Previous Message

I think there are certain things Jane could do ok. Basic admin.

I had no issue with her championing diversity or inclusion or academics. You don't have to lecture though to champion those things.

She diminished teh PResident's Scholars program. It was too elitist. I applaud it was not totally revoked.

Her mascot decision was based on academic dishonesty. Emphasizing from a 'victom' POV and steering the decision to her pre-determined outcome, which if she was honest about it, was simply to get rid of the white mail mascot. Her reasoning was so flawed. ONe aspect was the statue could go to the Alumni Center at one time, lol, as if a statue that invited disdain that putting it to a place where the current resentful segment would see it in the future was any better. The entire associations she made with 49ers and genocide were disenguous. WHy didn't she lead the charge for getting rid of it on CA Driver's License that WAS based on prospectors? Not seeking out an academic discussion of the UNiversity making clear the origons of the name and history and an academic compelling discussion of prospectors in California. The Gold Rush and history in California is not simple, with those Californian's being castigated as a whole as evil. Bottom line, there was no academically based honestly and assessment regarding the 49er mascot. It was a coup.

She was not a leader, she was a lecturer. Beach has plenty of profs and lecturers to both teach and lead. Her essays were the most tripe boorish opinions, IMO the worst type that a University President made. She made 'white privalidge' a thing for about 6 months. I doubt she even understood the subject.

The ultimate example was the pre-game 2019 NCAA semi vs. Pepperdine on the lawn. She basically before that match gave a speech that pretty much lectured everyone there to be part bigots. I don't know, maybe she interpreted reactions/questioning to her edict lectures as evidence that everyone that disagreed with her was in the wrong and backwards. That was surreal, like 'huh'.

It galled me to no end that she made Long Beach out in her statements/essays to be this backward non-diverse attitude University and as if everyone needed a lecture about it, as if she was going to fix something. WHen the reality is Beach before her was among the most diverse make-up and diverse thinking Universities in the US. She really had no clue. All the more appalling cause she came from UCSB where the make up was far more 'whiteish' than Beach, and she had done nothing there about that subject, all the while retreating most every weekend to her Santa Barbara home.

She handed off her responsibility for athetics to insulate herself from it.

Granted, her decision to fund athletics last year was and will be a postiive one. That one as well frankly was she gamed the process to support a pre-ordained position, cause she knew it needed to be funded. It mirrored the mascot decision process though.

Same process for grad ceremonies.

The recent fund-raising blowing smoke up her own arse on raising $330 million that was never raised and implying it was. I mean, she should be PResident for life if she's really got $330 million in 18 months from alum/boosters/supporters - but she didn't. that was flat out misleading. I mean if she really raised $330 million like was implied, they should make a frggn statue of her. And the endowment would be double what it is, but it isn't cause that amount of money wasn't really 'raised' as implied. But it isn't, cause the number is BS voodoo accounting misleading about fund-raising.

Hence why I consider her to be dishonest and/or deficient as an academic leader and a person.

That was her, she was a bureaucrat who just lectured to her audiences and hung around too long, and frankly didn't lead anything of substance on any subject at all.

Long Beach survived her. Heck we could do worse, never know, but not by too much. Hoping we get a President that champions academics and achievement unapologetically.