The UCI arts department has dissolved the Digital Filmmaking Program at UCI per a vote taken during fall quarter. For the past several years, UCI’s Digital Filmmaking minor had been at risk of being defunded by the arts department under which it is housed. The students of the minor continually resisted this decision and fought to preserve the program that was essentially built up by the DigiFilm community themselves.
On Oct. 18, 2021, over 30 students gathered along Ring Road to protest the defunding of the digital filmmaking minor and raise awareness about the #SaveDigiFilm campaign petition, which at the time had over 620 signatures. This was not the first time DigiFilm students had to fight back against lack of funding.
During the fall 2019 quarter, the New University was in attendance at the annual DigiFilm Society (DFS) meetup. Students filed into UCI Digital Filmmaking program’s soundstage, excited to hear about developments to the program, the courses that would be offered in the minor that year and upcoming events students could partake in. It was the largest crowd this event had ever gotten; those who came late couldn’t even get a spot due to it being deemed a fire hazard. Needless to say, interest in the DigiFilm program at UCI was growing by the year, and students were ready to pour their time and energy into learning the fundamentals of filmmaking and storytelling.
Among the guest speakers was then-Associate Dean of the Claire Trevor School of the Arts (CTSA) John Crawford, representing then-CTSA Dean Stephen Barker, and he made some alarming remarks. The Art Department could no longer financially support the program. Students broke into a murmur and tension filled the room.
Students began to ask the questions on everyone’s minds: what about the students who still need these classes to graduate with the minor? How many of the classes will be taken away from us? What would happen to continuing lecturer Bryan Jackson, who taught over half of the classes? The students were met with vague answers but one promise: Crawford and Barker would be working on a partnership with the Humanities department to ensure the future stability of the DigiFilm program. This turned out to be a lie.
The New University was able to talk to DFS board members and now UCI alumni Corey Nguyen, Megan Sullivan, and Stefan Buhr to understand what had occurred following the meetup. Nguyen explained how quickly after the meetup, the DigiFilm Society board discussed how deeply troubled they were. They needed real answers.
After much pestering, Nguyen and Sullivan were able to get a meeting with Barker and Crawford. The Dean explained how his discretionary funding was being used towards this program, but they could not secure these funds for very much longer. Nguyen and Sullivan brought up the same questions from the meetup, ultimately to be told that “being used to change is good for young people.”
Upon meeting with the Film and Media Studies department in the School of Humanities, they found out that this “partnership” was mischaracterized and in fact DigiFilm was not mentioned in these conversations.
“After those interactions with administration, we sort of stopped believing in them. We really didn’t think they had our best interests at heart. Honestly, in my personal opinion, I just thought that they didn’t want us around anymore,” Nguyen, upon recalling this experience, said.
Realizing they needed to take matters into their own hands, the DigiFilm Society board started the #SaveDigiFilm campaign that was revitalized during the 2021-22 school year. They created a petition that outlined their demands and reached out to current and previous DigiFilm students to gather testimonials, resulting in over 460 signatures for the petition, which is now closed for signatures but accessible for viewing. This petition is addressed to the 2019-20 administration, separate from the most recent petition referred to earlier, which is addressed to the 2021-22 administration.
After delivering this petition to the then-Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor Enrique Lavernia, they did not get the response they hoped for. If the petition was not enough to show the students’ passion, they figured they would convey it directly to the administration. Students and even their families called and wrote – and after intense demonstration of their interest, there seemed to be good news. The Provost agreed to two years of emergency funding for the DigiFilm program while the faculty and administration would come up with a long-term solution to enable the program to become self-sufficient. However, upon further meetings with Crawford and Barker, this funding appeared to be going elsewhere.
Crawford and Barker had been looking into models to find a place for the DigiFilm program. These plans were revealed to Nguyen during his meetings with them, where they talked about including DigiFilm as a track in a new initiative they wanted to fund called Emergent Media and Design (EM+D). Under this initiative, they wanted to explore new courses in topics such as augmented reality, virtual reality, 360-degree immersion, and social media integration. Ultimately, the Digital Filmmaking program would have been housed under this proposed EM+D department.
“They wanted to take our name and the funding that came with it, and fund their new program,” Nguyen said. “[They] advertised [it] to us as, ‘hey, we’re going to make you part of a bigger thing, which will get more money’ … Even after we got this money, they tried to subvert it into something else.”
This decision speaks to the even larger issue of privilege found in the administrations of higher education institutions. Students often have to fight to get their demands heard, and despite the power in numbers, their voices are ignored by those in positions of authority with ulterior motives.
“The Provost gave money for a program that primarily gives a platform to queer, LGBTQ+ filmmakers of color and especially Black filmmakers here at UCI, and it got taken by two wealthy white dudes … It just speaks to a failure of philosophy at Claire Trevor,” Nguyen said, referring to Crawford and Barker.
Transfer student Mary Kim, who chose to come to UCI for DigiFilm, expressed her concern about the apathetic response of the administration.
“Why is there such a barrier between students and the administration?” Kim asked. “Why is there such a power imbalance? Why is there no direct line of communication?”
Kim believes it is the role of the administration to help students out as they have the power to create change that is evidently widely supported. The lack of response only reveals what they value and prioritize — and it doesn’t seem to be the students.
The students even took the step of heading to the Ombudsman’s Office, an independent group that resolves disputes from an objective standpoint. A meeting between them, Nguyen, Sullivan, and the Deans was conducted, where one of the eventual conclusions they came to was to have a DigiFilm faculty member and student present in all meetings regarding DigiFilm. However, this did not seem to be acknowledged.
The two years of emergency funding was supposed to buy time to determine a more sustainable solution to save the minor. Eventually it ran out, and Dean Barker had to turn the minor back over to the Art Department to make the decision.
During the winter 2021 quarter, the administration announced that Jackson, the program’s primary instructor, would be laid off effective December 2021. Students were unsure how the curriculum of the program would be impacted and if this would result in the ultimate end of the program.
Then-ASUCI Arts Senator Cybelle Kaehler drafted legislation that was passed by the Senate on March 2, 2021. This served as the first official message to authority stating that ASUCI, who represents the student body as a whole, is formally asking the university to save Digifilm and to continue to employ Jackson. Kaehler explained that during the Senate meeting, several students expressed their frustration through public comment. From describing how they chose to attend UCI solely due to this program, to criticizing UCI for laying off the head instructor in the middle of a pandemic, the students expressed how the DigiFilm program has drastically changed the course of their education for the better. They were angry, frustrated and saddened.
This legislation eventually caused the 2020-2021 ASUCI President Michelle Mallari to bring this issue up in her monthly meeting with Chancellor Howard Gillman and the Provost. Through this connection, Kaehler and Buhr met with Barker and the Provost. However, during these meetings, Barker claimed they were not able to help or take up this cause as this matter should be up to the curriculum decisions of the Art Department — avoiding the issue once more. A funding issue had just been turned into a “curriculum issue” as well.
As fall quarter of the 2021-22 school year rolled around, then-DigiFilm Society President Monica Guo along with other members of the program revitalized the #SaveDigiFilm campaign. As a result of the protest on Oct. 18., Jackson’s job as an instructor had been extended, meaning students could continue to enroll in DigiFilm courses until the end of fall quarter 2022.
If the administration truly cared about students in the DigiFilm program and wanted to invest in our future, a surefire solution would have been to put in the work to make the program a major instead of attempting to fund a completely new initiative that takes away its resources and primary instructor. Back in July 2018, Nguyen and other Digital Filmmaking students put together a petition asking for support from Barker for the minor to become a major. However, they were given an unrealistic goal of raising $19 million dollars within three months in order for this to happen. They had taken all the steps to ensure there is no issue with interest in the DigiFilm program; when Kaehler met with the Barker in 2021, he even acknowledged that it is one of the the most popular programs in the School of the Arts. However, that does not necessarily guarantee funding since it is not a major.
Even before the first announcement of the lack of funding, Jackson had been working with the Dean to turn this program into a major, meaning this minor was founded with that initial intention. His program proposal states “[t]he aim of this program is to establish an undergraduate and graduate-level academically oriented production filmmaking program at UC Irvine, which would lead to a B.A., B.F.A. and M.F.A. degrees in Digital Filmmaking.” The proposal is incredibly in-depth, detailing partnerships with private sector companies, campus initiatives that can connect filmmakers with researchers at UCI, a diagram of space usage for all parts of the filmmaking process and a new model of filmmaking education that involves working with award winning professionals.
The crucial element in bringing this proposal to life is the work of Ulysses Jenkins, Bruce Yonemoto, Bryan Jackson, and the lab manager Grant Speich, all faculty of the DigiFilm program. In almost all of the public comments and petition testimonials, students mentioned how the professors are a source of inspiration and work to create a culture that values stories that are normally pushed away. In an industry that is performative in its representation, this is an incredibly important safe space to have within an education system.
Dominique Cojuanco, current president of DigiFilm Society, described the impact DigiFilm faculty had on them as an artist.
“Recently, it’s been really important for me to understand Professor Jenkins. He’s played a major role right now, as a fourth year in college in how I think of the world.”
Ulysses Jenkins is a video and performance artist who has taught at UCI since 1993. Jenkins’ work is grounded in concepts such as racism in the media, white supremacy in popular culture, and the African diaspora. Earlier this year, his first major solo museum retrospective, “Ulysses Jenkins: Without Your Interpretation,” was organized at the Hammer Museum. Among the multitude of video works displayed at the exhibit was “Mass of Images” (1978), which examines the damaging depictions of Black stereotypes in the entertainment industry and leaves the viewer with critical analysis of the constant consumption of this media.
Jenkins founded the Video Art program at UCI, which eventually became DigiFilm. His own art showcases the kind of foundation DigiFilm was built on: one that challenges our limits as artists of color and allows us to take ownership over the stories we choose to engage with and tell. This foundation contributed to DigiFilm’s establishment as a pipeline to filmmaking for Black and Brown, first-generation, LGBTQ+ students.
Jenkins started off the program with a few courses, and once Jackson and Yonemoto were brought on, the courses expanded into a minor. Much of the appeal to DigiFilm is in the hands-on production courses, taught by Jackson.
“I think the exact moment that I understood what he was sacrificing his career for was when you saw his work,” said Cojuanco. “He let us peer into his work as an example for what you can do with film. Bryan Jackson was meant to do great things, yet he put that on hold for students like us … I would want him to know that what he did was important and was significant.”
Nguyen described a memorable moment he had with Jackson during an activity in his Advanced Production class. Jackson had asked for a few students to lead the activity and Nguyen, along with a couple other students, volunteered.
“When we went in front of the class,” Nguyen explained, “Bryan looked at us and said, ‘No, this is unacceptable.’ Because all three people who had come up to lead were men.”
Nguyen had stepped aside, and this moment became pivotal for him to understand his privilege and his place in the film industry.
“For people of color, our success is not about climbing this ladder and destroying every rung along the way,” Nguyen said. “It is about systematically rejecting this capitalist competitive mindset that has been drilled into us, and turning this ladder into an escalator for everybody.”
Kane Hong, a Political Science student in DigiFilm, recounted his time so far in DigiFilm classes and how Jackson’s way of approaching the curriculum helped foster a community that valued each student’s individual voice.
“In the midst of the harsh and often dissonant hierarchical structures within the film industry, DigiFilm fostered a culture where everyone was treated with respect. Everyone learned the craft of filmmaking together within a judgment-free space,” said Hong. “All DigiFilm members are now equipped with the capacity to make the industry more inclusive.”
What was so powerful about these experiences to Nguyen and Hong was that the professor’s actions showed how he is unapologetically an ally for diversity. It is what separates DigiFilm from so many other film programs — the ability for students to engage in unique, authentic storytelling and be surrounded by perspectives that are often not seen or heard on the larger screens, while simultaneously engaging in hands-on curriculum that teaches set safety, proper equipment operation, lighting techniques, and more. It equips students with real-world experiences and gives them the ability to make meaningful change in the film industry.
At the very least, the administration should have been transparent about what they were deciding for the future of the program. And it is quite simple: the lack of prioritization of this program speaks to a blatant disregard for our voices. Not only is that ignoring the constant pressure we are putting on the administration, but it denies the opportunity for students to cultivate their filmmaking skills in an environment of diversity and empowerment that is rare.
It was crucial to keep the momentum they had alive and ensure those in authority listen to their voices loud and clear. At the same time, it was draining. Sullivan spent her entire senior year fighting for this program. “We spend all this time getting promises that meant nothing. It feels like they have this power, that it doesn’t matter how hard you fight, they can do whatever they want,” said Sullivan. “How do you continue to fight that year after year after year? It’s exhausting. It’s heartbreaking. It’s not what school should be about.”
Nguyen’s experience with fighting for the program three years ago made him realize that the situation is simply a reflection of creators of color constantly being taken advantage of. Although Nguyen was graduating, he and the rest of the students continued to fight for those in the midst of the program or even just starting it. “Being an activist means pushing for those who don’t yet have what you have. There are students out there who don’t even know about DigiFilm yet and will join and fall in love with it.”
Sullivan described the time DigiFilm organized a networking event at the Creative Artists Agency and recalled how much their class had stood out as people of color, as women. DigiFilm is not fueling the same people and same stories back into the film industry. DigiFilm alumni have gone on to do incredible things, and with this program eliminated, it takes away the credibility from everyone involved. In that very first meetup, Crawford mentioned how a minor is simply a set of courses. For DigiFilm, however, it’s much more.
“I think that the fact that we’ve been able to fight for so long for this program attests to the values of our community,” said Hong. “When we fight for DigiFilm, we are not only fighting for our own artistic space at UCI, we are also fighting for the next generation of young filmmakers who may have an opportunity to enjoy the community that we’ve experienced thus far.”
The 13th annual DigiFilm Festival was held on June 2, 2022. The film festival is held by the program to showcase the student work produced that year. DigiFilm alumni, current faculty and students, and undergraduates who were simply interested in watching the films all gathered together for an evening of comradery and celebration. That evening, they also honored Jenkins’ twenty-eight years of teaching at UCI and celebrated his service through his retirement reception.
Hong was one of the students whose work was showcased at the festival. Like Hong, many of the students in DigiFilm started out at UCI pursuing a career path other than film, and still are, but the journey the program put them through helped them discover more about themselves and the kind of art they want to create.
“[The program] reassured me that my art, whether written or visual, matters. It matters not only to my peers around me but most importantly it matters to me,” said Hong. “I am still a political science major finding my way through life but now, I also have the confidence to call myself an artist.”
That night made it clear the cultural impact DigiFilm has on the arts community at UC Irvine. After two years of live-streaming this event during the pandemic, the amphitheater was brimming with energy. It was a celebration of art and a celebration of the very people who created this space and watched it grow and evolve. When you have a community who can forge that vibrancy and connection for themselves, there is no getting rid of them.
“The arts is literally about connection, and when you don’t feel that from the art community, it just feels so empty … That’s what DigiFilm gives you,” said Cojuanco. “You can be the artist without limitation.”
To support the students of the Digital Filmmaking program and join the community for upcoming events, follow @digifilmsociety on Instagram.
I recently looked back at the application I submitted to join DigiFilm three years ago. I was struggling to find my voice, but it was clear the kinds of stories I wanted to tell. Now I think back, and my time in DigiFilm has been a journey. Not only have I gotten a grounded film production education, but it has given me the assurance that my art has value.
I am a child of immigrants. The stories I tell stem from these roots, yet never once has a career in the arts seemed possible growing up. The fact that I created tangible work because of DigiFilm feels surreal at times because of how impossible it seemed before I joined the program. When I think about students like me who are going to come to UCI and not be able to experience this, my heart breaks. That’s why when there is a history of students repeatedly fighting for the program year after year, I lose faith and I lose trust in how society values our art.
At the end of the night of the DigiFilm festival, we were all at the Soundstage sharing stories of our film sets that year. It’s a warm feeling. My art hasn’t been revolutionary, but it feels bigger than it is when I make it alongside a community like this one. Sometimes that’s all you need to find your voice and know that it matters. UCI may have taken away their institutional support, but we’re here to stay for a while.
Zoya Hajee is a Staff Writer. They can be reached at hajeez@uci.edu.
