UC Sept 24 Protest Roundup

UC Wide
UK Guardian     Sacramento Bee     San Francisco Chronicle
Indy Bay       Student Activism      Socialist Worker
ABC Local News   San Jose Mercury-News Slideshow
Google News  Labor Notes (Background) 
New York Times  Time Magazine   NPR
 
UC BERKELEY
* Huge rally. Police estimate 5,000. March through streets of Berkeley, sit-down civil disobedience in front of campus, shutting down three main streets.
* All day picketing
* Over a half-dozen teach-ins (see titles: http://www.saveuc.org/teachout-sched.pdf)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrmatthew/sets/72157622344655281/show/
http://www.dailycal.org/mediabox.php?id=364&type=slideshow
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/24/MN2Q19S3FS.DTL
http://www.dailycal.org/article/106776/walkouts_vary_across_uc_campuses
http://www.insidebayarea.com/twitter/ci_13411072
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2009-09-24/article/33824
http://twitpic.com/iyy8d
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APuKukByoQA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pERb1G0-UA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_w0CToZjCc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPWfZTDG0rI

UC DAVIS
* All day picketing
* Teamsters electricians and others honored the strike and went home
* Rally/March with estimates from several hundred to over a thousand + bikes w/ sound systems
* Brief occupation of admin building
http://twitpic.com/iz6i9
http://www.news10.net/video/default.aspx?aid=82555
http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/ktxl-news-ucbudget0924,0,6713606.story

UC IRVINE
* Faculty-Student Improv Show
* Rally (w/ estimates between 500 and 1000) outside admin building
http://www.upte.org/photogallery/index.html#original/05
http://twitpic.com/iz10h

UC LOS ANGELES
* Noon Rally (LA Times estimate 700 people)
* March to Chancellor's office
* Occupation of Chancellor's office results in forcing Chancellor to set a meeting.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ucprotests25-2009sep25,0,3895472.story
http://media.dailybruin.com/dailybruin/img/2009/sep/24/walkoutcrowd_-_derek_liu.jpg
http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2009/09/24/14/CaliforniaUniversity5.standalone.prod_affiliate.4.jpg

UC SANTA CRUZ
* City buses (UTU), UPS (Teamsters) and construction crews refused to cross picket lines.
* All Day Picketing
* Noon Rally with 300+ people
* 3:30pm second rally and march
* Ongoing occupation of building in the center of campus, with rally outside http://occupyCA.wordpress.com and http://wewanteverything.wordpress.com/
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/09/24/18623088.php
http://www.flickr.com/photos/melissarachelblack/sets/72157622449721648/
http://www.mercurynews.com/centralcoast/ci_13412921?nclick_check=1

UC SAN DIEGO
* All day picketing, joined by UNITE-HERE Local 30 members who've been boycotting the Manchester Grand Hyatt over similar issues.
* Rally w/ about 350 attendees
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjPJO2zwmkM

UC SAN FRANCISCO
* All day picketing
* Rally w/ about ~75 people

UC SANTA BARBARA
Rally with ~400 people
http://www.independent.com/news/2009/sep/24/protesters-target-uc-regents/
http://twitpic.com/iyz2p

UC RIVERSIDE
Rally (w/ widely ranging estimates - from 150 to 500 to 1000) followed by a teach-in.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/09/25/qt/walkouts_across_u_of_california
http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_13414178

UC MERCED
A small rally, but notable since Merced is the newest and smallest UC!
http://www.ksee24.com/news/local/61292127.html

LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LAB (UC-managed)
UPTE Strike/Picketing/Protest
http://cbs5.com/local/UC.walkout.strike.2.1206109.html

TAIWAN
UC Education abroad students assembled and took a group picture.
http://tinyurl.com/yecgbxa
"The words we are holding up say, "Protect the UC, prevent fee increases" in traditional Chinese characters. We took the picture at the front gate of National Taiwan University, where we are all studying and have students from all the UC campuses except for San Francisco and Merced (we even have a student from CSU East Bay and a student from SF State)."

-
SOLIDARITY:

UNIV. of ARIZONA:
Rally w/ ~100 people against cuts and costs in the UA system, staged on 9/24 in solidarity w/ UC.
http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=11195684

SF STATE:
~75 students held a rally against cuts, costs, and the elimination of hundreds of classes in the Cal State system, and in solidarity w/ UC.

SF City College:
Rally against budget cuts and in solidarity with other educational institutions.

UNIV. of MICHIGAN:
Members of Michigan GEO, AFT Local #3550 took a group picture, with signs in solidarity.
http://tinyurl.com/y8ho329

-
QUOTES OF THE DAY:

"Walkout, Rally Hailed as Rebirth of UC Activism" (as if it ever died - Front Page story from the Berkeley Daily Planet)

"I've been here since 1972, and I've never seen anything like it." - George Lakoff

"For most of UC, today was THE FIRST DAY OF CLASSES, so there was essentially no time to organize. That makes #UCwalkout even more amazing." - @studentactivism

"Faculty, students and unions from the University of California's 10 campuses including its two most prestigious, UCLA and Berkeley, joined forces in what was the biggest student protest for more than a generation... The scale of the protests has come as a shock to state authorities." - The Guardian (UK)

Former UC President Richard Atkinson Reviews "Crossing the Finish Line"

Science 11 September 2009:
Vol. 325. no. 5946, pp. 1343 - 1344
DOI: 10.1126/science.1179882




Addressing the Graduation Gap

Richard C. Atkinson1 and Saul Geiser2

Crossing the Finish Line Completing College at America's Public Universities by William G. Bowen, Matthew M. Chingos, and Michael S. McPherson Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2009. 413 pp. $27.95, £19.95. ISBN 9780691137483.

1 5320 Atkinson Hall, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093–0436, USA.
2 Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720–4650, USA.



E-mail: sgeiser@berkeley.edu

Since retiring as president of Princeton and assuming leadership of the Mellon Foundation, William G. Bowen has been lead author of an extraordinary series of books on topics in American higher education such as affirmative action (1), the role of intercollegiate athletics (2), and access for low-income students (3). Bowen's hallmark has been "building large, linked databases and seeing what lessons can be learned from them." Crossing the Finish Line, written with Matthew M. Chingos, a Mellon associate, and Michael S. McPherson, president of the Spencer Foundation, continues in this tradition but on an even grander scale.

The book is concerned with the alarming slowdown of improvement on most measures of educational attainment, particularly college completion rates, since the 1970s. During the first three-quarters of the 20th century, the United States made substantial progress in improving both access to higher education and completion of baccalaureate degrees. That progress slowed dramatically in the mid-1970s and has since remained almost flat. With its current college-completion rate of 56%, the United States now ranks near the bottom of the 30 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. And among its college-age population, disparities in college graduation by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status have continued and in some cases worsened.

Whereas Bowen's earlier books focused on elite, private institutions, public institutions account for over three-fourths of college enrollments in the United States. For Crossing the Finish Line, he and his colleagues constructed a massive, longitudinal database of students at 21 public "flagship" universities and four state university systems. Students were tracked for six years following their matriculation in 1999. The unprecedented scale of the database and its linkage to student-level, standardized-test data permit the most comprehensive look yet possible at the determinants of graduation rates—and what might be done to improve them.




CREDIT: JOHN MCCORMICK/VIRGINIA TECH

[Larger version of this image]

Bowen and McPherson are economists and bring economists' sensibilities and methods to their subject. Much of the book uses regression analysis to assess the impact of various factors on college completion (e.g., socioeconomic status, financial aid, and institutional selectivity) after adjusting for other factors such as students' high-school grades and test scores. Individual chapters deftly summarize what is known about each topic and then often extend that knowledge substantially.

One finding likely to draw wide attention is that, of the criteria commonly employed in college admission decisions, high-school grades are by far the best predictor of college completion. Once those grades are known, scores from the SAT and the ACT add little to the prediction. This pattern holds irrespective of the quality or type of high schools that students attend and across colleges and universities at all levels of selectivity. The authors also find that grades are less closely associated with socioeconomic status than are SAT or ACT scores. Together these findings suggest that selective institutions could admit students from a broader range of socioeconomic backgrounds, with no deterioration in graduation rates, by giving greater weight to high-school grades.

Yet the authors by no means close the door on standardized admissions tests. They find that achievement tests (such as the SAT Subject Tests and Advanced Placement exams) that measure students' knowledge of specific college preparatory subjects are better predictors of college completion than the generic SAT or ACT exams. Subject-based admissions tests also have important "signaling" effects for high schools, encouraging teaching and learning of a more rigorous academic curriculum. Crossing the Finish Line will surely enliven and deepen the national dialogue about the role of standardized tests in college admissions.

Another provocative finding concerns "undermatching": students enrolling in colleges that are less demanding than they are qualified to attend. Using a conservative standard—grades and test scores that would qualify students in the top 10% of admits at highly selective public institutions—the authors find that a substantial proportion of well-qualified students enroll instead at two-year or less-selective four-year institutions. The pattern is most pronounced among low-income and minority students. Counterintuitively, however, undermatching has a negative effect on graduation rates. College completion varies sharply with institutional selectivity, even after controlling for student characteristics. As a result, well-qualified students who attend less-selective colleges graduate at lower rates than those with comparable qualifications at highly selective institutions. As the authors conclude, "The scale of the undermatch phenomenon among students from modest backgrounds suggests that addressing this problem offers a real opportunity to increase social mobility and simultaneously to increase overall levels of educational attainment."

Recently there has been a revival of interest in expanding transfer from two-year to four-year institutions as a means of raising college completion rates, and Bowen, Chingos, and McPherson bring their massive database to bear on that issue as well. On one hand, they find that at many four-year institutions, students who transfer from a community college are more likely to earn a bachelor's degree than students who begin as freshmen, suggesting that those institutions might improve completion rates by admitting more transfers. On the other hand, given the considerable attrition within two-year institutions, enrolling there can negatively affect a student's chances of earning a four-year degree. The authors find that highschool seniors who enter two-year colleges seeking a bachelor's degree are much less likely to complete their degrees than comparably qualified students who move directly from high school into a four-year program. One of the book's strengths is the authors' willingness to follow wherever the evidence leads, even where, as in this instance, the findings may seem to conflict.

The book provides new and often surprising insights on other major determinants of college completion. The chapters on financial aid, in particular, are masterful. The authors argue that, for public universities, offering more need-based student aid "is demonstrably less expensive than keeping the net price low by reducing tuition across the board—a policy that provides further subsidies to well-off families without improving their graduation rates."

Crossing the Finish Line also breaks new ground in its manner of presentation. The thread of the analysis can be read directly from the figures interspersed liberally throughout the text. Complex regression analyses are reduced to a graphic language that helps propel the reader through the argument. And in another innovation one hopes others will emulate, the book features an online appendix, maintained by Princeton University Press, where readers can explore a vast array of supporting data for each chapter to judge for themselves whether its conclusions are warranted.

Why have college completion rates in the United States stagnated since the 1970s? Databases of the kind Bowen and his colleagues have built do not necessarily lend themselves to historical analysis, and the authors do not attempt a complete answer to this question. Yet a clue may be found in an essay by another Mellon associate, Eugene M. Tobin, presented as an appendix to the book. Tobin traces the modern history of state public university systems after World War II. Many state systems, he finds, were influenced by the California model and its tripartite structure of highly selective research universities, comprehensive four-year institutions, and open-access community colleges. But as that model evolved during the latter part of the 20th century, most of the growth in student enrollment has been absorbed by the community colleges and four-year comprehensives. Undergraduate enrollments at the flagship campuses generally have not kept pace. Given the strong association between institutional selectivity and college completion, the changing structure of state higher education systems may be an important piece of the puzzle.

Crossing the Finish Line exemplifies the best that social science research has to offer: rigorous empirical analysis brought to bear on a major public policy issue. Bowen, Chingos, and McPherson have provided an essential resource that both researchers and policy-makers will consult for years to come.

References

1. W. G. Bowen, D. Bok, The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1998); reviewed in (4).
2. W. G. Bowen, S. A. Levin, Reclaiming the Game: College Sports and Educational Values (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 2003).
3. W. G. Bowen, M. A. Kurzweil, E. M. Tobin, Equity and Excellence in American Higher Education (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 2005).
4. R. E. Thach, Science 284, 1473 (1999).[Free Full Text]

Regents Should Call Yudof to Account

UC Regents:

UC President Yudof's shockingly irresponsible, culpably cavalier attitude toward California's once great university system and toward higher education in general became pathetically clear in the New York Times interview published today.  Surely the Regents must recognize by now that Yudof is unfit for the leadership position he holds, and even more so for the enormously increased powers the Regents granted this past summer by giving him emergency powers to slash budgets.  His claim to listen to those below--in the cemetery, in his distasteful image--is exposed here by the disregard he displays for genuine academic and democratic values cherished in public higher education. His arrogance, his contempt for the interests of those he is charged to lead and protect, his egotistical posture of noblesse oblige toward legitimate questions regarding his compensation demand action by the Regents.

Ever the demagogue, Yudof dismisses questions regarding the longterm defunding and privatization of UC by pointing to the short-term, immediate business cycle downturn.  But worse, he also seeks to foment a form of social war between the elderly, in need of health care, and the young, in need of education that will enable them to make the very contributions that now entitle older fellow citizens to health and income security.  This opportunisitc exploitation of the current debate over health care policy is only the most cynical aspect of a shameful performance by Yudof, not only in the NYT interview, but generally.  Even though we hold the governor and the dysfunctional legislature of our state ultimately responsible for undermining the historic and honorable mission of UC, we cannot overlook the complicity of Yudof in this process--the enabling "cover" that he has supplied for defunding, now on public display in the NY Times.

Regents, remember whom you serve and represent.  Call this self-created "big man" to account.  Discipline him.  Reject his statements as unrepresentative of, and beneath the dignity of, the University of Califonia.  At the first opportunity, remove him.

Sincerely,

Mary O. Furner
Professor of History, UCSB

Yudof as Incompetent

The NYT interview is an abject failure on Yudof's part that emblematizes his failed leadership. He was given a national platform from which to speak and he 1) mounted no defense of education, let alone public education, 2) called the UC effectively dead, 3) wallowed in his own compensation package at precisely the time when these things are public lightening rods.

The history of Yudof's use of the cemetery joke shows that he was tone deaf not just on this one occasion with the NYT, but more generally inept as a public representative. He has no public relations skills, no ability to improvise, no ear for context and no sense of timing. His NYT interview was a quintessential moment of opportunity to appeal to the national public in a crisis. . . and he said the same damned thing he's been saying since at least 2001, being a dean or a chancellor or a president "is like managing a cemetery." There is no leadership here, just the same old joke, told and re-told in a context that makes it worse than ever before.

Yudof's comments in 2002 about authoritarian leadership vs decentralization have their most powerful meaning for us in the context of his general ineptness and failure: He does not know what he is doing. He does not know how or when  to appeal to the public to support education. He warned that being an authoritarian is like being a cemetery manager, but now he boasts of being the cemetery manger. He has turned into his own joke.

This is not Dick Cheney we are dealing with, some dark force of dastardly plans. It is George W Bush at the moment of the bank bail-out, when he doubled back on his own ideology and more or less copped publicly to the failure of his entire administration. "How could this happen," asked George W Bush asked his advisers about the financial crisis one year ago. "The shine is off," said Yudof when he threw his hands up in the air rather than defend the importance of education in the NYT interview.

Yudof is an abject failure. He should resign. That is the simplest case to make in the fight to save the UC, the one with broadest possible appeal, and potentially the most powerful.

Michael Salman
History, UCLA

The Cemetery Joke in Yudofian History

Yudof has used the cemetery simile since at least 2001. Google "Yudof" and "cemetery" and you can follow the trail.

He has retold the same cemetery joke many times:

from 2001, when at the U of Minnesota.

from April 2008, as recorded by the UC Santa Barbara Daily Nexus

from December 2008

from May 2009

But there was also at least one telling of the joke in which Yudof altered the context, and that is worth presenting here. From "UT's Yudof: Success Flows From Planning and Leadership," Austin American-Statesman,  November 24, 2002, page 2:

Leaders of service-oriented companies and institutions tend to encourage flatter organizational structures rather than rigid hierarchies. A highly authoritarian leader is a lot like a cemetery manager: You have lots of people under you, but no one is listening.

We need to promote a spirit of collaboration and to emphasize accomplishing tasks through cooperative teams, as opposed to fiefdoms. Too often, various parts of an organization compete against each other.

The key to a nonhierarchical structure is to decentralize power but centralize accountability.

Yudof's authoritarian bent clearly has precedents from long before his declaration of emergency powers at UC. Worse still, his interview in the NY Times Magazine demonstrates that he is an abject failure at representing the value of the University to the public. We cannot afford such an abysmal failure of leadership.

Yours,

Michael Salman
History, UCLA

Responses to the Big Man on Campus Interview: Excerpts

1. The timing of the interview couldn't be more disastrous; what I don't understand is how what is basically a corporate CEO was allowed to be interviewed without his staff of communications people and lawyers\ present to guide the questions and answers.

It is his Larry Summers moment in the fullest sense of the comparison?

Or a Bush-era public expression of private contempt without the fear of repercussions for blowing off faculty, students, parents, and Californians.

I also think there is a weird generational/Oedipal thing going on about this member of the Baby Boom generation that enjoyed the best of Cold War public education in the US, and now that it is retiring has declared  public education no longer a priority but that rather health care is (for the aging pop as well as others).
***
2. Dear UCMeP Faithful,

If you haven't yet heard, yesterday (Thursday) our illustrious leader, President Mark Yudof, gave an interview to the New York Times on the very day of the UC-wide Walkout. As always, his timing was impeccable and his comments, well, UCMeP could not have offered a better interview. We wish we could say this was written by UCMeP, but even we are not that gifted.

Please be aware, this is the person who is defending public education in front of the state of California. He is the public face of the UC.

For all of you who value public education, these facts should probably scare the sh*t out of you. We at the UC Movement for Efficient Privatization, on the other hand, are proud of his flippant attitude toward public education.
***
3. Don't know if you all have seen this but worth blogging about. The man is like a soviet commissar, he even looks the part.

***
4. The NY Times interview with Yudof just shows how little he cares about a one day walkout. It basically doesn't affect him.
 . . . We must face the fact that the time for pointless negotiations is over. Appeals to the UC administration and Sacramento are futile; instead, we appeal to each other, to the people with whom we are struggling, and not to those whom we struggle against...
Occupation is a tactic for escalating struggles, a tactic recently used at the Chicago Windows and Doors factory and at the New School in New York City. It can happen throughout California too. As undergraduates, graduate students, faculty, and staff, we call on everyone at the UC to support this occupation by continuing the walkouts and strikes into tomorrow, the next day, and for the indefinite future. We call on the people of California to occupy and escalate."
***
5. Sample draft to Deborah Solomon, NYT: As faculty here at the University of California, we are grateful that you brought out with your incisive questions the lack of vision, integrity, and even intelligence in the lamentable current administration of UC.  As his less than clever quips indicate, Mr. Yudof, a lawyer, obviously has an apres moi, le deluge attitude about education: he got HIS education, and can now make cavalier statements of a kind one would expec from Fox News, to the tune of  'education is a low priority'.
It certainly is a low priority for him and his cohorts who now, alas, direct the course of UC.  UC , for so many years a top university in this country, will be no longer not only because of "secular" tendencies of the lamentable state/legislature in California, but, more significantly, because the corporate types and bankers who have in essence commandeered the university and are steering it according to their investment interests.

***
6. In addition to contacting the regents, this interview should also be part of any literature we put out, any discussion of the no-confidence vote and all future recruitments to action....it is shameful and offensive . . . What a disgrace....

***
7. Granted, we are all fighting against the corporativization of the UC system and we are enraged at our CEO's insulting remarks on the NYT, but maybe we should also think about challenging the very legitimacy of this corporate leadership. We have grown accustomed to despise the idea that students are 'customers' but maybe we should begin to argue that students are not customers at all because they have primarily become 'shareholders' with a higher percentage of investment through their fees in the UC Corporation than the state. Hence, they have a collective right to elect Regents and President more than the Governor.
***
8. Dear so-called Regents of UC,

I am one of the cadavers in the UC cemetery that so-called President Yudof referred to in his recent interview to the NYT. I am writing to you because I am concerned with the state of President Yudof's health, and in particular with his hearing. He declared in that interview that he "listens" to the voices of us cadavers but is not heard by us. I am here to tell you that we have shouted very loud for months but neither he nor you have heard a thing. So, I am trying email because I trust his and your vision to be in better shape than your hearing. The message I and many other faculty, staff and students have been sending you is clear: with your actions this Summer and your recent announcement of new fee hikes you have lost whatever shred of legitimacy you have ever had. I no longer recognize any of you as "Regents" of anything, and I am therefore not asking you to reprimand so-called President Yudof for his insulting statements in that interview, but to simply step down collectively from the corporate positions you are occupying without legitimacy.
***
9. Yudof's insensitivity and callousness speak for themselves- We need a  President who uses shared governance and public education to enhance,  diminish UC despite the real problems we face
***
10. Deborah Solomon has given us a great gift. Let's make sure it is a gift that keeps on giving. As bad as what Larry Summers said, the BMOC is glibly and arrogantly dumping (and dumping on) the whole idea of public higher education. It is also profoundly and shockingly anti-intellectual.
***
11. (from a UC alumni and internationally recognized artist)
ok, serious question.
yudof, who does not look in these photos anything like the sobersided fellow in the messages he has been sending me . . . obviously is a happy go lucky clown impersonating a Catskills social director (though of rotting corpses, alas), very proud of himself, his humor, his anti intellectual shallowness and his rude origins.
So how come he feels so secure in his job that he can say shit like this without having his ass shoved out the door by slightly less than totally craven democratic politicians?
Is it that by now the fiscal structure of science (the only thing that matters, I guess, aside from poli sci and law, and those don't figure in this equation) is so dependent on corporate rather than state money that there is NO elected rep who considers the professoriate and student body to be constituents with clout?
And how DID he get that job?
help me help me i am drowwwning...

Senate Leader on Mark Yudof after One Year

Chris,

Let me try to make a case in favor of the current administration, as I see it. I think one of the most important things Pres. Yudof has accomplished has been to rebuild the Regents' confidence in the Office of the President and to help restore the respective governance roles of the two organizations to a more proper balance. Recall the situation 18 months or two years ago when we had a president who had essentially been fired by the Regents but was still wandering around. The university was being run by Rory Hume who was being kept on a very short leash by Regent Blum. The Regents were quite vocal in their criticisms of UCOP and spent much of their time struggling to deal with all the compliance rules that they had initiated in response to the compensation scandals of that period that were truly scandalous. Now they have delegated much of the transactional authority back to the president and are trying to work with him to figure out ways to have positive impacts in things like improving UC's advocacy strategies.

I believe Yudof has made some progress in stepping up our historically woeful external relations efforts, although this is the sort of thing that takes time, so we'll have to wait and see if this new initiative actually gains traction. But for example, his office and some of the regents have been actively lining up groups of business leaders in high tech, bio-tech, etc. to advocate for UC in Sacto. You may be familiar with ACA 4, Sen. Yee's attempt to get an initiative on the ballot to revoke UC's constitutional autonomy and put us under the direct control of the legislature. It is hard to imagine the voters ever approving that, given their disgust with the legislature, but it never got out of committee in the senate because of the lobbying efforts on our behalf by of a group of business tycoons organized by Yudof. As another example, the campus alumni associations have been mobilized to send out coordinated advocacy messages to their alumni mailing lists. For the first time I can recall, I received an email as a UCSB alum from our alumni association, not requesting money, but rather asking me to write my state representatives to protest the budget cuts. I'll admit it is difficult to see how we can make any significant headway as long as we have such a dysfunctional state government with republicans holding veto power over any tax increases and democrats unable to even agree among themselves about how to cut the prison budget. Too bad we can't figure out how to convince the legislators that being soft on higher ed is one of the deadly sins of politics. It seems like the only way to gain really substantial influence in Sacto is to mount a credible threat to the politicians' future electoral ambitions. That means lining up some of the individuals and organizations that bankroll campaigns in the state to add support for UC to the pledge checklists they get candidates to sign in exchange for campaign funds. The president and some of the Regents are in good positions to do this, and I believe they are starting to look for more opportunities.

With regard to the budget, I would say that UCOP is trying to figure out how to move us forward, but problems are large and the solutions difficult and unpopular. I have been on a joint senate/admin working group on budget that Pres. Yudof set up last fall or winter (co-chaired by Gene Lucas). It will now be folded into the new commission on the future of UC, I gather. We have looked at a number of ideas on raising revenues and cutting costs, and there are no magic bullets, as you might imagine. The increased fee for engineering courses was one of our suggestions, and I think it can be justified based on either costlier instructional needs or more job opportunities, or both. Another revenue source will be increasing undergrad out of state admits by modest amounts. Nothing new or earth-shaking, but basic stuff that will help offset diminishing state revenues. On the cost cutting side, most of the decisions devolve down to the level of the campuses where decisions about cutting programs reside. Perhaps the Gould commission will be able to articulate some overarching principles to guide the shrinkage and cutting, but most of hard work will still have to happen on the campuses. I don't think we would want it any other way. If you have any ideas that the rest of us haven't thought of, I would be glad to carry them forward. I'm not overly confident that the Gould commission and its associated working groups will actually accomplish anything substantial, but there will be a lot of discussion, debate and effort put into it by many people, which may be positive, in itself.

Finally, the furloughs. Nobody is happy about them, but the senate was not uniformly opposed to the furlough plan, per se. There were striking differences of opinion that tended to break along disciplinary and generational lines. The Academic council felt that there was honest, legitimate consultation by the president and provost and that they did respond by accepting a number of our recommendations about the specifics about the plan. We unanimously endorsed a statement to that effect at our July meeting. We obviously did not agree with the decision about furloughs on instructional days, but I feel there was honest consultation with the council on that, as well. They also consulted with the chancellors and EVCs who were almost unanimously strongly opposed to the council position (Henry and Gene went against their counterparts). Larry and Mark made the wrong choice from our perspective, but it was their choice to make and they weren't out on their own on it.

By a long-term senior Senate leader (not Harry, Larry, Dan, Mary, or Michael . . .)

President Yudof the undertaker

 By Ákos Róna-Tas, UCSD

Many of us looking at UCOP’s plans with nervous anticipation have been wondering what kind of undertaking President Yudof has been planning to rescue the University of California. Now we have his response: it is the funereal kind.

In an interview to be published in the New York Times Magazine this Sunday, President Yudof responds to questions from Deborah Solomon. Solomon’s interviews are always to the point, with an ironic touch. They read as witty repartees between the journalist and her discussion partners.

Solomon grills Yudof on his salary (no it is not $828,000, only $540,000, but with his pension it is more) and housing allowance ($10,000 rent per month), but this is not what disturbs me. Solomon also asked him about furloughs:

S: Already professors on all 10 U.C. campuses are taking required “furloughs,” to use a buzzword.
Y: Let me tell you why we used it. The faculty said “furlough” sounds more temporary than “salary cut,” and being president of the University of California is like being manager of a cemetery: there are many people under you, but no one is listening. I listen to them.

This is witty, but also revealing. Banish the thought that Yudof thinks a furlough is the same as a paycut, just that it sounds more temporary, at least to the faculty. Moreover, I appreciate the dark humor of director Yudof in a black suit and top hat and all of us six feet under.

What ruins the joke is what comes before it.  At the beginning of the interview, Solomon asks whether Yudof blames Governor Schwarzenegger for the financial crisis of UC. Here is Yudof’s response:

Y: I do not. This is a long-term secular trend across the entire country. Higher education is being squeezed out. It’s systemic. We have an aging population nationally. We have a lot of concern, as we should, with health care.

S: And education?
Y: The shine is off of it. It’s really a question of being crowded out by other priorities.

I understand that Yudof is not willing to confront Governor Schwarzenegger in an interview. He will have to work with the Terminator a bit longer: after all, cemeteries are downstream businesses. But here we can see Yudof’s theory for why we are in trouble. At this point things turn deadly serious, one may even say, macabre.

Yudof states that our troubles have nothing to do with politics; no point in fighting a political fight. Our crisis also should not be blamed on the economy. Waiting for the economy to turn around is also futile. No, our troubles are long term and are rooted in secular, demographic trends. We are a dying breed, because our students are.

I am not sure where Yudof got his facts. His own 2009-10 UC Budget projects growth in UC enrollment into the 2020s, although growth is predicted to be slower than it was in recent years.  The reason why our current efforts to cut enrollment are so contentious is precisely because there are lots of students eager to get into UC but cannot. Body count is not our problem.

Maybe what Yudof means is that as the population grows older, healthcare has become such a prominent concern that it naturally eclipses everything else. While a useful if predictable argument for a healthcare lobbyist, it is odd to hear this from the president of UC.  Using this same logic there is no issue—from greenhouse gases to terrorism—that could not be argued to be crowded out by a graying population and their healthcare needs. One might think, in fact, that a graying population puts bigger pressure on the productivity of the younger generations who must pay for their retirement and healthcare expenses, calling for more higher education.

What seems to follow from Yudof’s demographic theory of higher education is simple: we must downsize the educational functions of UC and make do with less.  It also follows that if healthcare is where the money goes, we should turn our already extensive health services into an even larger part of the UC enterprise.

The project Yudof seems to be planning is not to fight Sacramento, not even to prepare for an eventual economic upturn, but to become an undertaker. His plan seems to be to put the public university of Clark Kerr in the grave, burying much of its traditional core.  To ride this secular wave of aging America, UC will need to offer more medical care and maybe -- why not? -- to provide one-stop-shopping, also funeral and cemetery services.

Akos Rona-Tas

UC San Diego

Berkeley Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor Thank Campus for Protests

We would like to express our appreciation to our campus community - faculty, staff, students, and alumni - for the orderly, peaceful and effective way in which the September 24th budget protest actions were held on and around campus.  While there was large participation in the day's actions, they occurred with minimal disruption to university operations and to our responsibilities to our students.  Berkeley is proud of being the home of the Free Speech Movement and yesterday's protests exemplified the best of our tradition of effective civil action.

Your actions have sent a clear and important message to our legislators and to the California public that the State's disinvestment in public higher education must stop. We hope that we can build on these actions together to continue to inform the public and the State legislature that cuts to the University of California undermine our State's future and that it is in the interests of all of the people of our great State of California to reinvest in public higher education.

Robert J. Birgeneau
Chancellor


George W. Breslauer
Executive Vice-Chancellor & Provost

A Risky Revival

By John Authers
Financial Times
September 25, 209

This should have been a week for traders in the stock market to feel good about life. US stocks have rallied by close to 60 per cent in barely six months since they hit bottom in March. The Federal Reserve meanwhile pronounced this week that “economic activity has picked up” – the most confident language the central bank has used for some time.

But Crispin Odey, one of London’s most respected hedge fund managers, was seeing things differently. He chose Wednesday, the day of the Fed’s pronouncement, to ruminate, both in a note to clients and in the Financial Times, that the rally was “entering a bubble phase”. The word “bubble” is highly emotive but Mr Odey could justify it. He argued that markets were being distorted by governments’ deliberate attempts to push down the price of money by buying bonds, a policy known as quantitative easing. “At some point the quantitative easing will have to come to an end,” he said, “but, until it does, this bull market is sponsored by [Her Majesty’s Government] and everyone should enjoy it.”

The remarks struck a chord. Stocks endured a sharp sell-off after his words . The fear that the unprecedented supply of cheap money from governments is creating another bubble has been circulating in Wall Street and the City of London for months.

To some, this seems alarmist. History is full of examples of strong rallies after big sell-offs – it is all part of the “physics” of markets. The all-time highs for developed market stocks, set in 2007, are not in sight. On conventional valuation measures, stocks are nowhere near as expensive as at the top of past investment bubbles. Also, the economic “free-fall” at the end of last year appears to have been halted. In addition, the Fed’s pronouncement signalled interest rates will remain low for a while – a sweet spot for risky assets such as stocks. A strong recovery for share prices since March, when there was a real fear of a second Great Depression, seems reasonable.

But the question of whether this is a real recovery or a bubble must still be asked, and there are worrying signs. The rally has been achieved with global economic growth barely above zero and unemployment still rising. The S&P 500 index of US stocks is already far above the forecasts nine out of 10 Wall Street strategists have in place for the end of the year, according to a Bloomberg survey. Concerns are prevalent that US consumers will not return to their old buying habits because of high unemployment and the debts they need to pay off.

There are also concerns that China, the other leading source of growth, has achieved that only by stoking lending – notably, Chinese stocks sold off sharply in August when authorities hinted at tightening lending.

The speed of the rally is itself cause for concern. Historically, big sell-offs have typically been followed by big bounces. But as measured by the S&P 500, the current rally is stronger after six months than any predecessor, including those that followed the lowest points of the market in 1932, 1974 and 1982.

Relationships between markets also imply unhealthy levels of speculation. Currency and stock markets had minimal correlations before the crisis took hold in 2007, while oil and stocks were usually inversely correlated. But oil and stocks have been rising in tandem this year, just as they fell together during the crisis, while the correlations between the dollar and stock markets remain remarkably close.

The implication of such correlations is alarming. Tim Lee, of Pi Economics in Connecticut, puts it this way: “[Since early 2007] 40 per cent of all movement in the S&P 500 can be predicted or explained from the movement of the yen and vice versa. If we assume, quite reasonably, that the yen and the S&P 500 should be fundamentally unrelated instruments, this implies a breakdown of efficient price discovery in the markets.”

So does this qualify as a bubble? The classic definition came from the economist Charles Kindleberger in his 1978 book Manias, Panics and Crashes. For him, a bubble is a phenomenon of mass psychology, and refers to the last stage of an investment mania, when assets are bought “not because of the rate of return on the investment but in anticipation that the asset or security can be sold to someone else at an even higher price”. The bubble bursts when there is no longer a “greater fool” ready to pay too much for the asset.

Thus, in a true bubble, stocks are wildly overvalued compared with their fundamental measures, such as their earnings or the value of the assets on their balance sheets. But conventional valuation measures of stocks suggest they are still far from a true bubble. US stocks are trading at a multiple of 18.7 times their average earnings for the past 10 years, according to the data kept by Professor Robert Shiller of Yale University. Historically, extremes in cyclical price/earnings ratios have accurately signalled long-term market peaks and troughs. The cyclical p/e stood at 27 immediately before the crisis in 2007, for example, and reached 43 at the peak of the internet boom. So it looks premature to say stocks are in a bubble.

. . .

But an argument that this is an incipient bubble, carrying real risk that a mania will develop, is easier to sustain. First, according to Kindleberger, bubbles are driven by cheap credit. With US interest rates at zero, credit is very cheap. Second, many investors seem to be using bubble-like logic; they believe others will soon be prepared to buy even more.

There are true “bulls” who believe the global economy will recover strongly from here, bringing up corporate earnings in its wake. But others focus on the cash that has been on the sidelines, and on the pressures on fund managers who want to avoid the embarrassment of having stayed out of the market during the rally.

Mark Lapolla, of Sixth Man Research in California, who has called aggressively for investment in the market, says he “cannot emphasise strongly enough just how big a role simple game theory will play”. He argues it is large equity mutual fund managers who are driving the market. Most have done well this year, and are ahead of the benchmark stock market indices against which they are compared. “Therefore the incentive is to not lose ground rather than gain it,” he says, so they will stick closely to stocks in the main indices to protect their year-end bonuses.

Jeremy Grantham, co-founder of GMO, a large Boston-based fund manager, says: “Fund managers are simply not prepared to take the career risk of being wrong for a little while and losing business.” Thus they are herding into the index, though Mr Grantham – who advocated buying at the bottom in March – already considers stocks too expensive given the many risks in the world economy.

Another concern comes from more recent history. After the internet bubble in 2000, world stocks endured a bear market, falling 49 per cent before hitting a bottom shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. They then enjoyed a four-year rally in which the main stock indices doubled. It was rational, and successful, to be in the market from 2003 to 2007 but with hindsight it was a “fools’ rally”, triggered by cheap money, as Alan Greenspan’s Fed cut its target interest rate to 1 per cent. This fuelled a bubble in mortgages and housing.

The 2003 bounce came when stocks were not cheap – they traded at a multiple to cyclical earnings of about 21, according to Prof Shiller, when at the bottom of previous bear markets this multiple had fallen below 6. So it looks as though cheap money stopped markets taking all the medicine they needed. Similarly the current rally began with stocks trading at a multiple of 13 times the previous 10 years’ earnings. This was the cheapest in 21 years but still double the lows seen after previous great sell-offs, implying cheap money had once again saved prices before all speculative excess had been cleaned out of the system.

. . .

The danger, in this scenario, is that lenders lose confidence in the creditworthiness of governments, which could cause rates to rise and spark a renewed sell-off. But that is not imminent.

Just as it made sense to stay in the market while the booming mortgage market kept credit unnaturally cheap, it may make sense to do so while state intervention keeps credit unnaturally cheap. And when bonds and cash pay so little, raising the risks of inflation in the future, the rational response is to buy assets that generate more reliable cash flows, such as stocks; or that act as a hedge against inflation, such as commodities. On this logic, investors may as well heed Mr Odey and “enjoy the bubble”.

They should do so now because, if this theory is right, the denouement will be painful. David Bowers of Absolute Strategy Research in London, who has been bullish for a while and advises staying in stocks, says: “It’s the last game of pass the parcel. When the tech bubble burst, balance sheet problems were passed to the household sector [through mortgages]. This time they are being passed to the public sector [through governments’ assumption of banks’ debts]. There’s nobody left to pass it to in the future.”

Riverside UC-AFT Statement on 9/24 Events

Dear Colleagues:

I would like to extend my congratulations to all of those who were generous with their time and energy during the many activities on the 24th. The commitment you demonstrated was a powerful one, and I think our collective statement will benefit not only UPTE but also ourselves and hopefully the most vulnerable in our ranks). Even in the midst of significant heat (in a physical sense that is), many of our members were willing to express a clear commitment to the cause of education and the University of California. Protesting can be a profoundly challenging activity, one that forces us out of our individual comfort zones. In this climate, however, it is necessary and one of our best political weapons that we can employ to safeguard our ranks and the educational mission of the U.C.

The media coverage is starting to emerge, and while there are some distortions (mostly in marginal markets), much of the mainstream coverage does appear to be positive in nature.

I was particularly pleased to see Chancellor White address the participants of the protests in a manner that suggested respect and perhaps even empathy. He stated that he supported faculty in their decisions to walk out of their classes, and he expressed frustration over the situation which the UC now confronts. While I still vehemently contend that the UC has the resources to address this current fiscal crisis, I was encouraged that our chancellor at least acknowledged the discontent that plagues the campus -- this is a far better reaction than we would have ever encountered with our former chancellor (Cordova).

Our efforts will now turn towards other projects including membership drives and student outreach.

I would like to take a brief moment to thank some of the people who were especially helpful in the preparation for the 24th. Jennifer Ramos, our vice president, exerted a tremendous effort to communicate with the undergraduate population. Sandy Barringer was instrumental in the organization of the actual event by communicating with a host of organizations on campus and generating signs for the event. Stephanie Kay offered valuable direction regarding curricular suggestions. Wallace Cleaves, Brian Linard, and Don Jobe all contributed in sundry ways that helped make this event run smoothly. Finally, Josh Fenton and Kate Watt were helpful with securing water and generating flyers.

Again, I offer my congratulations to all who made this event one that will be a part of UC history. Today, you should be proud of your contributions as sentinels of public education.

In solidarity,

Paul A.J. Beehler, Ph.D.
President, local 1966

UCI LAW SCHOOL PETITION IN SUPPORT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION AND SEPTEMBER 24TH PROTESTS

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE SCHOOL OF LAW PETITION

September 24, 2009

We are privileged and proud to be students in the University of California’s newest school, the School of Law at the University of California, Irvine. We are keenly aware that our School has opened at a time of economic crisis for the State of California and for our university. Our new institution would not have been possible without the generosity of many donors and the dedication of the founding faculty and administration. Nor would it have been possible without the commitment and resources of UCI in particular and the University of California in general. As members of the state-wide community of the University of California, we stand in solidarity with the faculty and staff whose salaries have been cut and whose jobs are in peril; with undergraduates whose class sizes have been increased; with graduate students who have lost their funding or are being asked to teach larger sections; and with those who may not have access to first-rate education because of increased tuition. We support the September 24th action and add our voices to those calling to defend public education in California. We call on the Regents and administration of the University of California to cease layoffs, furloughs, and pay cuts for salaries under $40,000 and to disclose the UC budget.

Edgar Aguilasocho
Ben Beezy
Sarah Bennington
Theresa Bischel
Adam Brauner
Jackie Brenneman
Paddy Browne
Joni Carrasco
Denny Chan
Selwyn Chu
Acrivi Coromelas
Chris Dalbey
Lauren Davis
Yimeng Dou
Mohammed Elayan
Natalie Family
Joshua Felice
Jessica Glynn
Brian Hardingham
Katherine Harrison
Alisa Hartz
Christina Kazarian
David Koch
Sam Lam
Jane Lee
Vivian Lee
Susan Lewis
Samrah Mahmoud
Erica Maloney
Colin McGrath
Denisha McKenzie
Greg Mintz
Diana Palacios
Daniel Phan
Matt Plunkett
David Rodwin
Emma Soichet
Lori Speak
Ryan Stauffer
Tracey Steele
Jean Su
Xenia Tashlitsky
Flor Tataje
Irina Trasovan
Jennafer Tryck
Jeffrey Wachs
Ari Yampolsky
Christina Zabat-Fran
Eric Zhou

The UC Budget Crisis and its Effects on the Early Childhood Education Program (ECEP) Community at UC Berkeley

Quality and affordable childcare is important for the recruitment, retention, academic success and well-being of UC faculty, students, and staff.  UC Berkeley has failed to offer AFFORDABLE childcare for its students, faculty, staff, and the campus community at large. 
The UC budget crisis has been felt for a long time and has had devastating effects on the ECEP community over the years and more recently this past week. 

On Monday, September 21st, the parents whose children attend UC Berkeley Childcare were notified that Girton Hall is to close without warning on September 28, 2009 due to low enrollment. Girton Hall is one of four preschool centers on the UC Berkeley campus.  Although all children were offered placements in other UC Berkeley childcare centers, parents were not asked where they would prefer their children be placed.  According to the letter, the under-enrollment was due to "many families losing their jobs due to the economy"; however, parents have long complained that admissions
decisions to the UC Berkeley childcare program are made at the last minute, sometimes after the school year has already started, when parents have already had to put in place alternate childcare arrangements.   The program administration, which has in the past made it clear that the program is
moving away from offering care for infants and younger preschoolers in an effort to become financially independent, cited a desire to open a bridge Kindergarten in the Girton Hall space as a reason for choosing that center for closure. 

Thirteen (13) children and the staff of Girton Hall will be transferred to other programs.   Program administration has not responded to parents' requests for a meeting about Girton Hall's closure or to a request to keep the center open until the winter break to allow the children a more natural
transition into their new childcare environment.    *    *    * 

The tuition to attend any of the UCB Childcare Programs is as follows: $1815 - infants $1660 - toddlers $1375 - preschool-aged children 32-56 months. This represents approximately an 11.5% increase over last year and puts UC Berkeley's tuition on par with that of private for-profit childcare
centers.  The cost to attend one of the ECEP childcare programs is prohibitive even for faculty and staff who earn over $65,000.    For low-income CAL students there are subsidies, but they are increasingly more difficult to obtain.  Both parents must be either working full-time or
engaged in full-time study.  Recently, there has been instituted a requirement that the student-parent must maintain a certain GPA and carry a full load.  

Student families have been crucial in the formation of the ECEP.  Compared to *all* other top-tiered universities in the country for students with families, ECEP's mission is or used to be distinctive: to provide affordable service to student families. Recently however, student families are the group who has been most affected by the fee increases and (more generally) ECEP's questionable actions for balancing its budget: more specifically, (a) subsidized spots are more scarce compared to two years
ago (due to different allocation of funds per spot), and (b) unsubsidized student fees went from $775/month in Fall 2006 to up to $1375--$1815/month (depending on age group), a staggering increase of 80--135%. 

The ECEP programs that were once impacted with a waiting list of 300-plus are now placing advertisements on the Berkeley Parents Network.   Does this mean that there is not a need for such childcare services?  Of course it does not. Rather the move to open up the programs to the general (non-UC affiliated) public, signals a shift in de-prioritizing affordability and accessibility in favor of increasing revenues.  

ECEP has had to do more with less for a long time and difficult decisions have had to be made. Unfortunately exacerbating the situation has also been a mismanaged and weak administration that consistently has failed to be transparent in its decision-making and to involve parents.  The teachers at
ECEP remain stellar and it seems now more so than ever that their jobs are at risk.   The closing of the childcare centers at UC Santa Cruz does not bode well for the ECEP community and for all UC faculty, staff, and student body who are parents.  UC Berkeley parents are left to wonder whether they
will be the next ones to receive one week's notice that their child's childcare center is closing. 

Report by Susette Min, Melinda Pilling, Gilad Arnold

The UC Budget Crisis and its Effects on the Early Childhood Education
Program (ECEP) Community at UC Berkeley

Quality and affordable childcare is important for the recruitment,
retention, academic success and well-being of UC faculty, students, and
staff.  UC Berkeley has failed to offer AFFORDABLE childcare for its
students, faculty, staff, and the campus community at large. 

The UC budget crisis has been felt for a long time and has had devastating
effects on the ECEP community over the years and more recently this past
week. 

On Monday, September 21st, the parents whose children attend UC Berkeley
Childcare were notified that Girton Hall is to close without warning on
September 28, 2009 due to low enrollment. Girton Hall is one of four
preschool centers on the UC Berkeley campus.  Although all children were
offered placements in other UC Berkeley childcare centers, parents were not
asked where they would prefer their children be placed.  According to the
letter, the under-enrollment was due to "many families losing their jobs
due to the economy"; however, parents have long complained that admissions
decisions to the UC Berkeley childcare program are made at the last minute,
sometimes after the school year has already started, when parents have
already had to put in place alternate childcare arrangements.   The program
administration, which has in the past made it clear that the program is
moving away from offering care for infants and younger preschoolers in an
effort to become financially independent, cited a desire to open a bridge
Kindergarten in the Girton Hall space as a reason for choosing that center
for closure. 

Thirteen (13) children and the staff of Girton Hall will be transferred to
other programs.   Program administration has not responded to parents'
requests for a meeting about Girton Hall's closure or to a request to keep
the center open until the winter break to allow the children a more natural
transition into their new childcare environment.    *    *    * 

The tuition to attend any of the UCB Childcare Programs is as follows:
$1815 - infants $1660 - toddlers $1375 - preschool-aged children 32-56
months. This represents approximately an 11.5% increase over last year and
puts UC Berkeley's tuition on par with that of private for-profit childcare
centers.  The cost to attend one of the ECEP childcare programs is
prohibitive even for faculty and staff who earn over $65,000.    For
low-income CAL students there are subsidies, but they are increasingly more
difficult to obtain.  Both parents must be either working full-time or
engaged in full-time study.  Recently, there has been instituted a
requirement that the student-parent must maintain a certain GPA and carry a
full load.  

Student families have been crucial in the formation of the ECEP.  Compared
to *all* other top-tiered universities in the country for students with
families, ECEP's mission is or used to be distinctive: to provide
affordable service to student families. Recently however, student families
are the group who has been most affected by the fee increases and (more
generally) ECEP's questionable actions for balancing its budget: more
specifically, (a) subsidized spots are more scarce compared to two years
ago (due to different allocation of funds per spot), and (b)unsubsidized
student fees went from $775/month in Fall 2006 to up to $1375--$1815/month
(depending on age group), a staggering increase of 80--135%. 

The ECEP programs that were once impacted with a waiting list of 300-plus
are now placing advertisements on the Berkeley Parents Network.   Does this
mean that there is not a need for such childcare services?  Of course it
does not. Rather the move to open up the programs to the general (non-UC
affiliated) public, signals a shift in de-prioritizing affordability and
accessibility in favor of increasing revenues.  

ECEP has had to do more with less for a long time and difficult decisions
have had to be made. Unfortunately exacerbating the situation has also been
a mismanaged and weak administration that consistently has failed to be
transparent in its decision-making and to involve parents.  The teachers at
ECEP remain stellar and it seems now more so than ever that their jobs are
at risk.   The closing of the childcare centers at UC Santa Cruz does not
bode well for the ECEP community and for all UC faculty, staff, and student
body who are parents.  UC Berkeley parents are left to wonder whether they
will be the next ones to receive one week's notice that their child's
childcare center is closing. 

Report by Susette Min, Melinda Pilling, Gilad Arnold

USC Faculty Letter Supporting Sept 24 Day of Action

 We, the undersigned faculty and graduate students of the University of Southern California, write to express our solidarity with the University of California professors, students and employees in their system-wide walk-out, 24 September, 2009.

The walk-out has been called in response to the UC administration’s handling of budget cuts over the summer, which have harmed the university’s mission, disproportionately affected students and lower-paid workers, and compromised the University’s principle of shared governance. The University of California is a cornerstone of social and economic progress, and these cuts reflect a massive failure of our larger economic and political system.  Nonetheless, the cuts have been planned, announced and implemented after minimal consultation with the UC community. They fail to take into consideration numerous alternative budgetary measures that could meet the budget shortfall with greater fairness and less impact upon UC’s capacity to fulfill its core educational tasks.  The upper administration has flouted the traditions of shared governance with faculty, without which no university can achieve or maintain a high quality of research or teaching, and it has imposed furloughs and layoffs upon its lowest-paid workers rather than generating these funds through more substantial reductions to the size of the management and to executive compensation.  We repudiate such measures, no matter which institutions they affect.

But we are not concerned only with the manner through which the cuts have been proposed and implemented and the negative example it presents to academic institutions nationally.  We are concerned that these cuts represent a further downward step towards the irrevocable decline and steady corporatization of the University of California.  We are concerned that the UC’s administration is willing to sacrifice the internationally recognized quality and accessibility of its campuses for increased dependence on down-sizing and private funding.  Rather than engage in a serious reevaluation of budgetary priorities or take up the political fight for the survival and reinvigoration of public education, they have opted for cuts, increased fees, and corporate funding.

In his recent speech to a joint session of Congress, President Obama invoked the example of the role that public universities play in setting a standard and a model for the private universities.  As faculty and students of a private university, we thoroughly concur with that observation.  Public education—free as it has been or should be from the interests that inevitably come attached to private funding, however philanthropic, and free as it can be from the demands of fee-based revenue—has established throughout California and the nation an example of disinterested learning and research.  It has helped to guarantee the autonomy of academic pursuits and the possibility of exploring avenues of research and teaching that do not ultimately depend on their immediately measurable value, either socially or economically.  In doing so, it has set a standard which any private university that lays claims to be a first-rate research university must and should emulate.

We believe that a well-funded and faculty-led system of public education is the cornerstone of all educational quality, private and public, in the state and the nation.  Without a vigorous public university education, available to all at reasonable cost, no academic institutions will thrive as they should. We therefore stand in solidarity with faculty, students and employees of the University of California in their walk-out and in their ongoing campaign against the cuts in California’s historically leading university system. We call on the UC administration, and in particular on President Yudof, to negotiate in good faith with their representatives in order to arrive at a fairer and more far-sighted budgetary solution.  And we call on politicians and policy-makers state-wide to consider the dismal effects of any further decline in UC’s standards and reputation for the state as a whole.


Elinor Accampo
History

Paul Adler
Business

Deborah Alkamano

American Studies and Ethnicity



Lois Banner

History and Gender Studies



Rick Berg

English



Brandon Best

American Studies and Ethnicity



Brent Blair

Theatre



Sheila Briggs

Religion and Gender Studies



Jolie Chea

American Studies and Ethnicity



Jih-Fei Cheng

American Studies and Ethnicity



Araceli Esparza

American Studies and Ethnicity



Vincent Farenga

Classics



Joshua Goldstein

History



Macarena Gomez-Barris

American Studies and Ethnicity and Social Science



Sandy Green

Business



Ariela J. Gross

Law



Larry Gross

Communications



Judith Halberstam

American Studies and Ethnicity and English



William Handley

English



Carol Hofmann

French



Janet Hoskins

Anthropology



Mark Irwin

English



Jane Naomi Iwamura

Religion and American Studies & Ethnicity



David James

Cinema



Peggy Kamuf

Comparative Literature



Colin Keaveney

French and Italian



Robin Kelley

American Studies and Ethnicity and History



Tony Kemp

English



Priscilla Leiva

American Studies and Ethnicity



Akira Lippit

Comparative Literature, CNTV and East Asian Languages



David Lloyd

English



Alvaro Marquez

American Studies and Ethnicity



Tara McPherson

Cinema



Natania Meeker

Comparative Literature



Celeste Menchaca

American Studies and Ethnicity



Claudia Moatti

Classics



Viet Nguyen

English and American Studies and Ethnicity



Laura Pulido

American Studies and Ethnicity



Jessica Quizar

American Studies and Ethnicity



Shana L. Redmond

American Studies and Ethnicity and English



Abigail Rosas

American Studies and Ethnicity



John Carlos Rowe

American Studies and Ethnicity and English



Margaret Salazar

American Studies and Ethnicity



Sriya Shrestha

American Studies and Ethnicity





Bruce Smith

English



Nomi Stolzenberg

Law


Karen Tongson

English and Gender Studies



Yushi Yamazaki

American Studies and Ethnicity

Saving UCSD Teach-In

Saving UCSD Teach-in

Teach-in on UC Budget Crisis
Thursday, 12:30pm
Courtyard of the Pepper Canyon Bldg (6th College -- adjacent to the Gilman Parking Stradegy)

Come learn what the UC Crisis means for you, friends, and family.

What is the the impact of the UC Budget Crisis on students, parents, faculty and staff?

Why are fees going up 44%?

What is the history of the crisis and why is it hitting us now?

How long will it last?

Does this spell the end of UC as a public institution open to all Californians?

What can you do?

UC Riverside Day of Action 9/24

SUBJECT: UCR DAY OF ACTION: 09/24


Are you concerned…



… that students are facing 3 fee hikes in 2 years totaling over 40%, including a mid-year fee increase of 15%?

… that departments have been forced to cut TA slots by as much at 10 percent?

… that staff who support low-income and middle-income families are facing furloughs and pay cuts as much as 8%?

… that a UC education is becoming less and less affordable and accessible to California's residents?



On Thursday, September 24th, thousands of faculty, staff, and students from all UC campuses will join together in observing a Day of Action. This Day of Action has the support of:

-         over 100 faculty at UCR and nearly 1,000 systemwide

-         the system-wide University of California Students Association of over 200,000 members,

-         over 1,000 graduate students in the UC system

-         UPTE, representing 12,000 University Professional and Technical Employees, and

-         concerned parents, alumni, and many more community members.



The UCR Day of Action holds as its goals:

1) the preservation of access to affordable public education,

2) the protection of employees who earn the least, and

3) the restoration of transparency and shared governance in the UC system.



If you support any of these goals, PLEASE COME OUT ON THURSDAY!!



HERE IS WHAT IS HAPPENING THAT DAY:



TEACH-IN: Speakers, hip-hop theater, and rallies from 10am to 3pm. The teach-in will occur at the corner of Canyon Crest and University Drive.



STRIKE: UPTE, representing 12,000 University Professional and Technical Employees, will strike and picket on 9/24. At UCR, the picket line is at the campus entrance at Canyon Crest and University.



STUDENT AND FACULTY WALKOUT: Nearly 1000 UC faculty, including more than 100 so far from UCR, have chosen to participate in the day's activities.  The UC Student Association will participate in the walkout and is calling on all its members to get involved.

SAVE the University: Berkeley Faculty Teach-in Against the Cuts

Wednesday, September 23, 7-9 PM
Wheeler Auditorium
*
Speakers:
Ananya Roy, Professor, City and Regional Planning
Kevin Padian Professor, Integrative Biology
Catherine Cole, Professor, Theater, Dance, and Performance Studies
Wendy Brown, Professor, Political Science
Robert Reich, Professor, School of Public Policy
Moderator: Peter Glazer, SAVE Co-chair, Associate Professor, Theater, Dance and Performance Studies

*SOLIDARITY RALLY on Sproul Plaza
Thursday, September 24, 12-2 PM
Sponsored by the Solidarity Alliance

*T.J. Clark, Professor, History of Art
Percy Hintzen, Professor, African American Studies
Isaac Miller, undergraduate, CalSERVE
Katherine Sherwood, Professor, Art Practice
Mary June Flores, undergraduate, CalSERVE
Ramon Castellblanch, Professor, Health Education, SFSU
Katherine Lee, Lecturer, College Writing
Claudette Begin, CUE
Joi Barrios, lecturer, Ethnic Studies
Rob Valdes, undergraduate, SWAT
Blanca Missé, graduate student, French
speakers from UPTE and AFSCME

Talk to your colleagues.  Meet as a group.  Faculty should gather on the south side of Wheeler at 11:50 to walk into Sproul in unity. Show our strength.


On behalf of SAVE Coordinating Council: Peter Glazer, Suzanne Guerlac, Gregory Levine, Nelson Maldonado-Torres, Scott Saul, Shannon Steen, Alan Tansman, Barrie Thorne, Anne Wagner, Dick Walker

Presentation by UC Berkeley Faculty to the Associated Students of the University of California

WEBCAST: FACULTY PERSPECTIVES ON THE CURRENT UC BUDGET CRISIS

(recorded 9/16/09)

Prof. Ananya Roy / City & Regional Planning
What is planned for September 24, and how can students get involved?


Prof. George P. Lakoff / Linguistics
How did we get in this mess? Prop 13 and the larger historic context

Prof. Chris Kutz / School of Law
Chair, Berkeley Division, Academic Senate
In addressing our current problems, what is the role of the Academic Senate, shared governance and the faculty?

Senior Lecturer Alan Karras / Political Economy (IASTP)
How does the budget crises affect lecturers, and through them, students?

Prof. Brian Barsky / Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences
Show Me the Money -- Student Fees and Intercollegiate Athletics

Prof. Fiona Doyle / Materials Science and Engineering
Vice Chair, Berkeley Division, Academic Senate
Educating Californians on the value of the University of California

Prof. Catherine M. Cole / Theatre, Dance and Performance Studies
Why should this crisis matter to students? What’s at stake here?

"It Used to be Free" Q & A on Budget Crisis

What is so special about the UC system that is worth saving?
The University of California is a one-of-a-kind university system that offers affordable, quality education at multiple high-ranking campuses. Two of its campuses, UCB and UCLA (along with the University of Virginia) are the only universities in the U.S. World and News Report’s top 25 ranking with tuition below $10,000. UCB, UCSD, and UCLA are the top three in Washington Monthly’s ranking, which is based on Social Mobility (recruiting and graduating low-income students), Research (producing cutting edge scholarship and PhDs), and Service (encouraging students to give something back to their country). Yet, the state’s per-student spending for education at UC, adjusted for inflation and enrollment growth, has fallen nearly 40% since 1990—from $15,860 in 1990 to $9,560 today in current, inflation-adjusted dollars. The central document guiding higher education policy in California has been the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education, which specified the coordinated roles of UC, CSU and the community colleges and established the system that promised every California student an affordable (initially free) seat at an appropriate institution of higher education. The Master Plan clearly established higher education as a public good provided by the state for its citizens, and this plan has been extremely successful. But now the Master Plan is in the process of being shredded by both state defunding and administrative mismanagement by recent UC Regents and Presidents (see Q&A on UC Budget Crisis handout).

What is being threatened by defunding and mismanagement?
The quality of your education is threatened by increased class sizes, a greater difficulty enrolling in courses, fewer discussion sections and seminars, reduced access to labs, a potential closure of libraries and research centers, and shortened library hours. The damage this year’s cuts have done in a single blow to the UC system national and international reputation will also take many years to repair. The university’s reputation is built on its faculty, and UC has been remarkably successful in its efforts to compete with other universities (including the Ivy League) for faculty who are at the forefront of innovative thinking and groundbreaking research. The decline in state funding of faculty teaching and research may lead to not only the loss of this competiveness but also a decline in research conducted for the public good. Finally, plans to make up for the funding shortfall through a sharp increase in fees, the increased enrollment of non-California residents and international students who pay higher fees, and differential tuition for high-cost majors like engineering (and possibly even preferred campuses) will radically transform the university’s pillars of access and affordability.

But isn’t all this the unintentional result of the fact that the state is broke?
Yes and no, since the problem is not only economic but also political. Throughout his term in office, Governor Schwarzenegger has cut state support for higher education and sought to shift most of its costs to its immediate users, students and their families. In 2004, California’s higher education leaders accepted the Governor’s framework. The then President of UC, Bob Dynes, and his counterpart at CSU, Charles Reed, signed the “Higher Education Compact: Agreement Between Governor Schwarzenegger, the University of California, and the California State University 2005-06 through 2010-11.” The Compact represented a fundamental shift in the model for supporting higher education in California: this abandoned the view of higher education as a public good and redefined it as a private good. The University accepted a $169 million budget cut (out of its $4.4 billion core budget) committed to fundamentally shift financing away from the state general fund and onto private sources such as student fees and wealthy donors. The Schwarzenegger-Dynes-Reed Compact states, “In order to help maintain quality and enhance academic and research programs, UC will continue to seek additional private resources and maximize other fund sources available to the University to support basic programs.” Therefore, the large annual fee increases over recent years are not short term responses to unanticipated fiscal problems, but implementation of the Compact’s plan to increase fees every year at least as fast as the rise in personal income, which is about twice the rate of inflation. Because incomes have increased mostly among the wealthy this policy made higher education less affordable for most Californians. Moreover, while large, fee increases have not compensated for the cuts that UC and CSU accepted. The result: a large drop in the money available to finance core functions. The net result has been a substantial and accelerating decline in the quality of our students’ educational experience – growing class sizes, fewer courses, greater difficulty enrolling in courses, fewer teaching assistants and less student access to labs.

If the Compact was so bad, why did UC and CSU leaders accept it?
The first reason was that Governor Schwarzenegger was threatening even bigger cuts if UC and CSU leaders rejected the Compact. More importantly, cognizant UC (and, presumably CSU) budget officials knew that there would be a major budget crisis starting around 2008, and believed that the Compact would protect UC and CSU from large cuts at that time. However, when the anticipated budget crisis came in 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger simply reneged on his own deal and imposed another massive $1.4 billion in 2008 and 2009.

Why isn’t anyone in UC’s leadership advocating for restoring the Master Plan?
The expectation at UC Office of the President and the Regents has been that state funding will continue to fall. (The policy focus of the Regents and other leaders has been to accommodate UC to a privatized model, which will mean continuing declines in quality and access. The debate over public higher education should not be framed as a debate over how to allocate scarce state resources during difficult times, but as what it actually is: an ideological debate over the public value of higher education. The central policy document guiding higher education policy in California has been the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education, which specified the coordinated roles of UC, CSU and the community colleges and established the system that promised every California student an affordable (initially free) seat at an appropriate institution of higher education. The Master Plan clearly established higher education as a public good provided by the state for its citizens. While fees have increased over time since then, the Compact represents the first time that UC accepted the idea that the costs of higher education should be shifted from public onto private sources. The real question is: Should higher education be treated as a public good (as envisioned in the Master Plan for Higher Education) or should it be viewed as a private good to be paid for by its customers (students and their families) and voluntary private donors? It is time for those in positions of power and responsibility at UC to advocate for real restoration of the Master Plan for Higher Education in a strong and consistent way. This is the necessary first step in changing the political environment and rebuilding higher education as a public good for all Californians.

What can I do?
Education needs to be restored to being a top priority for the state of California. We have to ask ourselves where our priorities lie when the state pays $49,000 per prison inmate and less than $14,000 per UC student. Voicing your opposition to fee increases is only half the battle; the quality of your education also has to be preserved through an immediate restoration of state funding to the amount promised in the Compact.

Begin a letter-writing campaign to the governor and state legislators. A sample letter can be
found here: http://www.ucforcalifornia.org/uc4ca/issues/alert/?alertid=13940331
Be informed by joining Option 4 (http://option4.ning.com/), an informal network for the UCSB community.