Clarifying UCLA-THEN Ties

Gary Chapman’s article “Will Technology Commercialize Higher Education?” [Jan. 19] raises some important issues regarding the uses of technology in the world of the university. Regrettably, its references to UCLA and the Home Education Network [THEN], based on distorted information that appeared elsewhere, are factually incorrect.

For the record, THEN is a privately capitalized company that is in no way a part of UCLA. UCLA Extension has an agreement with THEN for the production and distribution of recordings of designated courses and for online education in a broad range of disciplines. UCLA Extension has full authority over the selection and identification of courses made available to THEN. Our instructors are in no way compelled to participate in our distance-learning activities. Their teaching online is voluntary.

Moreover, UCLA Extension’s relationship with THEN is--by design--not binding on any other part of UCLA. Mr. Chapman’s suggestion that the university is signing away faculty rights and privileges is groundless. Our online instructors have the same intellectual property rights that govern course materials and curricula as they do for traditional instructional programs.

Readers of The Times are familiar with UCLA Extension’s vibrant and diverse curricula and its public outreach educational offerings. What may be less understood is that we are an entirely self-supporting division of the university, receiving no direct underwriting from the state. Consequently, as we seek to remain faithful to our mission of broad access and our tradition of innovation and responsiveness to new methodologies of teaching and learning, we are working with a private company for a sound reason: to broaden our capacity to reach prospective students in a way that may generate new revenues to underwrite our core activities.

There’s a compelling story about public-private relationships here and student satisfaction with the online learning experience, but these were not the subjects of Mr. Chapman’s article.

ROBERT LAPINER

Dean, Continuing Education

and UCLA Extension

*

I welcomed the article as a necessary antidote to former CSU Chancellor Barry Munitz’s dismissal of faculty concerns as troglodyte opposition.

Even without the legitimate concerns summarized by Chapman, the enthusiastic support given the CETI [California Educational Technology Initiative] scheme by former Chancellor Munitz and the CSU administration in Long Beach was destined for opposition from a faculty that has long been treated by successive chancellors as miscreant children rather than partners in an educational enterprise.

MAX RIEDLSPERGER

San Luis Obispo