48 Comments
User's avatar
Tamara's avatar

Well in terms of athletics, it is not difficult to be a step up from Blockhead. So if Miami was happy with Frenk's support of athletics, then there is at least a window of hope that he will embrace some of the expectations of Bruin fans and our sports programs.

It will be interesting to see what he does or doesn't do in terms of Calimony. He could give in and pay it so he doesn't rock the boat or fight it in court. My guess is he will give in and essentially set an unwanted and risky precedent.

He is apparently a good fundraiser but we shall see how good he is at connecting with and serving students and creating a united and flourishing community.

Expand full comment
Joe Piechowski's avatar

His Twitter account seems to show him interacting with students at Miami football games quite a bit. So, there's that.

Expand full comment
Runfastandwin's avatar

Good I guess, I don't see why we have to always hire an outside candidate and a fossillized retread at that. Surely there's plenty of candidates already working at UCLA or even in the UC system in their 40s and 50s that could do as good a job or or better. FFS

Expand full comment
Tamara's avatar

'Fossilized retread' is legend 🤣 It would have been refreshing and inspiring to see a true Bruin as chancellor, regardless of age. It's really a travesty that we as Bruins have little to no voice when it comes to who is in charge of our beloved university.

Expand full comment
Joe Piechowski's avatar

I agree with Tamara. "Fossilized retread" definitely qualified for legend status!

If an internal candidate had been chosen, I would have been concerned for "reasons unrelated to sports." Read that as you will or message me if you want a more direct answer.

Personally, I would have like to see UCLA hire an up-and-coming administrator who would be in Westwood a long time, but I will settle for a guy who is a football fan.

Expand full comment
Evan's avatar

I would think anyone already working for UCLA or the UC System would be a negative. Both institutions are beacons on incompetence.

Expand full comment
Runfastandwin's avatar

Why are you even here you hate everything so much?

Expand full comment
Henry Tse's avatar

A dagger to the heart. Bingo !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Expand full comment
Evan's avatar

huh?

Expand full comment
E2148's avatar

I mean, hard to argue UCLA and the UC system’s academic reputation as a whole. What’s not hard to argue is how the UCs (Berkeley and LA at least) are no longer representing the communities where they’re located, and certainly not helping their historically great athletic programs.

Expand full comment
Gen2Bruin1987's avatar

Joe, I didn't like it when ESPN announcers couldn't do math involving single digits. So I am giving you a second change since the math involves a number with 2 digits. What does 21 minus 5 equal? Hint: it's not 15. Yes, I took most of my classes in south campus.

Expand full comment
Joe Piechowski's avatar

Clearly a typo! But, hey, I was a North campus major! What do I know? LOL

Expand full comment
WarPlanner's avatar

..in re the math question, I was a bus ad grad and can only calculate things like the IRR or NPV or what 6% will yield when invested. Higher math like this stumps me!

Tangentially, thank you for this "non-sports" update. I value your and your TMP compadres' reportage re our alma mater; they are so much more meaningful than the mere public outgassings in the local rags. My concern re UCLA is far, far from its sports programs' welfare. Only to mention this - it should not become a raging thread* - but I am deeply concerned over the events transpiring on the campus these days. I attended UCLA during the early VN war era and there were those who demonstrated their feelings on that subject but I cannot recall anything so out of hand as what is eventuating today.

Part of my love for UCLA is the beauty and [relative] serenity of the campus but that is crumbling before our eyes today; it is NOT solely because of dissident students.

I'll leave it at that..

..and pray that the situation heals itself.

*I differed politically with the former steward of The Bruins' Nation but heartily agreed at his policy of no politics entering into the discourse.

Expand full comment
Tamara's avatar

Hi my dear friend War...

I also have grave concerns about what is transpiring on campus. Frenk is going to have to deal with great challenges and if he is worth anything, he must heal our campus community and restore peace and beauty to our revered grounds.

I pray that he is able to do so, but he is not even beginning what I imagine to be a short lived tenure until Jan, 2025. And I doubt the interim chancellor will make any progress for the good of our beloved University.

We are in a very precarious situation to say the least 😢💔🙏

Expand full comment
WarPlanner's avatar

Certainly agree. I hope he has the strength and is not just marking time until retirement.

Expand full comment
Evan's avatar

Not to mention that the war protesters were advocating for peace. What we have going on now is deadly combination of violence and extreme bigotry.

Expand full comment
Joe Piechowski's avatar

I'm making an executive decision. I'm leaving the comments above up as they do not go into advocacy for one side or another and do not threaten to split our Bruin sports community into factions.

As such, they aren't violating our "no politics" rule.

Expressing concern for what is happening on campus doesn't necessarily do that.

However, any comments which can be construed as advocacy or which takes sides in the campus events will be removed as appropriate.

Instead of those discussing things here, I strongly recommend anyone who is so inclined to send an email to Chancellor Block expressing your opinion. His email address is chancellor@ucla.edu.

Believe me, I have sent my fair share of emails over the six weeks. I've also used my personal Twitter account (@jpiechowski) to express those feelings, in case anyone is interested in knowing my thoughts on the recent events.

Expand full comment
Evan's avatar

Understood, and agreed. However, emailing Block or anyone at UCLA would be kind of like emailing the USC administration in 2005 to complain about USC paying off football recruits. They were happy it was going on.

Expand full comment
SEAUCLAn's avatar

Re: executive decision not to allow advocacy.

Evan comments that the war protestors advocated for peace. Really? Was that their position?

Further, "What we have going on now is deadly combination of violence and extreme bigotry," is ambiguous, so that comment can stand? Who? What?

Expand full comment
Henry Tse's avatar

" Really ? Was that their position ? " Enough said. I second it.

Expand full comment
Evan's avatar

i mean, i didn't really want to get into the anti-war protest. i think it's safe to say they at least wanted an end to the war (i.e. peace). They certainly weren't advocating for more killing.

Expand full comment
Tamara's avatar

After giving much MORE thought to the hiring of Frenk... What could possibly be his motivation for coming to UCLA at age 70 after several years at Miami? Why now?

He is not a Bruin, or Bruin fan... not even close. His remarks about UCLA seem scripted and not from the heart. So I am almost certain he does not hold a deep love for our University or our esteemed history from athletics to academia. You can't simply manufacture love of a school.

He is getting paid a lot less than when he was at Miami. There are not many years left in his career - 10 years max and that's a stretch. So why leave Miami?

While he now seems supportive of athletics, he wasn't always a supporter of athletics when at Miami. There was initially a lot of backlash from fans about that.

And why would UCLA hire him? Yes he can fundraise, so can many others. Yes, he's a medical guy. but there's way more to UCLA than its healthcare system.

Overall, it seems like an odd and prickly cold choice that doesn't feel right. It feels really off.

Expand full comment
Runfastandwin's avatar

I agree. And it aggravates me more the more I think about it. I wonder if he has a clandestine relationship with someone on the hiring committee?

Expand full comment
Tamara's avatar

💯 I wouldn't be surprised at all if a clandestine relationship played a big role. Sinking feeling for sure.

Expand full comment
Henry Tse's avatar

As far as the speculation goes, I wonder what would Walton say about the hiring.

Expand full comment
Tamara's avatar

I actually do not believe Walton would be too happy. As I mentioned, you cannot manufacture love for a University. And Frenk does not strike me as having genuine paasion for UCLA - the opposite of Bill.

Expand full comment
Henry Tse's avatar

Absolutely ! Time will tell.

Expand full comment
Evan's avatar

not a lot is known about him. There's really no evidence one way or another of Frenk having passion or no passion for the University. That's going to happen when you go outside of the University to hire, which we really had to choice but to do.

Expand full comment
gbruin's avatar

I share your concerns, Tamara. I don't want to sound ageist - meaning I'm about to say something obliquely ageist - but how long does he intend to be in Westwood? I would be surprised it would be more than a few years (10 does seem a real stretch, 5 seems more likely), and if so, what's the point? Charles Young was just 36 when he became Chancellor and held the position for 29 years. Could the Regents not find anyone qualified who would reasonably offer a longer potential tenure and more stability than what Dr Frenk offers?

Expand full comment
Tamara's avatar

Could not agree more, Greg! Charles Young grew to love UCLA and he did so many great things for our beloved University because of his passion and devotion. Yes, 5 years does seem to be much more realistic for Frenk. I also believe there has to be greqt up and coming leaders who could have been Chuck 2.0. Just have an empty feeling about this hire.

Expand full comment
Evan's avatar

Playing devil's advocate, maybe we should view him as a transition Chancellor (he obviously is by default). Take 5 years to right the ship and have the university ready for someone to take over long term in 5-10 years.

Expand full comment
Tamara's avatar

Hopefully he is a just a transition chancellor. But even in that role I don't believe he is the best candidate or leader to right the ship.

Expand full comment
Evan's avatar

why not?

Expand full comment
Tamara's avatar

So many reasons but imho, I believe the way he will serve will LIKELY be based on his resume and without a true passion or love of UCLA.

Expand full comment
Evan's avatar

I get that, but what is the reason you believe that. We know very little about this guy other than he did a good job at Miami. What in his background causes you to believe that or has he done something to cause you to believe that? Is your opinion based on anything other than he does not have UCLA roots?

Expand full comment
gbruin's avatar

It's not an unreasonable view, Evan, and the anticipated length of his stay would support that. But then I would ask why the top public school in the country and the flagship of the University of California (suck on it, Kal) has to settle for a transitional placeholder instead of getting the pick of the best and brightest young University administrators in the world?

Expand full comment
Tamara's avatar

Your 'transitional placeholder' and runfastandwin's 'fossilized retread' are the new 'blockhead' 🤣🤣🤣

Expand full comment
Evan's avatar

"best and brightest young University administrators in the world." lmao. now there's an oxymoron.

Expand full comment
gbruin's avatar

Probably true, and even more so if one removes the word university. But Charles Young was pegged as the UCLA Chancellor at the age of the 36. Where is that next person?

Expand full comment
Evan's avatar

lmao yes. On Young, that was back in the day when academia was well...academic. Professors were smart and the administration cared about the education. Smart (and competent) people no longer go into academia, and when they do they get corrupted.

Expand full comment