saudi Arabia has one of the most advanced militaries in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia’s arsenal includes around 200 F-15s, one of the most advanced airframes in the world. If Saudi Arabia feels that Iran is posing enough of a threat, these planes could play a very large role in a potential reprisal raid against Iran by Saudi Arabia. However, Saudi Arabia would be most useful as an origin for the attacks.

In addition to Iran’s poor relations with Saudi Arabia, Iran’s relations with Israel have fallen apart since the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has, on multiple occasions, called for the absolute destruction of Israel, a statement that Israel does not take lightly given its location and the Jewish people’s long history of persecution. In comparison to Saudi Arabia’s almost 200 F-15s, Israel weighs in with about 100 F-15s and about 225 F-16s. Likewise, given Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear program and calls for the destruction of Israel, these airplanes could play a pivotal role in an attack on Iran. However, one of Israel’s best weapons is its logistical resilience. Israeli planes knocked out the Iraqi nuclear reactor in the 1980s without losing a single plane.

Both Israel and Saudi Arabia come nowhere close to the United States’ air capabilities. The United States has almost 500 F-15s, about 1000 F-16s, 22 B-2 Bombers – all just in the Air Force. If you include the other branches of the military, there are literally hundreds of other attack aircraft available for a retribution strike against the Iranian nuclear program. Also, unmanned drones and cruise missiles could play a large part in a potential attack.

Winning a battle or, in this case, dismantling Iran’s nuclear program, would take more than a bunch of airplanes. This attack would require lots of logistical planning with simultaneous strikes taking out Iran’s air force, anti-aircraft defense, and its early-warning radar. This is precisely where the various countries involved can best be put to work. The Saudis, for instance, are located closest to Iran. The headquarters for this reprisal operation could be centered from an airbase in Saudi Arabia. In regard to gathering intelligence, Israel has one of the most effective intelligence gathering organizations in the world. With regard to tactical planning, Israel and the United States have lots of practice. While the United States made easy word of the Iraqi early-warning radar and missile-defense system in both Desert Storm and the Gulf War, Israel has shown its planning resilience in the Bekaa Valley and in the attack on Iraq’s Osiraq reactor. Needless to say, the combined ability of the U.S., Israel, and Saudi Arabia could prove devastating to the Iranian state. Further, there are many more countries, be they regional or part of NATO, that also feel threatened by Iran’s nuclear program and could feel prompted to join in on an attack of Iran’s nuclear facilities if prompted to do so.

It will be very interesting to see how the Saudis, Israelis, and Americans respond in the next few weeks. The United States has already said that it will be pushing for stronger sanctions against Iran, but Saudi Arabia might feel so threatened that it might choose to attack. And if Saudi Arabia is determined to balance the Iranian threat, Israel and the United States might well be tempted to provide assistance to the process as well.

Steven is a senior in Revelle College majoring in Political Science: International Relations. He is currently studying abroad in Israel.

Cross posted on Peter’s blog.

Recently the United States Customs and Enforcement(ICE) agency has shutdown more than a hundred .com and .net websites, under the grounds these websites are under U.S. jurisdiction. Erik Barnett, Assistant Deputy Director for ICE, claims the United States has jurisdiction over all .com and .net websites because all Domain Name Service(DNS) indexes are “routed” through Verisign, a United States based company. In this article, I will outline three protests against the over-expansion of ICE’s power: jurisdiction, international law, and constitutional law. And, ultimately, I will question the very nature of intellectual privilege that has lead to these abuses. First, let us debunk the argument the United States has jurisdiction over all .net and .com websites.

Let me be clear: under the current rule of law, the U.S. government has power to seize domains that do not follow the law in their territorial rule. The ability of the United States to enforce these laws, is curtailed by the Bill of Rights and limited in ways which I will address later in this article. But, the United States does not have the power or authority to apply its jurisdiction over entities outside of its territorial rule, by mere definition; jurisdiction outside of territorial rule is enforced through agreements made by international actors. The question now is: does the United States have the power to enforce its jurisprudence over entities that are headquartered in their territorial rule but cross international borders, like multinational corporations? The short answer is no. Let me propose the question: does the United States require multinational corporations to pay its foreign employees, outside of its territorial rule, federal minimum wage? The United States Supreme Court has upheld that the federal government has no such power. Now, this is not to say the Supreme Court has not said the federal government does not have the power to regulate the conduct of these multinational corporations, but these decisions also take into account the jurisdiction of international actors. Under the current rule of law, the claim ICE is making would not even be upheld in court, and this is not even the very nature of domain name services. The truth is these domain name service providers that are being seized by ICE are completely outside of the United States. To understand this, let me briefly explain what a domain name service provider is, and what a domain name index is. A domain name service is a pointer that translates a name to a given address, in this case an Internet protocol address. A domain name index registrar like Verisign translates the top-tier domains such as .net and .com. and points to the given registrar of the domain name. No information outside of the header’s pointers are ever directed through these registrars. For example, when you visit google.com, your browser is pointed by the top-tier domain(TLD) to its lower-tier(Google), which then points to an IP address, and your browser then pulls information directly off of the given address directly to the client’s browser. In laymen terms, DNS acts as nothing more than a physical address, while the data between two individual entities are directly sent to one another. Currently the domains ICE is seizing are outside of the United States, and are under the jurisdiction of other states. This implores only one thing: the United States is contesting the jurisdiction and sovereignty of other nations; an act some would call war. To understand how jurisdiction and sovereignty work in the realm of what political scientists call international anarchy, we must understand how intellectual privilege is enforced through International Law.

The primary enforcement mechanism of intellectual privilege in international relations is treaties. The first major treaty signed over intellectual privilege between international actors was the Berne Convention of 1886. The United States did not ratify this treaty until 1988. Let me note: this is the only constitutional way to enforce intellectual privilege across borders. Other intellectual privilege treaties have been signed since the Internet’s creation, one such treaty is the World Intellectual Property Organization Treaty(WIPO); this treaty was ratified in the United States under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The WIPO treaty is enforced by many states around the world. And, of course, if there is a conflict over intellectual privilege between these states that have signed this treaty, they use the proper mechanisms described in the treaty to solve disputes. ICE is currently circumventing these mechanisms, which are the proper legal means to enforce the notion of intellectual privilege. To reject this notion is to reject the rule of law. A third concern I have with the over-extension of ICE’s power is the realm of their constitutional limits, the natural rights of those around the world, and the rights protected by the United States government in their agreement with the people of the United States: the Bill of Rights.

To reject the fact the United States Bill of Rights enforces natural rights, is to reject the rich history given to us by the Founders of the United States. One of the most important natural rights that is to be protected by the U.S. government is the Freedom of Speech. An ally to liberty, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, recently wrote an amicus brief over these concerns. The Electronic Frontier Foundation takes note that many of the domains being seized by ICE never contained intellectual privilege violations, but instead contained links to sites that may be committing those violations. This of course was found unconstitutional in Ctr. for Democracy and Tech. v. Pappert. Not to mention, most of the websites that are found in violation of Intellectual Privilege, are sites directly suggested to them by the MPAA and the RIAA. In an open letter to ICE, Senator Ronald Wyden has addressed the fact these sites have not been able to defend themselves from domain name seizures in a court of law. In their amicus brief, the Electronic Frontier Foundation(EFF) notes:

Basically, the EFF proposes a fundamental problem with domain name seizures: it censors speech that is non-infringing to intellectual privilege. So, under what grounds does ICE have the power to seize domain names? Well of course they have the powers granted to them by Congress, but under constitutional limits. In my belief, in their constitutional boundaries, ICE only has the power to issue warrants against websites in the United States that have violated intellectual privilege. So far, I have addressed several concerns with the abuses ICE is committing internationally and domestically. So what has lead to these abuses? I argue it is the very nature of intellectual privilege that has lead to this abuse of power.

If you have not already noticed, I have supplemented the word property for privilege in “intellectual property.” Why you ask? The phrase “intellectual property” is a misnomer. Property is non-rivalrous in consumption, tangible. Stephan Kinesella, in his work Against Intellectual Property writes:

The truth is that, unlike other resources, ideas are not scarce. Or as a Bouckeratt puts it: “only naturally scarce entities over which physical control is possible are candidates” to be real property. Stephan Kinsella writes:

This, I believe, justifies the phrase “intellectual privilege,” because it is nothing more than the state granting a monopoly. Of course, by its very nature, “intellectual property” is thus a creation of the state. This of course leads state actors and entities to compete over such a privilege. And, in many ways this power is controlled by large entities. In the United States, such a privilege (IP), to own ideas, was primarily at the mercy of the state until the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, but with contentions. It turns out that many of these “property rights” only exist because the government has deemed that they do, of course under the influence and lobbying of large corporations like Disney. The power of corporations, unions, and other institutions to influence the state, by very nature has created the “right” of “intellectual property.” So, we should not be surprised by the recent acts ICE has committed or by the grand amount of influence the MPAA and the RIAA have over our government; after all it is in their best interest. At the end of the day, I believe conservatives and liberals should demand our government to adhere to the Constitution, and libertarians should contest the control of ideas and call it for what it is: the greatest form of tyranny over the mind of man.

Note: I first heard the phrase “intellectual privilege” from Professor Tom W. Bell at Chapman University.

After increasing tuition nine times over the last ten years, undergraduates in the UC system will now be paying more than 200 percent what their contemporaries ten years ago had paid, in order to pay for a bigger UC bureaucracy. Since 2000, the UC administration has also increased in size by more than 200 percent.

At the UC Regents upcoming meeting on July 12-14 in San Francisco, the Regents plan to discuss an additional 9.6% tuition increase. If this tuition increase is passed, it will raise costs for an instate student from $11,124 to $12,200 for the coming academic year.

In March 2011, the President of the UC Regents, Mark Yudof, told students to be prepared for a possible mid-year tuition increase of 32% for 2011-2012 if state funds are not restored. At the current rate of tuition increases, it has been estimated that instate student tuition could hit $25,000 by the 2015-2016 academy year.

To understand the effect of this increase on a UCSD undergraduate, the cost of fall tuition alone in 2003-2004 was $2,035.50 while in 2011 it will have increased to $4,352.56.

Mark Yudof said in 2009 that the tuition increases were unfortunate but necessary because, “When you have no money, you have no money.” Yet why does the UC system have no money? The students are paying more and the faculty is shrinking so those cannot be the problem. Rather it is the administration that is to blame for its continued expansion. Since 2000, the size of the UC administration has increased by more than 200%. In addition, the number of UC employees that are making over $200,000 has grown. This bureaucratic growth comes as no surprise when considering the power of the University of California’s public employee unions. Much of the salary increases were the result of “automatic longevity raises mandated by union contracts.”

UC President Mark Yudof has continued to negatively affect the UC budget as well. He was ranked 76^th among top-paid employees, earning $577,650 in 2009. This comes as no surprise as he was the highest paid public administrator serving public education in the United States while he served as the head of the University of Texas in 2003.

As the administration continues to expand the stress they place on undergraduates increases. At UC San Diego class sizes continue to grow, required classes are less frequent, and the hiring freeze has made many UC faculty members to fear for their jobs, but not administrators. UCSD has just added the new position of the Vice Chancellor for Equity, Inclusion, & Diversity during the 2010-2011 academic year.

In 2009 the UC System Total Budget was around $19 Billion, which is more than the economies of many small countries. In addition, the UC system has more employees than some Fortune 500 companies. $5.6 Billion (29.47% of the total budget) amounted to the Core Funds, which are needed to continue the mission statement of education. $3.2 Billion (57.14% of the Core Budget or 16.84% of the total budget) comes from the State of California. Although the undergraduate education budget is not even 1/5^th of the total budget, it amounts to the majority of received state aid. As the State has been forced to tighten its belt, the student body of the UC System has been left footing the bill. The UC Regents who are responsible for the management of this budgetary process have failed miserably. Their lack of accountability to the UC students and California taxpayers needs to change.

California Students are waking up to the fiscal irresponsibility that is surrounding them in the UC system. We need to ask the hard questions and demand accountability of those who claim to work for us. With these continually rising costs students are starting to wonder if their degree is worth the expenses associated with it.  Until the UC Regents and UC administrators are transparent and accountable to their students the quality of our education will continue to deteriorate.

Alex is a senior in Eleanor Roosevelt College double majoring in biochemistry and history.