Dear Divco:
Here are some very brief notes from the Listening Forum
One observation. The Working Committees are not giving up much. They are very vague about what issues they are addressing. Very Important—the calendar has changed—Top two or three priorities to be presented in March—final deadline early June (after the students have left?)
Short protest statement at beginning by a small group of students—otherwise very peaceful and civil
In order of presentation;
1.Birgenau—welcome, etc. Wants to maintain pre-eminence of Berkeley
2. Mary Croughan—Chair of working strategies working group and member of the Commission
Her working group is looking at: 1.role of research at UC—impact of graduate education—graduate student research and studies
2.research instruction
3.h.ow to retain and recruit top faculty
4.business/industry partnerships
meeting with everyone—including NSF, NIH and industries
3. Bob Jacobsen—Access and affordability
His group is looking at where affordability has fallen short—how to improve that in the future—didn’t say much
4.Keith Williams—Education and curriculum—
Big budget problem—delivery of education –also chair of system-wide education policy group—will not mandate—but recommend to different campuses
Very vague—develop efforts to evaluate quality—1.learning assessment, outcome assessment—2. Bottlenecks to getting classes—is the cirriculum working—3. alludes to the need for each campus to find solutions
4.faculty workload
5. On-line courses –for courses that might be in jeopardy –multi-campus---(very vague)
5.Peter Taylor—Financing workgroup—1. Maximize traditional funding areas.— now on-line courses—
2. On-line giving –need unrestricted gifts!
3. Capital outlay—most now assigned to seismic and deferred maintenance—only 30% for new buildings—what we need—how to pay for it.-- third party partnerships for building
4. Efficiencies—Negotiating contracts for centralized purchases
Chris Kutz-- called for ten campus laboratories and spoke to the problem of timing—not enough time to make important decisions
Oliver O’Reilly called for transparency of the budget process
Mary Ann Mason—graduate education—dot cut programs do more with joint degrees between campuses—making use of intercampus faculty with video conference, etc.
Keep academic graduate student fees low—graduate student support critical to research excellence of the university
Staff Speakers—ratio of staff to students –keep staff ratio so we don’t have a brain drain—must keep the people that support the institution
Forum isn’t just a way to listen—and then go ahead with what they really wanted to do.
Include alumnae when speaking of UC community—faculty, students, staff and alumnae
STUDENTS
ABOUT 30 SPOKE—THESE ARE SOME OF THE THEMES THEY STRESSED
ASUC president----vision of the future—--new federal role for financing UC—postgrad and tax on corporations—more transparency—especially with the public and legislature
Fees, access and transparency
Expansion of opportunity—UC must do more to pay for its professors –should not save with the quality of instruction
Public service must be central—on line—extension
Community service
Teaching research and public service
Chavez—GSA president--graduate and professional students –Equity, diversity –pipeline from undergraduate to graduate programs
Professional students not getting enough RTA
Community based programs are being cut—must support with research
Professional fees too high—causes debt
Need better representation
Call for student representation on this Commission—they are the ones who have taken on-line courses, etc.—need student committees
Concern about fewer taking public service jobs because they owe such big debts
Great concern about make-up of Gould Commission and of Regents—not at all representative—businessmen with no real understanding
Much concern about on-line courses replacing face-to-face education
Christie Williams—on-line courses—great concern—have failed elsewhere—takes more time and more money than face-to-face—quality is key
Librarian—Internet harder than ordinary research—must keep library specialists—no representation for librarians.
Shannon Steen—UC professor (dance?)—no credibility on what working groups are actually doing. On-line not mentioned by education working group—but publicly announced that on-line is their major focus
Suzanne Guerlac
Too many decisions regarding high tuition and admission of non-residents have already been made top down—with
Showing posts with label UCOF. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UCOF. Show all posts
Monday, December 7, 2009
Saturday, December 5, 2009
UC Commission on the Future Speak-Out UCLA Dec 7
Subject: MONDAY 1PM @ COVEL - "UC COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE" FORUM
WHAT: "UC Commission on the Future" – UCLA Listening Forum
WHEN: Monday, December 7, 1pm
WHERE: Covel Commons, Grand Horizon Room
The "UC Commission on the Future," co-chaired by UC President Mark Yudof and Chair of the Regents Russell Gould, formed in September 2009 to explore strategies of privatizing the UC system. Right now, many vital programs are on the table to be cut or drastically transformed to accommodate a private funding structure. Some of the Commission's proposed measures are:
• to find "alternative revenue streams" (a.k.a. private funding to substitute state funds);
• to reward "self-supporting programs" (a.k.a. programs that can earn a profit);
• to expand "collaborative research" with "industry partners" (a.k.a. corporation-directed research);
• to reduce undergraduate programs that are not "cost-effective" (such as the writing program and foreign language programs, instructors, and TAs);
• to implement "distance learning" (a.k.a. substituting real courses with online classes, leading to further instructor layoffs);
• to reduce the number of California residents admitted in favor of out-of-state residents who pay higher fees and but are far less socioeconomically and racially diverse.
Taken together, these measures will lead to the loss of the UC as a public good. Socioeconomic inequalities among students will increase; campuses will lose crucial liberal arts programs, instructors, and TAs; not-for-profit services such as library and tutoring services will be cut; and students of color, working class students, and other underprivileged students will be excluded from the UC system.
We must take a stand against this effort to privatize the UC system!
Join us Monday at 1PM outside Covel for a UCLA Fights Back coalition Speak-out. Then come inside Covel and voice your opinion directly to the Commission during the public comment.
You have to RSVP to attend the forum:
More on the UC Commission on the Future:
--------------------
To reply to this message, follow the link
WHAT: "UC Commission on the Future" – UCLA Listening Forum
WHEN: Monday, December 7, 1pm
WHERE: Covel Commons, Grand Horizon Room
The "UC Commission on the Future," co-chaired by UC President Mark Yudof and Chair of the Regents Russell Gould, formed in September 2009 to explore strategies of privatizing the UC system. Right now, many vital programs are on the table to be cut or drastically transformed to accommodate a private funding structure. Some of the Commission's proposed measures are:
• to find "alternative revenue streams" (a.k.a. private funding to substitute state funds);
• to reward "self-supporting programs" (a.k.a. programs that can earn a profit);
• to expand "collaborative research" with "industry partners" (a.k.a. corporation-directed research);
• to reduce undergraduate programs that are not "cost-effective" (such as the writing program and foreign language programs, instructors, and TAs);
• to implement "distance learning" (a.k.a. substituting real courses with online classes, leading to further instructor layoffs);
• to reduce the number of California residents admitted in favor of out-of-state residents who pay higher fees and but are far less socioeconomically and racially diverse.
Taken together, these measures will lead to the loss of the UC as a public good. Socioeconomic inequalities among students will increase; campuses will lose crucial liberal arts programs, instructors, and TAs; not-for-profit services such as library and tutoring services will be cut; and students of color, working class students, and other underprivileged students will be excluded from the UC system.
We must take a stand against this effort to privatize the UC system!
Join us Monday at 1PM outside Covel for a UCLA Fights Back coalition Speak-out. Then come inside Covel and voice your opinion directly to the Commission during the public comment.
You have to RSVP to attend the forum:
More on the UC Commission on the Future:
--------------------
To reply to this message, follow the link
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Shift in UCOF on Distance Learning?
by Anonymous
I've been quite worried about the Edley presence on the instructional committee and I thought I'd report something I consider to be rather encouraging news on a couple of fronts. First, those on that committee have only in the last two weeks gotten any input from people who know anything about IT, which means that they're just spinning their wheels because nobody actually understands a thing about the system. Second, they are now learning that in order to implement these grand money-making schemes of on-line teaching and Edley's fantasy of on-line degrees, they will need to invest mega mega bucks into a system that is so disparate and dysfunctional that it will simply be impossible. Consider the fact that UCLA alone has over 16 instructional management systems in place right now; the ten campuses have absolutely no means of communicating with each other in those terms. There simply is no infrastructure or common system to support the kinds of technological fantasies that Edley is proposing. The cost in creating them is absolutely prohibitive. And their concept of on-line teaching is frankly laughable. They seem to think that you can record a prof lecturing on any given subject, package it up and rent it out for a price. This is such an impoverished notion of instructional management that they would be completely dated before the starting gates are opened.
I am glad to see that resolutions have been passed, and I don't mean to suggest that there are no worries. On the contrary! But the more discussions I've been party to about the Gould Commission and various members on it, the more I realize that we may finally have the UC bureaucracy to thank for its absolute inefficiency. There seems to be a consensus building among those who have been closer to the commission "planners:" the people doing this are so completely disorganized and uninformed that they will have a very tough time getting this stuff off the ground. Between that and what I hope is just raw fear, it seems that the Regents and their lackeys will be having a tough time pushing anything through the system in a timely fashion (because the system isn't designed that way and never has worked that way). The sooner they want to get this stuff done, the longer it will take them. Various indicators have signaled that they actually have no idea how the system works (one of the reasons they are so completely clueless). There's no revamping a system if you don't understand what point it's starting from.
As I said, I think we should all be on red alert, but for what it's worth, these more skeptical views of the efficacy of the commission's future on the future have been surfacing and resurfacing more and more frequently. I don't think these are smoke screens for more nefarious plots -- I think that the UCOP suits are so confident in their own power that they are sure they can wave the wand and be done with it. They're not in the AIG board room anymore -- and those students gathered outside the building aren't interested in making coffee.
I've been quite worried about the Edley presence on the instructional committee and I thought I'd report something I consider to be rather encouraging news on a couple of fronts. First, those on that committee have only in the last two weeks gotten any input from people who know anything about IT, which means that they're just spinning their wheels because nobody actually understands a thing about the system. Second, they are now learning that in order to implement these grand money-making schemes of on-line teaching and Edley's fantasy of on-line degrees, they will need to invest mega mega bucks into a system that is so disparate and dysfunctional that it will simply be impossible. Consider the fact that UCLA alone has over 16 instructional management systems in place right now; the ten campuses have absolutely no means of communicating with each other in those terms. There simply is no infrastructure or common system to support the kinds of technological fantasies that Edley is proposing. The cost in creating them is absolutely prohibitive. And their concept of on-line teaching is frankly laughable. They seem to think that you can record a prof lecturing on any given subject, package it up and rent it out for a price. This is such an impoverished notion of instructional management that they would be completely dated before the starting gates are opened.
I am glad to see that resolutions have been passed, and I don't mean to suggest that there are no worries. On the contrary! But the more discussions I've been party to about the Gould Commission and various members on it, the more I realize that we may finally have the UC bureaucracy to thank for its absolute inefficiency. There seems to be a consensus building among those who have been closer to the commission "planners:" the people doing this are so completely disorganized and uninformed that they will have a very tough time getting this stuff off the ground. Between that and what I hope is just raw fear, it seems that the Regents and their lackeys will be having a tough time pushing anything through the system in a timely fashion (because the system isn't designed that way and never has worked that way). The sooner they want to get this stuff done, the longer it will take them. Various indicators have signaled that they actually have no idea how the system works (one of the reasons they are so completely clueless). There's no revamping a system if you don't understand what point it's starting from.
As I said, I think we should all be on red alert, but for what it's worth, these more skeptical views of the efficacy of the commission's future on the future have been surfacing and resurfacing more and more frequently. I don't think these are smoke screens for more nefarious plots -- I think that the UCOP suits are so confident in their own power that they are sure they can wave the wand and be done with it. They're not in the AIG board room anymore -- and those students gathered outside the building aren't interested in making coffee.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
NOtes on UCOF Meeting November 12
Notes from Commission on the Future of UC
November 12, 2009
Speaker: Mark Baldassare, PPIC
Long-term funding cuts in higher education works against the state because CA faces a “skills gap” coming in the next 15 years. There’s a growing gap between the needs of the economy and the number of college-educated Californians.
By 2025, California will be short 1 million college graduates; not enough to fill the demand for jobs. And the number of high school graduates will outnumber the jobs available to their skill level. The wage gap will worsen as the skills gap widens.
CA ranks 19th out of the 20 largest U.S. states in high school graduates who attend college.
PPIC Survey on public attitudes on higher education:
• Californians are increasingly concerned about the affordability of higher education.
• 70% of those polled said state cuts to higher education are a big problem—cuts are more of a problem than access to and quality of higher education.
• The three big concerns of the public regarding higher education are:
o Increasing tuition and fees
o Cuts to the number of classes
o Cuts to faculty and staff salaries
• 16% of those polled approve of the legislature’s handling of higher education
• 21% approve of the governor’s handling of higher education
• 75% feel that the state is headed in the wrong direction
• Majority of people support higher education and give UC/CSU and community colleges good ratings.
• 70% feel that higher education is important to California’s future.
Majority of people feel that the answer to the challenge of funding higher education is a combination of more accountability and efficiency along with increasing taxes to pay for higher education.
Speaker: Robert Reich, UC Berkeley professor
• A critical question about the role of higher education is the return on investment. In private universities, the return on investment goes to the individual; it’s a private gain.
• Public universities are different—public universities are public goods and use a public goods model:
o Excellence in research that is used to solve public problems
o Widespread access to higher ed and great diversity of students
o Education is a public good that benefits the state and individuals
• The challenge is that public goods make it hard to regain the investment because it becomes part of the public domain.
• The question for the Commission is how do we capture the benefits of a public good (higher education at UC) to finance UC? The following are some examples, but should not be taken as solutions:
o Business reaps enormous benefits and profits from UC in the form of research, technology, skilled workers, etc. Can we go to Sacramento and ask for a surcharge on all large businesses in California to finance higher education?
o Graduates of UC do well; can we let everyone in for free and then ask graduates to pay X% for Y# of years in order to finance students? That way graduates with higher salaries subsidize those who chose lower-paid, but often public service, professions.
o Intellectual property: We don’t want UC to become a subsidiary of private companies, but when intellectual property is spun out of UC research and benefits the private sector, can UC also reap those profits? How do we benefit from the public goods we produce that the private sector uses?
o Expand the utilization of UC. Why don’t we develop a cyber-campus that uses the University of Phoenix model but does not do it for profit?
o Research and Development is a classic public good that gets appropriated by corporations—how can UC benefit as welll?
There is fundamental difference between a public university and a private university. The difference is that at a public university the public benefit—the public good—is at the core of the mission; it’s not ancillary. That means that public universities have a different ethos, purpose, mission that shapes admissions, research, curriculum—every aspect of the school. This is a profound difference between public and private universities.
Speaker: Richard Atkinson, former UC President
Suggestions for the Commission:
• The idea of tiered campuses is inconsistent with the mission of UC. Excellence in research is critical for all campuses.
• Public lobbying of the state is critical
• Private fundraising
• Increase the number of out-of-state students—just 250 additional out-of-state students per campus brings in a substantial amount of money.
• Expand research partnerships with the private sector to fund UC research, buildings, etc. This also funds graduate student experience.
• Encourage all faculty, especially in the non-sciences, to search out research funding
• Establish high-fee part-time grad programs that would bring in money, similar to the University of Phoenix model. Faculty should be rewarded for their participation in these programs.
• Expand grad enrollment only in key programs
• Do not exempt academic programs and departments from cuts or from disestablishment.
• Work to increase community college transfers to UC.
• Teach lower division classes online to both UC and community college students—we need to better prepare students for transfer to UC
• Where do we want to be when CA recovers? We don’t’ want to be the University of Michigan or Virginia; we will be there in fees, but those schools are not a model for us. 1/3 of all students at the University of Michigan are from out-of-state, in contrast only 6% at UC are out-of-state.
• Test out different ideas at each of the 10 campuses:
o Limit constraints on what campuses can do
o Revenue generated by each campus should stay on that campus.
Report Back from Working Groups:
• 2 working groups have been finalized and met in the last week: Funding Strategies and the Size and Shape of UC.
• Co-chairs were already selected and can be viewed on the UC Futures website: http://ucfuture.universityofcalifornia.edu/membership.html
• Almost every Working Group co-chair asked for more time to meet and discuss the issues and recommendations. They said the Commission should extend the timeline to June or July 2010
• Russ Gould and Chris Edsly both recommended that the Commission keep it’s original timeline and stick to the March/April deadline.
Public Comment:
• Professor Charles Schwartz
• Professor Glaser
• Catherine Linberger, AFSCME 3299 member
• Howard Fallon, UCOP staff
Public comment was largely critical of the Commission’s process, transparency and mission. Professor Glaser stated that many of the faculty were suspicious of the Working Group selection process that was opaque and secretive. Linberger recommended that UC sit down with unions to plan next steps. Fallon told UC to go to Sacramento and tell them to raise taxes to pay for higher education.
November 12, 2009
Speaker: Mark Baldassare, PPIC
Long-term funding cuts in higher education works against the state because CA faces a “skills gap” coming in the next 15 years. There’s a growing gap between the needs of the economy and the number of college-educated Californians.
By 2025, California will be short 1 million college graduates; not enough to fill the demand for jobs. And the number of high school graduates will outnumber the jobs available to their skill level. The wage gap will worsen as the skills gap widens.
CA ranks 19th out of the 20 largest U.S. states in high school graduates who attend college.
PPIC Survey on public attitudes on higher education:
• Californians are increasingly concerned about the affordability of higher education.
• 70% of those polled said state cuts to higher education are a big problem—cuts are more of a problem than access to and quality of higher education.
• The three big concerns of the public regarding higher education are:
o Increasing tuition and fees
o Cuts to the number of classes
o Cuts to faculty and staff salaries
• 16% of those polled approve of the legislature’s handling of higher education
• 21% approve of the governor’s handling of higher education
• 75% feel that the state is headed in the wrong direction
• Majority of people support higher education and give UC/CSU and community colleges good ratings.
• 70% feel that higher education is important to California’s future.
Majority of people feel that the answer to the challenge of funding higher education is a combination of more accountability and efficiency along with increasing taxes to pay for higher education.
Speaker: Robert Reich, UC Berkeley professor
• A critical question about the role of higher education is the return on investment. In private universities, the return on investment goes to the individual; it’s a private gain.
• Public universities are different—public universities are public goods and use a public goods model:
o Excellence in research that is used to solve public problems
o Widespread access to higher ed and great diversity of students
o Education is a public good that benefits the state and individuals
• The challenge is that public goods make it hard to regain the investment because it becomes part of the public domain.
• The question for the Commission is how do we capture the benefits of a public good (higher education at UC) to finance UC? The following are some examples, but should not be taken as solutions:
o Business reaps enormous benefits and profits from UC in the form of research, technology, skilled workers, etc. Can we go to Sacramento and ask for a surcharge on all large businesses in California to finance higher education?
o Graduates of UC do well; can we let everyone in for free and then ask graduates to pay X% for Y# of years in order to finance students? That way graduates with higher salaries subsidize those who chose lower-paid, but often public service, professions.
o Intellectual property: We don’t want UC to become a subsidiary of private companies, but when intellectual property is spun out of UC research and benefits the private sector, can UC also reap those profits? How do we benefit from the public goods we produce that the private sector uses?
o Expand the utilization of UC. Why don’t we develop a cyber-campus that uses the University of Phoenix model but does not do it for profit?
o Research and Development is a classic public good that gets appropriated by corporations—how can UC benefit as welll?
There is fundamental difference between a public university and a private university. The difference is that at a public university the public benefit—the public good—is at the core of the mission; it’s not ancillary. That means that public universities have a different ethos, purpose, mission that shapes admissions, research, curriculum—every aspect of the school. This is a profound difference between public and private universities.
Speaker: Richard Atkinson, former UC President
Suggestions for the Commission:
• The idea of tiered campuses is inconsistent with the mission of UC. Excellence in research is critical for all campuses.
• Public lobbying of the state is critical
• Private fundraising
• Increase the number of out-of-state students—just 250 additional out-of-state students per campus brings in a substantial amount of money.
• Expand research partnerships with the private sector to fund UC research, buildings, etc. This also funds graduate student experience.
• Encourage all faculty, especially in the non-sciences, to search out research funding
• Establish high-fee part-time grad programs that would bring in money, similar to the University of Phoenix model. Faculty should be rewarded for their participation in these programs.
• Expand grad enrollment only in key programs
• Do not exempt academic programs and departments from cuts or from disestablishment.
• Work to increase community college transfers to UC.
• Teach lower division classes online to both UC and community college students—we need to better prepare students for transfer to UC
• Where do we want to be when CA recovers? We don’t’ want to be the University of Michigan or Virginia; we will be there in fees, but those schools are not a model for us. 1/3 of all students at the University of Michigan are from out-of-state, in contrast only 6% at UC are out-of-state.
• Test out different ideas at each of the 10 campuses:
o Limit constraints on what campuses can do
o Revenue generated by each campus should stay on that campus.
Report Back from Working Groups:
• 2 working groups have been finalized and met in the last week: Funding Strategies and the Size and Shape of UC.
• Co-chairs were already selected and can be viewed on the UC Futures website: http://ucfuture.universityofcalifornia.edu/membership.html
• Almost every Working Group co-chair asked for more time to meet and discuss the issues and recommendations. They said the Commission should extend the timeline to June or July 2010
• Russ Gould and Chris Edsly both recommended that the Commission keep it’s original timeline and stick to the March/April deadline.
Public Comment:
• Professor Charles Schwartz
• Professor Glaser
• Catherine Linberger, AFSCME 3299 member
• Howard Fallon, UCOP staff
Public comment was largely critical of the Commission’s process, transparency and mission. Professor Glaser stated that many of the faculty were suspicious of the Working Group selection process that was opaque and secretive. Linberger recommended that UC sit down with unions to plan next steps. Fallon told UC to go to Sacramento and tell them to raise taxes to pay for higher education.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Post-Employment Benefits and Senate Vice-Chair at UCSB
Simmons did say at the forum that he opposes changing from a defined-benefit to a defined-contribution plan and he re-stated that position during our small meeting with him, but he also gave himself some wiggle room, saying that there were arguments in favor of the DC option and that UCOP was now exploring the possibility of a combination of the two. I'm not convinced he won't get bought out in the end. More disturbing still was the idea of co-ordinating with Medicaire, which I don't quite
understand (Gayle understands: Gayle, please explain!)
We were able to tell him, at the smaller meeting, that many of us felt betrayed by the conduct of the Senate leadership, esp. Mary Croughan, and that things must change, and he kind of admitted that we were right, but then he started in about how this year, the Senate leadership is just great (even tho' Powell wrote that stupid letter to AAUP about the walkout) and will be much more open to our feedback. I didn't have time to point out tohim that at the forum a few minutes before, he'd said that the Senate had ALREADY expressed its support for starting our contributions to the pension fund at a HIGHER rate than the one proposed by UCOP! Already endorsed it, even tho' I, for one, have heard nothing about it! They are obviously still making important decisions without consulting or even informing the rest of us!
Most disturbing of all was the admission that some of the student fee increases will be used to pay for our salaries and benefits. Divide and conquer. He seemed positively gleeful when he pointed out that no state legislators have spoken out in opposition to the fee increases, but after the meeting I wrote to my contact in Leland Yee's office, who told me that Yee and others oppose the fee increases.
One more thing: Simmons told us about the origin of the Gould Commission. He said that at first, Yudof wanted the Academic Senate to be responsible for researching and developing proposals for the future of the University, but that Mary Croughan told him that the faculty was incapable
of doing it!
I think we should propose a resolution at the upcoming Senate meeting calling for the removal of Croughan from the Gould Commission. I think we need to send a signal to the new regime that we will not tolerate Senate leaders who do not believe in faculty governance.
B
***
I've been hearing good things about the smaller meeting with Simmons. If my info is correct, however, he remarked at that time that Yudof simply had had no idea that the furloughs and fee hikes were going to cause so much trouble and it was just because he didn't know us.
I think it's important for us to remember, when we hear this kind of apology, that Yudof has a long history of behaving in this way. Granted, he may have learned nothing from those experiences.
I found the afternoon forum a little on the disturbing side. These are the things I thought I heard:
1. I thought I heard Simmons say that contracts and grants were a revenue flow into the university, but could no longer be relied upon to help fund retirement. I said, "I thought I heard you say....but since when have contracts and grants not also cost the university a good deal of money to support?
2. I thought I heard Simmons say that one virtue of defined contribution retirement options was that they would actually serve many faculty really well. Those of us who remain here till our fifties are kind of stuck here--they would lose so much retirement if they quit now that it wouldn't be worth it to go elsewhere. But for young people who don't have permanent positions, defined contributions are really great. (My translation: if more and more faculty are lecturers without security of employment, this will all work out just fine.)
3. I thought I heard it said that 80% of UC's retirees had never had to contribute a dime to the retirement fund--as though this were remarkable and possibly slightly unjust.
4. I thought I heard it assumed that additional revenue would not be coming from the state, so that none of the alternatives being considered by the Task Force will include restored public funding. I believe this is what we are saying is a basic problem with the Gould Commission.
5. When asked how the Task Force members viewed the problem of how to recruit faculty without good benefits, they replied that they would be doing market studies to see whether the strategies they're thinking about would reduce UC's competitiveness.
6. When asked how broad their search for new approaches would be, they said they would be studying the way other universities have dealt with retirement costs. [This brings no joy to my heart. I would like UC to begin a turning of the tide whereby other universities couldn't get away with this stuff anymore. The attitude is, why should we have anything better than other universities?
7. I thought I heard a flat denial that the UC Retirement fund investments had been mismanaged. Market forces, like the bursting of the tech bubble, or like right now, have of course made things very difficult, but we actually lost less money this year than some institutions to whom we like to compare ourselves. Our strategy became MORE conservative in the early 2000's, not less. The reason the fund was at one time at 143% of the money needed to honor commitments and is now funded at about 100% isn't anything important. It never needed to be at 143% and actually shouldn't have been, it wasn't handled properly.
8. I thought I heard that they would report only to Yudof and their proposals would just be advisory. So they don't even have to go to the Regents, presumably, if Yudof doesn't like them.
Does this sound like what other people heard? Any additions, corrections, clarifications?
I think:
1. This Task Force is a very bad thing. They've been given lots more time to do their job than the Gould Commission. If the latter proves to be a face-saving device for all concerned and we don't have to worry about it, I get the feeling this task force will be working in the back room planning plenty of damage. There was a jovial, let's make-jokes-about-how-tough-the-times-are attitude that made very clear (to me) that the Task Force is working entirely within the restricted imaginings we don't want to accept. Tell me if I'm wrong.
2. We need to let the Task Force know of these concerns and alert other campuses.
What do you think?
***
Thanks so much for this summary. I was unable to attend the meeting, so I found it most helpful--and, sadly, not at all surprising. People pushing to switch from defined benefit to defined contribution systems always have the same line--it will be better for all but those close to retirement who don't have time to make a killing in the stock market.
Well, we heard that when Bush tried to privatize Social Security, which even his duplicity could not achieve. And we saw between March and December 2009 how quickly those stock market gains could evaporate. One small compensation for the lifelong sacrifice of earning capacity that public employees endure is the assurance that they will be able to sustain much of their modest incomes in retirement. In the past the best and most competitive universities have picked up both the individual and the university contributions to retirement programs, which I suppose one could say the UC system did during the years when faculty made no contributions. But in those very years there were several in which the lack of COLAs left the incomes of those without merit bumps in those yeare diminished. It is total balderdash that the loss of retirement funds does not suggest mismanagement. The fund should be compelled to disclose the extent of its investment in derivatives.
On the basis of your summary, I suspect you are right that this "task force" is a bigger deal actually than the Gould (Ghoul) commission, and therefore one that needs to be called into the spotlight in every way that we can.
M
***
Aranye's summary of yesterday afternoon meeting made me sad (most striking indeed: why can it not be that UC leads the way, as if it would be so terrible if UC offered a more excellent education more affordably). The following report in Chris's blog makes me angry. I cannot help but conclude that it has much to do with the composition of the commission - faculty of medical schools (Croughan, Powell) and law schools (Edley) leading the way. If the commission had more scientists (incl social scientists) and humanists, I cannot imagine that the conversation would be the same--maybe I am romanticizing scientists, or maybe not. Those who understand that the driver of much if not ALL of what we do is true idealism and love for education AND the research that we conduct, would not dare to say that we are "romanticizing" UC. One should send the Sharon Farmer's article in The Independent to Edley, and tell him that this is the sentiment of many. Edley has no idea that all of us work extra hours and more than what we are asked to do written in any rule-book, if there was one, because we love our profession, because we truly romanticize our profession. Alienate the faculty, try to drive them to work "efficiently" by telling them individual meetings with students are not "economical", many faculty will for the first time find the red binder and read up what the rules are: then Edley, see what you will get as a result.
You know how you can best recognize a mediocre school or mediocre department? Measure the degree of bitterness among faculty, or the lack of enthusiasm, or how much they talk down their institution. We are not quite there yet, but one change is stunning. If you asked me 6 months ago what I thought of the University of California, I would have said it's the most beautiful institution that I know, and I am lucky to be here. Ask me now. I would say, a wonderful body of faculty and student led by corrupt politicians and money makers.
S
understand (Gayle understands: Gayle, please explain!)
We were able to tell him, at the smaller meeting, that many of us felt betrayed by the conduct of the Senate leadership, esp. Mary Croughan, and that things must change, and he kind of admitted that we were right, but then he started in about how this year, the Senate leadership is just great (even tho' Powell wrote that stupid letter to AAUP about the walkout) and will be much more open to our feedback. I didn't have time to point out tohim that at the forum a few minutes before, he'd said that the Senate had ALREADY expressed its support for starting our contributions to the pension fund at a HIGHER rate than the one proposed by UCOP! Already endorsed it, even tho' I, for one, have heard nothing about it! They are obviously still making important decisions without consulting or even informing the rest of us!
Most disturbing of all was the admission that some of the student fee increases will be used to pay for our salaries and benefits. Divide and conquer. He seemed positively gleeful when he pointed out that no state legislators have spoken out in opposition to the fee increases, but after the meeting I wrote to my contact in Leland Yee's office, who told me that Yee and others oppose the fee increases.
One more thing: Simmons told us about the origin of the Gould Commission. He said that at first, Yudof wanted the Academic Senate to be responsible for researching and developing proposals for the future of the University, but that Mary Croughan told him that the faculty was incapable
of doing it!
I think we should propose a resolution at the upcoming Senate meeting calling for the removal of Croughan from the Gould Commission. I think we need to send a signal to the new regime that we will not tolerate Senate leaders who do not believe in faculty governance.
B
***
I've been hearing good things about the smaller meeting with Simmons. If my info is correct, however, he remarked at that time that Yudof simply had had no idea that the furloughs and fee hikes were going to cause so much trouble and it was just because he didn't know us.
I think it's important for us to remember, when we hear this kind of apology, that Yudof has a long history of behaving in this way. Granted, he may have learned nothing from those experiences.
I found the afternoon forum a little on the disturbing side. These are the things I thought I heard:
1. I thought I heard Simmons say that contracts and grants were a revenue flow into the university, but could no longer be relied upon to help fund retirement. I said, "I thought I heard you say....but since when have contracts and grants not also cost the university a good deal of money to support?
2. I thought I heard Simmons say that one virtue of defined contribution retirement options was that they would actually serve many faculty really well. Those of us who remain here till our fifties are kind of stuck here--they would lose so much retirement if they quit now that it wouldn't be worth it to go elsewhere. But for young people who don't have permanent positions, defined contributions are really great. (My translation: if more and more faculty are lecturers without security of employment, this will all work out just fine.)
3. I thought I heard it said that 80% of UC's retirees had never had to contribute a dime to the retirement fund--as though this were remarkable and possibly slightly unjust.
4. I thought I heard it assumed that additional revenue would not be coming from the state, so that none of the alternatives being considered by the Task Force will include restored public funding. I believe this is what we are saying is a basic problem with the Gould Commission.
5. When asked how the Task Force members viewed the problem of how to recruit faculty without good benefits, they replied that they would be doing market studies to see whether the strategies they're thinking about would reduce UC's competitiveness.
6. When asked how broad their search for new approaches would be, they said they would be studying the way other universities have dealt with retirement costs. [This brings no joy to my heart. I would like UC to begin a turning of the tide whereby other universities couldn't get away with this stuff anymore. The attitude is, why should we have anything better than other universities?
7. I thought I heard a flat denial that the UC Retirement fund investments had been mismanaged. Market forces, like the bursting of the tech bubble, or like right now, have of course made things very difficult, but we actually lost less money this year than some institutions to whom we like to compare ourselves. Our strategy became MORE conservative in the early 2000's, not less. The reason the fund was at one time at 143% of the money needed to honor commitments and is now funded at about 100% isn't anything important. It never needed to be at 143% and actually shouldn't have been, it wasn't handled properly.
8. I thought I heard that they would report only to Yudof and their proposals would just be advisory. So they don't even have to go to the Regents, presumably, if Yudof doesn't like them.
Does this sound like what other people heard? Any additions, corrections, clarifications?
I think:
1. This Task Force is a very bad thing. They've been given lots more time to do their job than the Gould Commission. If the latter proves to be a face-saving device for all concerned and we don't have to worry about it, I get the feeling this task force will be working in the back room planning plenty of damage. There was a jovial, let's make-jokes-about-how-tough-the-times-are attitude that made very clear (to me) that the Task Force is working entirely within the restricted imaginings we don't want to accept. Tell me if I'm wrong.
2. We need to let the Task Force know of these concerns and alert other campuses.
What do you think?
***
Thanks so much for this summary. I was unable to attend the meeting, so I found it most helpful--and, sadly, not at all surprising. People pushing to switch from defined benefit to defined contribution systems always have the same line--it will be better for all but those close to retirement who don't have time to make a killing in the stock market.
Well, we heard that when Bush tried to privatize Social Security, which even his duplicity could not achieve. And we saw between March and December 2009 how quickly those stock market gains could evaporate. One small compensation for the lifelong sacrifice of earning capacity that public employees endure is the assurance that they will be able to sustain much of their modest incomes in retirement. In the past the best and most competitive universities have picked up both the individual and the university contributions to retirement programs, which I suppose one could say the UC system did during the years when faculty made no contributions. But in those very years there were several in which the lack of COLAs left the incomes of those without merit bumps in those yeare diminished. It is total balderdash that the loss of retirement funds does not suggest mismanagement. The fund should be compelled to disclose the extent of its investment in derivatives.
On the basis of your summary, I suspect you are right that this "task force" is a bigger deal actually than the Gould (Ghoul) commission, and therefore one that needs to be called into the spotlight in every way that we can.
M
***
Aranye's summary of yesterday afternoon meeting made me sad (most striking indeed: why can it not be that UC leads the way, as if it would be so terrible if UC offered a more excellent education more affordably). The following report in Chris's blog makes me angry. I cannot help but conclude that it has much to do with the composition of the commission - faculty of medical schools (Croughan, Powell) and law schools (Edley) leading the way. If the commission had more scientists (incl social scientists) and humanists, I cannot imagine that the conversation would be the same--maybe I am romanticizing scientists, or maybe not. Those who understand that the driver of much if not ALL of what we do is true idealism and love for education AND the research that we conduct, would not dare to say that we are "romanticizing" UC. One should send the Sharon Farmer's article in The Independent to Edley, and tell him that this is the sentiment of many. Edley has no idea that all of us work extra hours and more than what we are asked to do written in any rule-book, if there was one, because we love our profession, because we truly romanticize our profession. Alienate the faculty, try to drive them to work "efficiently" by telling them individual meetings with students are not "economical", many faculty will for the first time find the red binder and read up what the rules are: then Edley, see what you will get as a result.
You know how you can best recognize a mediocre school or mediocre department? Measure the degree of bitterness among faculty, or the lack of enthusiasm, or how much they talk down their institution. We are not quite there yet, but one change is stunning. If you asked me 6 months ago what I thought of the University of California, I would have said it's the most beautiful institution that I know, and I am lucky to be here. Ask me now. I would say, a wonderful body of faculty and student led by corrupt politicians and money makers.
S
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Ghoul Commission Post-Mortem - UCSB
Despite the email I wrote to Henry--it was genuine and I wrote it to give him feedback and strengthen his back when he delivers our message to the Regents--I must say I feel a deep disappointment and sadness. I have to agree with Suzanne and Sarah and state that this was much worse than what I have imagined. We were worried in the last email exchange that "they" would be sagely noding. Well, "they" were not even THERE! The speeches from all of you and others were amazing, it made me VERY proud to be part of this amazing community, BUT who were listening? Ourselves!! Can you believe it, with all due respect, that a graduate student was speaking on behalf of the Committee on the Student Fee issues?! And this out of touch lady Marry who claimed that Faculty Self Governance is now stronger than ever?!It is important to ask direct questions, so that those who are responsible will reveal the wrongdoings under the guise of administrative correctness: hence, as in this case, Croughan came out with an outrageous remark, which you all thankfully booed: aside from the wonderful eloquent speeches like Bill's, this kind of direct approach is needed to tear away the veil of lies.
I agree with Sarah. As much as I enjoyed this communication--and I am truly thankful to all of you to let me express my frustration and (sometimes naive) thoughts--I feel that we have to broaden the participation and use different strategies in the future. Campbell hall was empty, and nobody whom we invited per email listings came, except for those expected. Many speeches were REALLY brilliant, but how can these thoughts reach the entire UCSB community and beyond? Of course I don't know the answer.
Sarah, although I don't know what it will mean to be part of the UCSB Faculty Association, I am happy to receiving more information about it and giving it a try. Maybe the speeches from today of everybody (in a condensed format) can be written up and published in the FA Newsletter?
Maybe we need professional lobbyist? But where getting the money from?
Thank you all, you are amazing.
Songi
***
First, thank you to Suk-Young Kim and her students for the great coffin and procession and "I'm not dead yet" sketch; It was definitely the best part of my day.
Sadly, I wouldn't even say that we only had ourselves to talk to at 1pm at Campbell Hall. There were maybe five faculty there (including myself); another 5 or so had accumulated by 1:50, when I had to leave to go teach my class; There were very few undergraduates, and grad students you could count on the fingers of one hand. Some of the union reps were there, but only a few of the rank and file and I do mean 3-4. No one had come prepared to read names or list cuts. Claudio, Edwina, Eddie Woolfolk, Bob Samuels, and Janelle Mungo had to improvise to fill in the time. It made the rallies of the summer look like the Uruk-Hai armies gathered before Helm's Deep.
I'm even sorrier to hear there was no crowd at the Forum itself. I think you are all correct to stress that we shouldn't feel defeated. All "movements" have their ups and downs. But it would be helpful to have an analysis of what went wrong here. There's the issue of what we ourselves did and didn't accomplish; but it is stunning that so few members of the community came to the Forum. Both are worth understanding--if that were possible. The mystery, for me, is doubled by the fact that I had thought the Teach-In and the censure vote had generated some real momentum. That sense was obviously wrong.
We did not have much time to prepare, it's true. But I emailed my own department and comparative literature at least two or three times. Not a single English graduate student turned up for the Outbreak, and the only English faculty who showed were me, Yunte, Stephanie L. and Heather Blurton. Ann Bermingham was the only person I saw from Art History--there may have been one other; Jennifer Holt, the only person from Film Studies. These are our core departments. There were one or two faculty from Spanish and Portuguese, one from French-Ital. (Claudio)
Why are we not even supporting ourselves?
Aranye
***
Okay, perhaps here's a more positive reality check then. The original plan -- advanced by Yudof's "eyes and ears assistant" who was in the front row today -- was that the commission would talk AT us for two hours with no opportunity to speak from the floor. Henry Yang insisted on the open microphone format in which we had the bulk of the time - time we used to make it clear that we aren't buying this smoke screen and have no intention of rolling over for it.
If we had boycotted, that opportunity would have been lost and spun as faculty apathy and tacit consent. Instead, this open mic format will now have to be adopted on the other campuses where faculty and student organizers will have more time to plan, hone their message, and get people in seats. It's true that the turnout is disappointing, but it's also to be expected on this campus. Our contribution has been to get the ball rolling on unmasking this sham-fest and we succeeded in that.
The larger fight has to be a system-wide effort. There is no way that we were going to persuade Yudof even if he had showed, and he would have stolen the floor. He and his corporatist crowd are not going to be persuaded; our only hope is to outmaneuver them in the public domain.
Finally, I agree that everyone did do a great job with their comments. Elisabeth was amazing!! as were many others. I think Henning Bohn deserves special thanks for opening the door as he did. He said that Joel wrote a lot of the speech drawing from wide input. But the student comments were the most extraordinary -- cutting and incisive -- and we might want to transcribe them and get student permission to circulate them via the website. Amber's story of from $0 debt to $87K for one degree says more than we can say in many speeches.
All best,
Edwina
***
I want to second how our students provide the most powerful testimony, as they did at the teach-in. But embedded in their remarks is analysis. We should be proud of them. And again I appreciated all of you who were so elegant today. We have such a talented group of faculty here and throughout the system and together Yes We Can! Eileen
***
I agree - I was inspired and really proud to be a part of this community. Thanks to all who spoke. You were fantastic. Are there transcripts being kept of these events? The collected transcripts of all the forums would seem to be crucial for the commission to have if they really are "listening." How would all of those not present know what was said? I would love to find out about that and learn how our concerns are being documented. I would also like a copy!
Jennifer Holt
***
I agree with Bob that we missed an opportunity (partly my fault, since I was the one who spoke next) to take up Mary Croughan on her outrageous remark. But we did boo her, the loudest negative vocal response of the day. I also looked at the Merced visit schedule--it is pathetic: they will probably have ten to thirty minutes (depending on how the meeting is run) for public comments there. We need to let other campuses know that this is a sham. All the poorly choreographed
publicity and waste of human labor just to do some damage control and to legitimize more bad policies down the road. I have to say that our enemy is media savvy because the Commission would give them good cover in the future. They know what kind of future they want, but they need procedural justification. Let's take them up on that and use this as OUR opportunity to raise hell. The question is how. Today is a small
start, even though I left the room with anger and disgust. We may need better communication strategies and keep our agendas in the news every day. Any ideas -Yunte
***
Dear Yunte,et al.,
I've just sent off a report about today's events to a bunch of contacts on the other UC campuses, with some suggestions about how they should build/improve upon our efforts. Someone suggested months ago that we create our own "Commission on the Future of the UC", which is not a bad idea. Another option is to insist, through our Academic Senates, that any recommendations made by the Gould Commission be subject to debate and ratification by the University community before they are enacted. I actually proposed a resolution to that effect at the local Senate meeting on October 8, but we never got a chance to discuss it. I think we will propose it again at the upcoming meeting.
Part of what makes the whole thing so stupid is that we are not being presented with any concrete proposals, we were simply being invited to vent. They will do this on all 10 campuses, then proceed with the highly-developed plans they've been working out along but never told us about in any detail, and claim that we had our chance to offer input. We must demand the right to approve or reject concrete proposals after due time to consider and debate them.
Does anyone recall that, in his exchange with Lisa Hajjar back in July, Christopher Edley referred to both Yudof and Gould as "impatient" men? I read it on Chris Newfield's blog: it must still be there somewhere. I think that could be used against them, and when one considers what a disaster was caused by the precipitous re-investment of the pension fund a few years ago, we could argue that the Regents have a history of imprudently hasty behavior.
Best,
Bob
***
Dear Bob and all,
Bob, thanks for your work with other campuses, and your analysis of the stupid-smart way that they have designed the Commission as slick, faux "consultation" to ramrod through their existing plans.
I gathered from sympathetic administrators yesterday that if we can make this process embarrassing, difficult, costly, labor intensive,and just plain loud enough for Yudof and the Regents through our resistance, that they will start to back down -- and that at least one Regent or campus leader (I didn't catch which) is already saying no to privatization because it's too explosive and not worth the hassle.
Based on that insight, it follows that if we can continue building pressure, resistance, and roadblocks of various kinds -- and our more activist sister campuses will do this wonderfully on their Forum days - we can start to turn the ship. They will always have this stuff on the shelf ready for a new attempt, so we would need to remain vigilant, but we would have stopped it for now.
If that strategy sounds plausible, then in terms of action, yes, 1)our own commission on the future, and 2) the proposals in the Senate sound great. Somehow Connie's link to the Merced Forum agenda didn't work for me, so I haven't seen their structure, but if I were Yudof's henchwoman I'd want to change the format so that there is no embarrassing voice from the floor. If so, 3) we might consider chipping in if other campuses have to struggle to retain what we had -- they could claim us as precedent and cry "no consultation" if they are denied. It's potentially key because on other campuses the floor. Time will also provide opportunity for media exposure and UC does not want that. 4) I think John Foran is right that circulating the documents will amplify what we did here. I'm away until Monday, but when I return I'll get to work on tracking down the student commentators and start the transcriptions. 5) We also now have a large number of UCSB folks on the commission to lobby and assist in in doing-the-right-thing using yesterday's input and all of the materials we've developed and are developing. 6) I'm not a media-savvy person, but I wonder: is it good idea to go ahead and contact the media folks that Jack Sutton and others named a few days ago and give them our materials when we have it? There is a story here and if we can get some post-event coverage and/or be poised to contribute to stories on other campus forums, that may help the cause. Does anyone more experienced have any thoughts on that? If it's a good idea we should probably go ahead with that press kit and talking points that we discussed earlier and perhaps implement the commentary documents that we are compiling.
Just 2 cents....
All best,
Edwina
***
Following on Bill Warner's wonderful Ben Franklin analogy from yesterday, I keep being reminded of the very successful populist mobilization that occurred during the American Revolution. When the colonists seized control and set up their own "extra-legal" governments, most of the action was carried out by "committees of correspondence," that literally wrote letters to leaders elsewhere to combine efforts, share arguments, etc. They had 13 colonies plus Parliament to lobby--we have 10 campuses, the unions, and student groups, plus the legislature.
Sounds like with email and the web, we have a much faster and more efficient correspondence network, and I think there's great power in getting these arguments out to other campuses prior to their "listening" sessions with the Ghouls...
Best,
Ann Plane
***
It is important to ask direct questions, so that those who are responsible will reveal the wrongdoings under the guise of administrative correctness: hence, as in this case, Croughan came out with an outrageous remark, which you all thankfully booed: aside from the wonderful eloquent speeches like Bill's, this kind of direct approach is needed to tear away the veil of lies.
Jill
***
Elisabeth is right, Thursday afternoon is prime teaching time for lots
of faculty, so we lost their presence, as well as their students'. Given
the heart-rending stories from the students who were there, others might
well have been working one of their many jobs or feel that they couldn't
cut class for a forum where they had every reason to believe they would not
be heard.
As for faculty not attending, we on this list had a discussion about whether
or not to boycott.Many faculty might have quietly done so.
Although many eloquent things were said yesterday--and it was an opportunity
to vent--a way to frame the low turnout is that few of us expected anything
good to come of the Gould Commission so that the absence of attendees was in
itself was a protest.
The one interjection by Mary Croghan that "shared governance has never been stronger" was delusional, which is why I shouted back at her, "You must be joking". From her point of view it is--she's been party to what's going on and given the legitimacy of her official posts to sell it to the faculty.
I hope that we can move forward with some useful strategies to stop the rolling disaster at UC.
Best,
Sarah
***
OK, Here's my 2 cents worth on where to go from here -- how about joining with faculty on other campuses to take out a full page ad (with full list of signatures)in the NYT, LA Times and SF Chronicle. George Lakoff could probably come up with the best wording for such an ad -- but here's something to start with:
We, faculty of the ten campuses of the University of California, are concerned that the leadership of the best publicly funded research university in the country is no longer committed to that description of our university.
In questions posed to the "UC Commission on the Future" and in his public statements to the New York Times, President Mark Yudof has indicated that he has given up on our
historic mission of providing affordable, publicly funded, high quality education to the citizens of California -- despite the fact that the voters of California support public funding of higher education by a ratio of two to one. The President poses as solutions to the false assumption that public funding must continue to wane; the
privatization of education and research and radical changes in the quality of undergraduate education. Faculty -- who are the best experts on how to educate undergraduates, graduates, and professionals- are underrepresented on the the commission,the campuses have not been given adequate time to respond to its questions, and the president(who admits that he has no background in education)seems committed to railroading through a set of decisions in less than six months.
Sharon Farmer
***
The one interjection by Mary Croghan that "shared governance has never been stronger" was delusional, which is why I shouted back at her,"You must be joking"From her point of view it is--she's been party to what's going on and given the legitimacy of her official posts to sell it to the faculty.
"Delusional"--or in a different universe (Lakoff would say "frame"). I don't follow Sarah's explanation above, though.
And along the same lines: We keep quoting Yudof's "cemetery" remark--but is anyone else uneasy about just what he meant? He explained it by saying that "no one is listening." WTF? Did he mean to say that we aren't doing what he's telling us to? But then he says he is listening to us. And he admits that "furlough" was just a buzzword to get us to swallow the salary cut more easily. It is worth reading that whole interview again carefully, taking it seriously. Maybe if we can get inside Yudof's universe we can figure out how to reach him, instead of talking at him. He is *damn* cynical.
Here's the full quote:
Deborah Salomon/NYT: Already professors on all 10 U.C. campuses are taking
required „furloughs,‰ to use a buzzword.
Yudof: 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.
And let's not forget what he tweeted about that interview:
"I very much enjoyed my time chatting with the NY Times recently. Check it
out:"
This guy is worth some serious analysis; see also his 9/30 tweet: For a comprehensive explanation of our fee increase proposal, please read my piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education: http://bit.ly/mzCl2
I'm not a subscriber to the Chronicle, thus cannot get the full text online. Could a subscriber copy-paste the full text into an email to this list?
Finally, I'm absolutely with Song-i on the use of email: I hope they do take us seriously enough to listen in, and I can't imagine that they're stupid enough to try to use our discussion for legal action. Unless of course we start discussing violent tactics or strictly illegal stuff, as opposed to civil disobedience. As long as there are enough of us who show that we are fearless against their intimidation. In any case, even jumping through hoops to use private email addresses or restricted blogs is too likely to leak that we could rely on privacy.
However, we should be aware that anything we do is not likely to "surprise" them. Some minion of the regents is surely giving them reports about what we are discussing. (They'll be prepared on Nov 18 at UCLA, you can be sure.)
Harold
***
Dear Savers, I finally got to watch the podcast all the way through and want to add my voice to the chorus of gratitude for being part of this brilliant and committed group of people. Everyone was so amazing. I was so moved when Sharon said she would rather find something else to do than watch all this being dismantled--it's the first time I've heard anyone explain we might have reasons for leaving that wouldn't simply be about our salaries and research support. I agree with Constance that watching the sign crossing the room was a fabulous touch. And the students! I just don't see how the Commission reps could have left that session in anything other than disarray.
For reasons such as those articulated just below in my note to Chris and Sharon, I think we have to create our own alternative Commission on the Future. And we also have to ponder how we will communicate and execute our refusal to cooperate with findings that deviate from the Master Plan. This means once again energizing the Senate (Bob and I are meeting Joel tomorrow morning), and also thinking about whether and how we can develop strategies of resistance within the Administration and the alums. One crucial piece is, again, that Committee report about private funding not being a feasible replacement--does anyone remember where that got said? Was it in the Divisional Senate meeting, maybe even part of Joel's report?
I'll start a Future "group" on our ning and we'll see if that can gather energy.
I agree with Sarah. As much as I enjoyed this communication--and I am truly thankful to all of you to let me express my frustration and (sometimes naive) thoughts--I feel that we have to broaden the participation and use different strategies in the future. Campbell hall was empty, and nobody whom we invited per email listings came, except for those expected. Many speeches were REALLY brilliant, but how can these thoughts reach the entire UCSB community and beyond? Of course I don't know the answer.
Sarah, although I don't know what it will mean to be part of the UCSB Faculty Association, I am happy to receiving more information about it and giving it a try. Maybe the speeches from today of everybody (in a condensed format) can be written up and published in the FA Newsletter?
Maybe we need professional lobbyist? But where getting the money from?
Thank you all, you are amazing.
Songi
***
First, thank you to Suk-Young Kim and her students for the great coffin and procession and "I'm not dead yet" sketch; It was definitely the best part of my day.
Sadly, I wouldn't even say that we only had ourselves to talk to at 1pm at Campbell Hall. There were maybe five faculty there (including myself); another 5 or so had accumulated by 1:50, when I had to leave to go teach my class; There were very few undergraduates, and grad students you could count on the fingers of one hand. Some of the union reps were there, but only a few of the rank and file and I do mean 3-4. No one had come prepared to read names or list cuts. Claudio, Edwina, Eddie Woolfolk, Bob Samuels, and Janelle Mungo had to improvise to fill in the time. It made the rallies of the summer look like the Uruk-Hai armies gathered before Helm's Deep.
I'm even sorrier to hear there was no crowd at the Forum itself. I think you are all correct to stress that we shouldn't feel defeated. All "movements" have their ups and downs. But it would be helpful to have an analysis of what went wrong here. There's the issue of what we ourselves did and didn't accomplish; but it is stunning that so few members of the community came to the Forum. Both are worth understanding--if that were possible. The mystery, for me, is doubled by the fact that I had thought the Teach-In and the censure vote had generated some real momentum. That sense was obviously wrong.
We did not have much time to prepare, it's true. But I emailed my own department and comparative literature at least two or three times. Not a single English graduate student turned up for the Outbreak, and the only English faculty who showed were me, Yunte, Stephanie L. and Heather Blurton. Ann Bermingham was the only person I saw from Art History--there may have been one other; Jennifer Holt, the only person from Film Studies. These are our core departments. There were one or two faculty from Spanish and Portuguese, one from French-Ital. (Claudio)
Why are we not even supporting ourselves?
Aranye
***
Okay, perhaps here's a more positive reality check then. The original plan -- advanced by Yudof's "eyes and ears assistant" who was in the front row today -- was that the commission would talk AT us for two hours with no opportunity to speak from the floor. Henry Yang insisted on the open microphone format in which we had the bulk of the time - time we used to make it clear that we aren't buying this smoke screen and have no intention of rolling over for it.
If we had boycotted, that opportunity would have been lost and spun as faculty apathy and tacit consent. Instead, this open mic format will now have to be adopted on the other campuses where faculty and student organizers will have more time to plan, hone their message, and get people in seats. It's true that the turnout is disappointing, but it's also to be expected on this campus. Our contribution has been to get the ball rolling on unmasking this sham-fest and we succeeded in that.
The larger fight has to be a system-wide effort. There is no way that we were going to persuade Yudof even if he had showed, and he would have stolen the floor. He and his corporatist crowd are not going to be persuaded; our only hope is to outmaneuver them in the public domain.
Finally, I agree that everyone did do a great job with their comments. Elisabeth was amazing!! as were many others. I think Henning Bohn deserves special thanks for opening the door as he did. He said that Joel wrote a lot of the speech drawing from wide input. But the student comments were the most extraordinary -- cutting and incisive -- and we might want to transcribe them and get student permission to circulate them via the website. Amber's story of from $0 debt to $87K for one degree says more than we can say in many speeches.
All best,
Edwina
***
I want to second how our students provide the most powerful testimony, as they did at the teach-in. But embedded in their remarks is analysis. We should be proud of them. And again I appreciated all of you who were so elegant today. We have such a talented group of faculty here and throughout the system and together Yes We Can! Eileen
***
I agree - I was inspired and really proud to be a part of this community. Thanks to all who spoke. You were fantastic. Are there transcripts being kept of these events? The collected transcripts of all the forums would seem to be crucial for the commission to have if they really are "listening." How would all of those not present know what was said? I would love to find out about that and learn how our concerns are being documented. I would also like a copy!
Jennifer Holt
***
I agree with Bob that we missed an opportunity (partly my fault, since I was the one who spoke next) to take up Mary Croughan on her outrageous remark. But we did boo her, the loudest negative vocal response of the day. I also looked at the Merced visit schedule--it is pathetic: they will probably have ten to thirty minutes (depending on how the meeting is run) for public comments there. We need to let other campuses know that this is a sham. All the poorly choreographed
publicity and waste of human labor just to do some damage control and to legitimize more bad policies down the road. I have to say that our enemy is media savvy because the Commission would give them good cover in the future. They know what kind of future they want, but they need procedural justification. Let's take them up on that and use this as OUR opportunity to raise hell. The question is how. Today is a small
start, even though I left the room with anger and disgust. We may need better communication strategies and keep our agendas in the news every day. Any ideas -Yunte
***
Dear Yunte,et al.,
I've just sent off a report about today's events to a bunch of contacts on the other UC campuses, with some suggestions about how they should build/improve upon our efforts. Someone suggested months ago that we create our own "Commission on the Future of the UC", which is not a bad idea. Another option is to insist, through our Academic Senates, that any recommendations made by the Gould Commission be subject to debate and ratification by the University community before they are enacted. I actually proposed a resolution to that effect at the local Senate meeting on October 8, but we never got a chance to discuss it. I think we will propose it again at the upcoming meeting.
Part of what makes the whole thing so stupid is that we are not being presented with any concrete proposals, we were simply being invited to vent. They will do this on all 10 campuses, then proceed with the highly-developed plans they've been working out along but never told us about in any detail, and claim that we had our chance to offer input. We must demand the right to approve or reject concrete proposals after due time to consider and debate them.
Does anyone recall that, in his exchange with Lisa Hajjar back in July, Christopher Edley referred to both Yudof and Gould as "impatient" men? I read it on Chris Newfield's blog: it must still be there somewhere. I think that could be used against them, and when one considers what a disaster was caused by the precipitous re-investment of the pension fund a few years ago, we could argue that the Regents have a history of imprudently hasty behavior.
Best,
Bob
***
Dear Bob and all,
Bob, thanks for your work with other campuses, and your analysis of the stupid-smart way that they have designed the Commission as slick, faux "consultation" to ramrod through their existing plans.
I gathered from sympathetic administrators yesterday that if we can make this process embarrassing, difficult, costly, labor intensive,and just plain loud enough for Yudof and the Regents through our resistance, that they will start to back down -- and that at least one Regent or campus leader (I didn't catch which) is already saying no to privatization because it's too explosive and not worth the hassle.
Based on that insight, it follows that if we can continue building pressure, resistance, and roadblocks of various kinds -- and our more activist sister campuses will do this wonderfully on their Forum days - we can start to turn the ship. They will always have this stuff on the shelf ready for a new attempt, so we would need to remain vigilant, but we would have stopped it for now.
If that strategy sounds plausible, then in terms of action, yes, 1)our own commission on the future, and 2) the proposals in the Senate sound great. Somehow Connie's link to the Merced Forum agenda didn't work for me, so I haven't seen their structure, but if I were Yudof's henchwoman I'd want to change the format so that there is no embarrassing voice from the floor. If so, 3) we might consider chipping in if other campuses have to struggle to retain what we had -- they could claim us as precedent and cry "no consultation" if they are denied. It's potentially key because on other campuses the floor. Time will also provide opportunity for media exposure and UC does not want that. 4) I think John Foran is right that circulating the documents will amplify what we did here. I'm away until Monday, but when I return I'll get to work on tracking down the student commentators and start the transcriptions. 5) We also now have a large number of UCSB folks on the commission to lobby and assist in in doing-the-right-thing using yesterday's input and all of the materials we've developed and are developing. 6) I'm not a media-savvy person, but I wonder: is it good idea to go ahead and contact the media folks that Jack Sutton and others named a few days ago and give them our materials when we have it? There is a story here and if we can get some post-event coverage and/or be poised to contribute to stories on other campus forums, that may help the cause. Does anyone more experienced have any thoughts on that? If it's a good idea we should probably go ahead with that press kit and talking points that we discussed earlier and perhaps implement the commentary documents that we are compiling.
Just 2 cents....
All best,
Edwina
***
Following on Bill Warner's wonderful Ben Franklin analogy from yesterday, I keep being reminded of the very successful populist mobilization that occurred during the American Revolution. When the colonists seized control and set up their own "extra-legal" governments, most of the action was carried out by "committees of correspondence," that literally wrote letters to leaders elsewhere to combine efforts, share arguments, etc. They had 13 colonies plus Parliament to lobby--we have 10 campuses, the unions, and student groups, plus the legislature.
Sounds like with email and the web, we have a much faster and more efficient correspondence network, and I think there's great power in getting these arguments out to other campuses prior to their "listening" sessions with the Ghouls...
Best,
Ann Plane
***
It is important to ask direct questions, so that those who are responsible will reveal the wrongdoings under the guise of administrative correctness: hence, as in this case, Croughan came out with an outrageous remark, which you all thankfully booed: aside from the wonderful eloquent speeches like Bill's, this kind of direct approach is needed to tear away the veil of lies.
Jill
***
Elisabeth is right, Thursday afternoon is prime teaching time for lots
of faculty, so we lost their presence, as well as their students'. Given
the heart-rending stories from the students who were there, others might
well have been working one of their many jobs or feel that they couldn't
cut class for a forum where they had every reason to believe they would not
be heard.
As for faculty not attending, we on this list had a discussion about whether
or not to boycott.Many faculty might have quietly done so.
Although many eloquent things were said yesterday--and it was an opportunity
to vent--a way to frame the low turnout is that few of us expected anything
good to come of the Gould Commission so that the absence of attendees was in
itself was a protest.
The one interjection by Mary Croghan that "shared governance has never been stronger" was delusional, which is why I shouted back at her, "You must be joking". From her point of view it is--she's been party to what's going on and given the legitimacy of her official posts to sell it to the faculty.
I hope that we can move forward with some useful strategies to stop the rolling disaster at UC.
Best,
Sarah
***
OK, Here's my 2 cents worth on where to go from here -- how about joining with faculty on other campuses to take out a full page ad (with full list of signatures)in the NYT, LA Times and SF Chronicle. George Lakoff could probably come up with the best wording for such an ad -- but here's something to start with:
We, faculty of the ten campuses of the University of California, are concerned that the leadership of the best publicly funded research university in the country is no longer committed to that description of our university.
In questions posed to the "UC Commission on the Future" and in his public statements to the New York Times, President Mark Yudof has indicated that he has given up on our
historic mission of providing affordable, publicly funded, high quality education to the citizens of California -- despite the fact that the voters of California support public funding of higher education by a ratio of two to one. The President poses as solutions to the false assumption that public funding must continue to wane; the
privatization of education and research and radical changes in the quality of undergraduate education. Faculty -- who are the best experts on how to educate undergraduates, graduates, and professionals- are underrepresented on the the commission,the campuses have not been given adequate time to respond to its questions, and the president(who admits that he has no background in education)seems committed to railroading through a set of decisions in less than six months.
Sharon Farmer
***
The one interjection by Mary Croghan that "shared governance has never been stronger" was delusional, which is why I shouted back at her,"You must be joking"From her point of view it is--she's been party to what's going on and given the legitimacy of her official posts to sell it to the faculty.
"Delusional"--or in a different universe (Lakoff would say "frame"). I don't follow Sarah's explanation above, though.
And along the same lines: We keep quoting Yudof's "cemetery" remark--but is anyone else uneasy about just what he meant? He explained it by saying that "no one is listening." WTF? Did he mean to say that we aren't doing what he's telling us to? But then he says he is listening to us. And he admits that "furlough" was just a buzzword to get us to swallow the salary cut more easily. It is worth reading that whole interview again carefully, taking it seriously. Maybe if we can get inside Yudof's universe we can figure out how to reach him, instead of talking at him. He is *damn* cynical.
Here's the full quote:
Deborah Salomon/NYT: Already professors on all 10 U.C. campuses are taking
required „furloughs,‰ to use a buzzword.
Yudof: 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.
And let's not forget what he tweeted about that interview:
"I very much enjoyed my time chatting with the NY Times recently. Check it
out:"
This guy is worth some serious analysis; see also his 9/30 tweet: For a comprehensive explanation of our fee increase proposal, please read my piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education: http://bit.ly/mzCl2
I'm not a subscriber to the Chronicle, thus cannot get the full text online. Could a subscriber copy-paste the full text into an email to this list?
Finally, I'm absolutely with Song-i on the use of email: I hope they do take us seriously enough to listen in, and I can't imagine that they're stupid enough to try to use our discussion for legal action. Unless of course we start discussing violent tactics or strictly illegal stuff, as opposed to civil disobedience. As long as there are enough of us who show that we are fearless against their intimidation. In any case, even jumping through hoops to use private email addresses or restricted blogs is too likely to leak that we could rely on privacy.
However, we should be aware that anything we do is not likely to "surprise" them. Some minion of the regents is surely giving them reports about what we are discussing. (They'll be prepared on Nov 18 at UCLA, you can be sure.)
Harold
***
Dear Savers, I finally got to watch the podcast all the way through and want to add my voice to the chorus of gratitude for being part of this brilliant and committed group of people. Everyone was so amazing. I was so moved when Sharon said she would rather find something else to do than watch all this being dismantled--it's the first time I've heard anyone explain we might have reasons for leaving that wouldn't simply be about our salaries and research support. I agree with Constance that watching the sign crossing the room was a fabulous touch. And the students! I just don't see how the Commission reps could have left that session in anything other than disarray.
For reasons such as those articulated just below in my note to Chris and Sharon, I think we have to create our own alternative Commission on the Future. And we also have to ponder how we will communicate and execute our refusal to cooperate with findings that deviate from the Master Plan. This means once again energizing the Senate (Bob and I are meeting Joel tomorrow morning), and also thinking about whether and how we can develop strategies of resistance within the Administration and the alums. One crucial piece is, again, that Committee report about private funding not being a feasible replacement--does anyone remember where that got said? Was it in the Divisional Senate meeting, maybe even part of Joel's report?
I'll start a Future "group" on our ning and we'll see if that can gather energy.
Prof William Warner Statement to UCOF at UCSB
Rules by which a Great University may be Reduced to a Mediocre One
Rule 1: Raise tuition so thousands of meritorious students of modest means are kept out of the university; those who still come will need to work so many hours that they won’t be able to perform at the highest level. In order to weaken your ties with the citizens of California, increase the number of those out-of-state students and foreign students who can pay full freight. The thousands of rejection letters with which you have to shower the state’s high school seniors will counter their belief that this is a public university that belongs to them.
Rule 2: Use the budget crisis to lower graduate funding; in addition to realizing immediate savings, this measure will encourage expensive graduate faculty to seek employment elsewhere.
3: Use the opportunity of a state budget-crisis to administer a sudden one-time 8-10% salary cut to your senior faculty; this will make it easier for other universities to hire away your most nationally renowned, and expensive, faculty. Then, it should be increasingly difficult to hire the best junior faculty. But if some do get hired, and their achievements begin to make them expensive, you can always call another furlough. With the high cost of housing in California, this measure should clear the system of any younger faculty who can go elsewhere.
4: Encourage senior staff to seek early retirement, so those who know how to implement university policy are gone, and don’t refill these positions.
5: Keep creative administrators busy reeling from one budget crisis to another; this will discourage them from dreaming up expensive initiatives inconsistent with the modest new goals of the university.
6: Cut costs by decreasing the number of faculty and lecturers in the university; then move the teaching of those who remain onto computer screens so they can teach the way the University of Phoenix does. This will discourage students from attempting expensive direct contact with their teachers.
7: Above all, discourage senior university officials from defending what the university is; prevent them from making the university’s case to the public; and don’t allow the state budget crisis to pass without appointing a commission to recommend these rules.
8: Finally, remember there may be setbacks: some administrators and faculty may continue to harbor delusive aspirations to greatness, but don’t worry. Because a university is a complex and interdependent network for producing and transmitting knowledge, by destroying one area of expensive excellence, you will compromise many others; so once downward momentum has been achieved, the university’s inexorable movement into cheap mediocrity is assured.
Rule 1: Raise tuition so thousands of meritorious students of modest means are kept out of the university; those who still come will need to work so many hours that they won’t be able to perform at the highest level. In order to weaken your ties with the citizens of California, increase the number of those out-of-state students and foreign students who can pay full freight. The thousands of rejection letters with which you have to shower the state’s high school seniors will counter their belief that this is a public university that belongs to them.
Rule 2: Use the budget crisis to lower graduate funding; in addition to realizing immediate savings, this measure will encourage expensive graduate faculty to seek employment elsewhere.
3: Use the opportunity of a state budget-crisis to administer a sudden one-time 8-10% salary cut to your senior faculty; this will make it easier for other universities to hire away your most nationally renowned, and expensive, faculty. Then, it should be increasingly difficult to hire the best junior faculty. But if some do get hired, and their achievements begin to make them expensive, you can always call another furlough. With the high cost of housing in California, this measure should clear the system of any younger faculty who can go elsewhere.
4: Encourage senior staff to seek early retirement, so those who know how to implement university policy are gone, and don’t refill these positions.
5: Keep creative administrators busy reeling from one budget crisis to another; this will discourage them from dreaming up expensive initiatives inconsistent with the modest new goals of the university.
6: Cut costs by decreasing the number of faculty and lecturers in the university; then move the teaching of those who remain onto computer screens so they can teach the way the University of Phoenix does. This will discourage students from attempting expensive direct contact with their teachers.
7: Above all, discourage senior university officials from defending what the university is; prevent them from making the university’s case to the public; and don’t allow the state budget crisis to pass without appointing a commission to recommend these rules.
8: Finally, remember there may be setbacks: some administrators and faculty may continue to harbor delusive aspirations to greatness, but don’t worry. Because a university is a complex and interdependent network for producing and transmitting knowledge, by destroying one area of expensive excellence, you will compromise many others; so once downward momentum has been achieved, the university’s inexorable movement into cheap mediocrity is assured.
Prof Elisabeth Weber Statement to UCOF at UCSB
My name is Elisabeth Weber. I am speaking as chair of a department in which we teach German, Russian and Hebrew languages and literatures, and as chair of the program of Comparative Literature.
The German philosopher Franz Rosenzweig once said: as many languages someone speaks, as many times he or she is a human being.
According to an analysis by UCSC Professor Bob Meister on where student tuition money actually goes, it is not towards instruction, but instead towards insuring UC bonds. The UCOP and the Regents therefore seem to understand only one language: the language of Wall Street.
The cuts to the foreign language and literature programs have been brutal throughout UCSB and other campuses. This in spite of the fact that, to name just two examples, UCSB’s German and Russian language programs’ high enrollments are the envy of much wealthier universities.
We keep hearing that the UC is the world’s premier public university, but if the past and current budgetary priorities continue, UC students will soon no longer speak the languages of the world. During a time of increasing globalization, UC is drastically reducing its foreign language instruction.
In the foreign language and literature departments, and of course in Comparative Literature, we not only teach our students to be conversant in other languages. We also teach them to see and feel through the eyes and experiences of people laughing, crying, loving, revolting in remote regions of the world, in short, to discover other peoples’ sensibilities.
Don’t misunderstand me: I am not appealing to your humanist souls. I am actually addressing your Wall Street minds: One makes better deals with people whose language and sensibilities one understands. President Obama realizes that: He greeted the Arab speaking peoples in their language. But a greeting isn’t enough. This country is engaged in two wars with peoples whose languages and cultural sensibilities only very few Americans understand.
The UC should show the way of, indeed, the future. The fact that the UC Commission on the future has only one professor of foreign languages and literatures on board doesn’t bode well for that future.
The future is a global one in which our students and their children can only succeed if their minds and senses have been opened to the cultural sensibilities of other peoples. In that regard, the decimation of the UC foreign language and literature programs is unconscionable.
The German philosopher Franz Rosenzweig once said: as many languages someone speaks, as many times he or she is a human being.
According to an analysis by UCSC Professor Bob Meister on where student tuition money actually goes, it is not towards instruction, but instead towards insuring UC bonds. The UCOP and the Regents therefore seem to understand only one language: the language of Wall Street.
The cuts to the foreign language and literature programs have been brutal throughout UCSB and other campuses. This in spite of the fact that, to name just two examples, UCSB’s German and Russian language programs’ high enrollments are the envy of much wealthier universities.
We keep hearing that the UC is the world’s premier public university, but if the past and current budgetary priorities continue, UC students will soon no longer speak the languages of the world. During a time of increasing globalization, UC is drastically reducing its foreign language instruction.
In the foreign language and literature departments, and of course in Comparative Literature, we not only teach our students to be conversant in other languages. We also teach them to see and feel through the eyes and experiences of people laughing, crying, loving, revolting in remote regions of the world, in short, to discover other peoples’ sensibilities.
Don’t misunderstand me: I am not appealing to your humanist souls. I am actually addressing your Wall Street minds: One makes better deals with people whose language and sensibilities one understands. President Obama realizes that: He greeted the Arab speaking peoples in their language. But a greeting isn’t enough. This country is engaged in two wars with peoples whose languages and cultural sensibilities only very few Americans understand.
The UC should show the way of, indeed, the future. The fact that the UC Commission on the future has only one professor of foreign languages and literatures on board doesn’t bode well for that future.
The future is a global one in which our students and their children can only succeed if their minds and senses have been opened to the cultural sensibilities of other peoples. In that regard, the decimation of the UC foreign language and literature programs is unconscionable.
Prof Mark Srednicki Statement to UCOF at UCSB
Remarks to the Gould Commission, Forum at UCSB, October 22, 2009
I’m Mark Srednicki, Chair of the Physics Department here. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
I have three points to make.
First, you represent the Commission on the Future of UC, but we cannot look to the future without first understanding the past.
Sadly, the past few years at UC have been characterized by a stunning failure of leadership at the highest levels. We have seen draconian funding cuts that threaten irrevocable harm to this, the world’s greatest public university.
The University of California has historically provided a vital economic sparkplug to our state, and its graduates have historically paid for their educations many times over through state taxes on the extra earnings that their UC educations enable. Yet now, this key component of our economic engine is on the verge of sputtering and stalling out.
Our President, Mark Yudof, makes unfortunate remarks that have led to his censure by the Academic Senate on this campus. The Chair of the Board of Regents, Russell Gould, and the Vice Chair, Sherry Lansing, have been conspicuously silent in the public media, as have all the other Regents. Who will make the case for UC if our leaders will not? These people have failed in their historic mission to preserve, protect, and defend this institution, and they must be held accountable for their failure before any future plans can be made.
My second point is this. Strong leadership at UC is needed because, in this state, the will of the people is continually thwarted. This is because, in California, we do not have democracy. Instead, we have Minority Rule.
This must change. We must join the rest of the civilized world and take up governance of our affairs by Majority Rule.
A ballot initiative restoring Majority Rule to California is being prepared for the November 2010 election. The initiative is 14 words long; I have copies. I call upon the Commission as a whole, and each member individually, to declare public support for the Majority Rule initiative. For those here, I call upon you to do it today.
Third and finally, this Commission cannot allow itself to be used as an instrument for the dismantling of the world’s greatest public university. You must go beyond your narrow charges and boldly confront the true sources of the crisis at UC, namely, failure of leadership by the Regents and the President, and our current undemocratic system of government. Any radical altering or restructuring of the historically highly successful UC system would gravely endanger the future progress and prosperity of this great State, and you must say so loudly and clearly.
Thank you.
Mark Srednicki
Chair of Physics
UC Santa Barbara
mark@physics.ucsb.edu
Majority Rule Initiative
“All legislative actions on revenue and budget
must be determined by a majority vote.”
http://www.camajorityrule.com
I’m Mark Srednicki, Chair of the Physics Department here. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
I have three points to make.
First, you represent the Commission on the Future of UC, but we cannot look to the future without first understanding the past.
Sadly, the past few years at UC have been characterized by a stunning failure of leadership at the highest levels. We have seen draconian funding cuts that threaten irrevocable harm to this, the world’s greatest public university.
The University of California has historically provided a vital economic sparkplug to our state, and its graduates have historically paid for their educations many times over through state taxes on the extra earnings that their UC educations enable. Yet now, this key component of our economic engine is on the verge of sputtering and stalling out.
Our President, Mark Yudof, makes unfortunate remarks that have led to his censure by the Academic Senate on this campus. The Chair of the Board of Regents, Russell Gould, and the Vice Chair, Sherry Lansing, have been conspicuously silent in the public media, as have all the other Regents. Who will make the case for UC if our leaders will not? These people have failed in their historic mission to preserve, protect, and defend this institution, and they must be held accountable for their failure before any future plans can be made.
My second point is this. Strong leadership at UC is needed because, in this state, the will of the people is continually thwarted. This is because, in California, we do not have democracy. Instead, we have Minority Rule.
This must change. We must join the rest of the civilized world and take up governance of our affairs by Majority Rule.
A ballot initiative restoring Majority Rule to California is being prepared for the November 2010 election. The initiative is 14 words long; I have copies. I call upon the Commission as a whole, and each member individually, to declare public support for the Majority Rule initiative. For those here, I call upon you to do it today.
Third and finally, this Commission cannot allow itself to be used as an instrument for the dismantling of the world’s greatest public university. You must go beyond your narrow charges and boldly confront the true sources of the crisis at UC, namely, failure of leadership by the Regents and the President, and our current undemocratic system of government. Any radical altering or restructuring of the historically highly successful UC system would gravely endanger the future progress and prosperity of this great State, and you must say so loudly and clearly.
Thank you.
Mark Srednicki
Chair of Physics
UC Santa Barbara
mark@physics.ucsb.edu
Majority Rule Initiative
“All legislative actions on revenue and budget
must be determined by a majority vote.”
http://www.camajorityrule.com
Friday, October 23, 2009
Prof Claudio Fogu Statement to UCOF at UCSB
Comments for Gould Commission meeting 10 / 22 / 2009
Dear members of the Commission on the Future:
Let me begin by echoing some of the sentiments expressed by my predecessors regarding our state of ‘crisis’: it has been made abundantly clear to you that this crisis is not one of ‘finances’ but one of ‘confidence’ by students, faculty and staff in our Regents and President Yudof…and, I am sorry to add, at the moment, also in you as a commission reflecting the causes of this discontent.
Look at your composition: one sole humanist, compared to scores of professional faculty and administrators; no gender balance; no ‘campus-by-campus’ representation. Look at your stated mission: to come up, supposedly in three months, with “ways to maintain and even expand our substantial contributions” to the State of California, and to address through separate commissions the questions of: a) diminishing resources, b) educational delivery models, c) size and shape of the university, and d) finding alternative revenue streams…
Expand the contribution of UC to the state of California? Are you kidding? Making 24,600 $ out of each UC graduate—as you have heard / will soon hear from Prof. Nelson—is not enough for the State of California?
Then, to focus on ‘size and shape’ or ‘education delivery models’, divorcing these questions from reaffirming and discussing the guiding principles of this university? Is this not a foregone conclusion that will drive your thinking towards the ideas that have been already circulated publicly of separating functions among campuses, introducing distance learning techniques to maximize technologically-driven solutions etc.?
Similarly, to accept the premise of a diminishing public investment in the university as an incontrovertible and accepted fact, rather than a historical trend that is reversible? Does this not set you up as involuntary accomplices of a relentless process of corporatization that has been going on since the 1980s and has led us right into this crisis of confidence, this break down of collective support and understanding of the ‘cultural’ and not only material values of a public university system like this one?
Finally three months of tenure? What’s the hurry?... Oh yes of course, it is called ‘shock doctrine’: use a budget crisis to declare an emergency situation, give the man in charge emergency powers, and proceed with the overhaul of the system after the false pretenses of responding to the crisis. In the process, trump over all principles of shared governance, divide faculty from students, and faculty internally between wining-humanities radicals like myself and serious good citizens in the sciences. We have seen this script many times in history, and some of us have learnt its lessons, so we are here to tell you not to accept to be part of this design, but to redefine instead your mission, and gain legitimacy in the eyes of the university community by transforming yourself into a model of true shared-governance.
Let me thus end with some ideas on who to implement these two preliminary goals:
First, Redefine your mission by embracing publicly the California Master Plan as the principal guideline of your task. This will make you de facto the much needed conduit of communication not only between a very out of touch Board of Regents and President and an ever more unified UC Community around the goal of restoring the guiding principles of the Master Plan, but also between our internal discussions and a larger political arena in which gubernatorial candidates need to be made aware of our conversation, and need to be held accountable early on for declaring their views on what they will do to restore public funding and confidence in our university system.
Second, use this tour of Forums across California to send a strong message to the Regents before they commit another financial crime at their next meeting: a fee hike of unprecedented proportions that will send the final signal to legislators and perspective new governors that there is no need for their becoming advocates of public financing of higher education, because they can count on Regents to solve the problem by shifting the burden on the students.
Third, take stock of the history of mismanagement and progressive corporatization of this public university system and make your primary task to rethink its political structure and administration. Reorient your and trhe public view of UC students as ‘customers’ to be milked for all they are worth, towards an understanding of them as the principal ‘shareholders’ of this university, compared to the State’s investment that represents only 16% of the University’s budget. Reorient your and the public towards redefining role and composition of the Board of Regents away from their voluntary or involuntary position as hostages of a State government that they themselves call “an unreliable partner of the university.” Have the courage, that is, to discuss, for example, how to ensure that the Regents be no longer so distant from the sahred values of the university community they should respond to, by making for example half of the Board of Regents ‘elected’ from the ranks of UC faculty, systemwide. Above all make the office of Regents respondent to a ‘compact with the students’ that ties the university to a certain amount of investment in their education, rather than a ‘compact’ with the State, that is not only worth less than the ink on the page it was written on, but, as we have seen, is only an instrument of blackmail.
Fourth and last, give a strong signal to the Regents and to the State of California that you yourselves have come to refuse the logic of a ‘state of emergence’ when dealing with the ‘future’ of this institution, and make a resolution among yourselves that at the end of this consultation tour you will make yourself truly ‘part of the solution’ by requesting that the Regents reject the proposed fee hike at their November meeting and bringing to their attention the many alternative proposals that have been made by many prominent UC faculty members over the past few weeks and months, by prolonging your tenure to at least the full academic year 2009-2010, and by opening up membership in this commission to representatives elected by each academic senate that will function as transmission a chain to and fro their campus community.
I wish you a good listening day and a productive tour of our campuses.
Dear members of the Commission on the Future:
Let me begin by echoing some of the sentiments expressed by my predecessors regarding our state of ‘crisis’: it has been made abundantly clear to you that this crisis is not one of ‘finances’ but one of ‘confidence’ by students, faculty and staff in our Regents and President Yudof…and, I am sorry to add, at the moment, also in you as a commission reflecting the causes of this discontent.
Look at your composition: one sole humanist, compared to scores of professional faculty and administrators; no gender balance; no ‘campus-by-campus’ representation. Look at your stated mission: to come up, supposedly in three months, with “ways to maintain and even expand our substantial contributions” to the State of California, and to address through separate commissions the questions of: a) diminishing resources, b) educational delivery models, c) size and shape of the university, and d) finding alternative revenue streams…
Expand the contribution of UC to the state of California? Are you kidding? Making 24,600 $ out of each UC graduate—as you have heard / will soon hear from Prof. Nelson—is not enough for the State of California?
Then, to focus on ‘size and shape’ or ‘education delivery models’, divorcing these questions from reaffirming and discussing the guiding principles of this university? Is this not a foregone conclusion that will drive your thinking towards the ideas that have been already circulated publicly of separating functions among campuses, introducing distance learning techniques to maximize technologically-driven solutions etc.?
Similarly, to accept the premise of a diminishing public investment in the university as an incontrovertible and accepted fact, rather than a historical trend that is reversible? Does this not set you up as involuntary accomplices of a relentless process of corporatization that has been going on since the 1980s and has led us right into this crisis of confidence, this break down of collective support and understanding of the ‘cultural’ and not only material values of a public university system like this one?
Finally three months of tenure? What’s the hurry?... Oh yes of course, it is called ‘shock doctrine’: use a budget crisis to declare an emergency situation, give the man in charge emergency powers, and proceed with the overhaul of the system after the false pretenses of responding to the crisis. In the process, trump over all principles of shared governance, divide faculty from students, and faculty internally between wining-humanities radicals like myself and serious good citizens in the sciences. We have seen this script many times in history, and some of us have learnt its lessons, so we are here to tell you not to accept to be part of this design, but to redefine instead your mission, and gain legitimacy in the eyes of the university community by transforming yourself into a model of true shared-governance.
Let me thus end with some ideas on who to implement these two preliminary goals:
First, Redefine your mission by embracing publicly the California Master Plan as the principal guideline of your task. This will make you de facto the much needed conduit of communication not only between a very out of touch Board of Regents and President and an ever more unified UC Community around the goal of restoring the guiding principles of the Master Plan, but also between our internal discussions and a larger political arena in which gubernatorial candidates need to be made aware of our conversation, and need to be held accountable early on for declaring their views on what they will do to restore public funding and confidence in our university system.
Second, use this tour of Forums across California to send a strong message to the Regents before they commit another financial crime at their next meeting: a fee hike of unprecedented proportions that will send the final signal to legislators and perspective new governors that there is no need for their becoming advocates of public financing of higher education, because they can count on Regents to solve the problem by shifting the burden on the students.
Third, take stock of the history of mismanagement and progressive corporatization of this public university system and make your primary task to rethink its political structure and administration. Reorient your and trhe public view of UC students as ‘customers’ to be milked for all they are worth, towards an understanding of them as the principal ‘shareholders’ of this university, compared to the State’s investment that represents only 16% of the University’s budget. Reorient your and the public towards redefining role and composition of the Board of Regents away from their voluntary or involuntary position as hostages of a State government that they themselves call “an unreliable partner of the university.” Have the courage, that is, to discuss, for example, how to ensure that the Regents be no longer so distant from the sahred values of the university community they should respond to, by making for example half of the Board of Regents ‘elected’ from the ranks of UC faculty, systemwide. Above all make the office of Regents respondent to a ‘compact with the students’ that ties the university to a certain amount of investment in their education, rather than a ‘compact’ with the State, that is not only worth less than the ink on the page it was written on, but, as we have seen, is only an instrument of blackmail.
Fourth and last, give a strong signal to the Regents and to the State of California that you yourselves have come to refuse the logic of a ‘state of emergence’ when dealing with the ‘future’ of this institution, and make a resolution among yourselves that at the end of this consultation tour you will make yourself truly ‘part of the solution’ by requesting that the Regents reject the proposed fee hike at their November meeting and bringing to their attention the many alternative proposals that have been made by many prominent UC faculty members over the past few weeks and months, by prolonging your tenure to at least the full academic year 2009-2010, and by opening up membership in this commission to representatives elected by each academic senate that will function as transmission a chain to and fro their campus community.
I wish you a good listening day and a productive tour of our campuses.
Profs Sharon Farmer and Jack Sutton to UCOF at UCSB
Graduate Council Responses to Questions Posed to the UC Commission on the Future
Sharon Farmer, Professor of History, UCSB; Jack Sutton, Professor of Sociology, UCSB
As chair and vice-chair of the UCSB Graduate Council Jack Sutton and I have given careful consideration to the full text of the charge documents that have been sent to the commission on the future. Our comments fall into two categories – the need to take a proactive stance in defending the university, and the urgent necessity of remaining faithful to our teaching and research mission. I will speak to the first issue, and Jack Sutton, the chair of the council, will speak to the second.
1) It is an underlying assumption of the questions that have been posed to the commission that "declining state revenues" are a given. This is a false assumption. Declining state revenues for the University of California have resulted from the political decisions of a governor who believes that private education should replace public education. The last president of the university acquiesced to that vision and the current president embraces that vision. The commission on the future needs to say NO to the vision of privatization, and it needs to pressure the regents and the president to do the same. As recently as April, 2009 a poll of California voters indicated that they opposed cuts in public funding to higher education by a ratio of 2 to 1.
2) A second underlying assumption of the charge to the commission is that we need to prepare for declining demand for the educational services that the UC provides, especially to undergraduates. This too is a false assumption. While the proportion of young adults to older adults will decline over the next 20 years, the raw numbers of high school graduates will continue to grow – by 26%. As an aging population leaves the workforce it will continue to depend on the services and leadership of these young adults, who must be trained to provide the services and leadership.
3) The subcommittee on funding strategies has been asked, : "What are the ways to improve
the University's chances of obtaining state funds." We need a president and regents who understand that public education serves the public good IN WAYS THAT PRIVATE EDUCATION CANNOT. We need a president and regents who are willing to pressure the legislators and the governor to provide the public funding that we need. We need to join the majority of voters in their state in advocating for a severance tax on oil extraction: In the US today we are the only state that does not charge such a tax: the state of CA is thus giving away resources to the oil corporations while it asks middle class families and their children to mortgage their futures in order to pay for their educations. We are thus GIVING AWAY money to both the oil corporations and Wall Street (the beneficiary of student loans) while we ask the middle class to sink deeper and deeper into debt.
SUTTON:
4) The subcommittee on funding strategies has been asked if private funding is the way to go -- especially with reference to our research mission. Obviously, we have already started down that road. But private funding for research is a VERY POOR substitute for public funding, because donors seek results that serve their purposes. Consider the number of universities that now refuse to accept funding from the Tobacco Industry because the research that that industry funds is thought to be tainted; or the fact that at Harvard Medical School the students have had to organize in order to protest the way that private funding from pharmaceutical companies is distorting what they are taught in the classroom. Private funding, moreover, will never be adequate to fund research in the humanities and social sciences, despite the fact that the analytical thinking and communications skills that are taught in the humanities and social sciences help to shape the future leaders of this state
5) The commission has been asked to think about funding for graduate students. Indeed it should, because graduate students follow the funding and the UC has fallen woefully behind on that score. Graduate students need multi-year packages that cover all tuition and fees as well as living expenses. The fact that UCOP has benefited from rising graduate student fees while campuses have been given inadequate funding to attract new graduate students shows that there is a mismanagement of priorities in the system. Because of this year’s cut-back in funding for graduate student teaching assistantships, departments throughout the system are being forced to seriously compromise the quality of education that we offer to undergraduates – by eliminating discussion sections and assignments that teach analytical skills rather than rote learning.
6) The subcommittee on Size and Shape has been asked if the UC campuses should focus on graduate and professional education and undergraduate education that cannot be delivered by other public segments. This question seems to be asking the committee to consider a University of Chicago or Johns Hopkins model. Such a model does not fit our public mandate. The thrill of studying, as undergraduates, with the researchers who create the knowledge that shapes the world we live in is one of the fundamental attractions of THE BEST PUBLIC RESEARCH INSTITUTION IN THE US. Providing that opportunity to undergraduates and exposing them to top research libraries and laboratories is thus one of our best forms of public relations to the citizens of California, which we can't afford to lose. Moreover, teaching undergraduates is not only a major way in which graduate students fund their educations -- it is a form of apprenticeship that prepares them for their careers. Severing the research mission from the undergraduate teaching mission would have dire political consequences, because the UC would garner even less support from the citizens of the state, who would feel totally out of touch with the services that the university provides.
7) The commission has been asked if the UC should cut educational costs by accepting more transfer students, employing more adjuncts and lecturers, and offering on-line courses. Such cost cutting measures would constitute a serious violation of our mission to provide the future leaders of this state with the highest quality education. Transfer students are less prepared for higher forms of critical thinking and writing than are students who spend all four years at the UC. Already about 30% of our students are transfer students. Going further down that road will contribute to the decline of the quality of the work force of California. On-line learning is an extremely poor substitute for face-to-face discussion and debate – it fosters rote learning, and is not what we want to deliver to the state's best and brightest. Again, if we go that route we are contributing to the decline of the quality of the state's work force and we risk harming our reputation among research universities and with the citizens of California.
Sharon Farmer, Professor of History, UCSB; Jack Sutton, Professor of Sociology, UCSB
As chair and vice-chair of the UCSB Graduate Council Jack Sutton and I have given careful consideration to the full text of the charge documents that have been sent to the commission on the future. Our comments fall into two categories – the need to take a proactive stance in defending the university, and the urgent necessity of remaining faithful to our teaching and research mission. I will speak to the first issue, and Jack Sutton, the chair of the council, will speak to the second.
1) It is an underlying assumption of the questions that have been posed to the commission that "declining state revenues" are a given. This is a false assumption. Declining state revenues for the University of California have resulted from the political decisions of a governor who believes that private education should replace public education. The last president of the university acquiesced to that vision and the current president embraces that vision. The commission on the future needs to say NO to the vision of privatization, and it needs to pressure the regents and the president to do the same. As recently as April, 2009 a poll of California voters indicated that they opposed cuts in public funding to higher education by a ratio of 2 to 1.
2) A second underlying assumption of the charge to the commission is that we need to prepare for declining demand for the educational services that the UC provides, especially to undergraduates. This too is a false assumption. While the proportion of young adults to older adults will decline over the next 20 years, the raw numbers of high school graduates will continue to grow – by 26%. As an aging population leaves the workforce it will continue to depend on the services and leadership of these young adults, who must be trained to provide the services and leadership.
3) The subcommittee on funding strategies has been asked, : "What are the ways to improve
the University's chances of obtaining state funds." We need a president and regents who understand that public education serves the public good IN WAYS THAT PRIVATE EDUCATION CANNOT. We need a president and regents who are willing to pressure the legislators and the governor to provide the public funding that we need. We need to join the majority of voters in their state in advocating for a severance tax on oil extraction: In the US today we are the only state that does not charge such a tax: the state of CA is thus giving away resources to the oil corporations while it asks middle class families and their children to mortgage their futures in order to pay for their educations. We are thus GIVING AWAY money to both the oil corporations and Wall Street (the beneficiary of student loans) while we ask the middle class to sink deeper and deeper into debt.
SUTTON:
4) The subcommittee on funding strategies has been asked if private funding is the way to go -- especially with reference to our research mission. Obviously, we have already started down that road. But private funding for research is a VERY POOR substitute for public funding, because donors seek results that serve their purposes. Consider the number of universities that now refuse to accept funding from the Tobacco Industry because the research that that industry funds is thought to be tainted; or the fact that at Harvard Medical School the students have had to organize in order to protest the way that private funding from pharmaceutical companies is distorting what they are taught in the classroom. Private funding, moreover, will never be adequate to fund research in the humanities and social sciences, despite the fact that the analytical thinking and communications skills that are taught in the humanities and social sciences help to shape the future leaders of this state
5) The commission has been asked to think about funding for graduate students. Indeed it should, because graduate students follow the funding and the UC has fallen woefully behind on that score. Graduate students need multi-year packages that cover all tuition and fees as well as living expenses. The fact that UCOP has benefited from rising graduate student fees while campuses have been given inadequate funding to attract new graduate students shows that there is a mismanagement of priorities in the system. Because of this year’s cut-back in funding for graduate student teaching assistantships, departments throughout the system are being forced to seriously compromise the quality of education that we offer to undergraduates – by eliminating discussion sections and assignments that teach analytical skills rather than rote learning.
6) The subcommittee on Size and Shape has been asked if the UC campuses should focus on graduate and professional education and undergraduate education that cannot be delivered by other public segments. This question seems to be asking the committee to consider a University of Chicago or Johns Hopkins model. Such a model does not fit our public mandate. The thrill of studying, as undergraduates, with the researchers who create the knowledge that shapes the world we live in is one of the fundamental attractions of THE BEST PUBLIC RESEARCH INSTITUTION IN THE US. Providing that opportunity to undergraduates and exposing them to top research libraries and laboratories is thus one of our best forms of public relations to the citizens of California, which we can't afford to lose. Moreover, teaching undergraduates is not only a major way in which graduate students fund their educations -- it is a form of apprenticeship that prepares them for their careers. Severing the research mission from the undergraduate teaching mission would have dire political consequences, because the UC would garner even less support from the citizens of the state, who would feel totally out of touch with the services that the university provides.
7) The commission has been asked if the UC should cut educational costs by accepting more transfer students, employing more adjuncts and lecturers, and offering on-line courses. Such cost cutting measures would constitute a serious violation of our mission to provide the future leaders of this state with the highest quality education. Transfer students are less prepared for higher forms of critical thinking and writing than are students who spend all four years at the UC. Already about 30% of our students are transfer students. Going further down that road will contribute to the decline of the quality of the work force of California. On-line learning is an extremely poor substitute for face-to-face discussion and debate – it fosters rote learning, and is not what we want to deliver to the state's best and brightest. Again, if we go that route we are contributing to the decline of the quality of the state's work force and we risk harming our reputation among research universities and with the citizens of California.
Prof Songi Han Statement to UCOF at UCSB
Statement By Songi Han, Assistant Professor of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry on the first hearing of the UC Commission of the Future headed by President Yudof, Chairman Gould and the Regents.
Let me repeat what was already said before as it speaks to the legitimacy of this UC Commission and the meaning of these hearings.
Why are NO members of the UC Regents, Provost and the President present, not even all faculty chairs/co-chairs, at the very FIRST UC Commission of the Future hearings? It is as if we had a UCSB Commission of the Future hearing without our chancellor Henry Yang and executive vice chancellor Gene Lucas present. This would be unthinkable! It is too apparent that these hearings are just a make-up show. Why are the Regents, Provosts and the President not LISTENING on a HEARING tour?
If you asked me personally one year ago about my view on the University of California, I would be praising it over everything. You don't want to ask me now about my confidence in the upper UC administration that I lost so dramatically in just a few months. Don't underestimate the fact that the fuel of the faculty is our passion and love to what we do. Once that passion and love to our institution is gone-and it is truly NOT just about money-you will see the negative consequences of it painfully directly, maybe not this year, maybe not next year, but in the future. In the budget calculation of the upper administration, the value of the passion and love with which we drive our profession is not taken into account, and the loss that this institution will experience if you lose this value not considered. The result, I fear, will be a mediocre University, as one UCSB History Professor beautifully laid out for you.
Let me repeat what was already said before as it speaks to the legitimacy of this UC Commission and the meaning of these hearings.
Why are NO members of the UC Regents, Provost and the President present, not even all faculty chairs/co-chairs, at the very FIRST UC Commission of the Future hearings? It is as if we had a UCSB Commission of the Future hearing without our chancellor Henry Yang and executive vice chancellor Gene Lucas present. This would be unthinkable! It is too apparent that these hearings are just a make-up show. Why are the Regents, Provosts and the President not LISTENING on a HEARING tour?
If you asked me personally one year ago about my view on the University of California, I would be praising it over everything. You don't want to ask me now about my confidence in the upper UC administration that I lost so dramatically in just a few months. Don't underestimate the fact that the fuel of the faculty is our passion and love to what we do. Once that passion and love to our institution is gone-and it is truly NOT just about money-you will see the negative consequences of it painfully directly, maybe not this year, maybe not next year, but in the future. In the budget calculation of the upper administration, the value of the passion and love with which we drive our profession is not taken into account, and the loss that this institution will experience if you lose this value not considered. The result, I fear, will be a mediocre University, as one UCSB History Professor beautifully laid out for you.
Poem for the UC Commission on the Future
By Yunte Huang
I'm a zombie
walking at the U of Cemetery.
The watchman listens
to the bodies he's paid to bury.
Today he sends out a team
to awake me from sleep.
Or does he mean
to herd some sheep?
Halloween's coming
and hard rain's falling.
Just hold on a sec.
I'll be back
from the future
when the watchman is not there
or, the terminator."
Hasta la vista, baby!"
I'm a zombie
walking at the U of Cemetery.
The watchman listens
to the bodies he's paid to bury.
Today he sends out a team
to awake me from sleep.
Or does he mean
to herd some sheep?
Halloween's coming
and hard rain's falling.
Just hold on a sec.
I'll be back
from the future
when the watchman is not there
or, the terminator."
Hasta la vista, baby!"
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Lakoff-Srednicki: 3 Main Issues for UC Now
From Mark Srednicki:
I would like to mobilize as many as possible from the teach-in to show up at the "UC Future" meeting, Thursday, Oct 22, 2-4:30 PM in Campbell Hall:
Taking the advice of George Lakoff, I would like to encourage faculty, staff, and students to speak and stress the following memes:
1) The Regents have failed. Their mission is to lead the greatest public university in the history of the world, and yet they have presided over staggering losses of funding. Their stewardship has been lax and ineffective. Their failure is unacceptable.
2) We need majority rule in California. A majority of the people of California support affordable access to a top-quality university education for themselves, their children, their grandchildren, and all those who can use it for the common good. Ask the panelists to declare their public support for majority rule.
3) The Schwarzenegger Tax harms us all. The Schwarzenegger Tax (tuition hikes covered by long-term student loans that must be repaid with interest and with after-tax dollars) will have terrible long-term consequences for the competitiveness of the California workforce and hence the future of the California economy.
Some background material:
Moving Forward from the 2009 Budget
Stanton Glantz, Professor of Medicine, UCSF
Former Chair, UC Committee on Planning and Budget
Privatization is The Issue
George Lakoff, Distinguished Professor of Linguistics, UC Berkeley
An Open Letter to UC Students (on the use of future tuition revenue to securitize bonds)
Bob Meister, Professor of Political and Social Thought, UCSC
President, Council of UC Faculty Associations
Ending minority rule in California
George Lakoff
Current Budget Trends and the Future of the University of California ("the Futures report")
Adopted by the UC Academic Council, December 2006
The Cuts Report
Adopted by the UC Academic Council, March 2008
I would like to mobilize as many as possible from the teach-in to show up at the "UC Future" meeting, Thursday, Oct 22, 2-4:30 PM in Campbell Hall:
Taking the advice of George Lakoff, I would like to encourage faculty, staff, and students to speak and stress the following memes:
1) The Regents have failed. Their mission is to lead the greatest public university in the history of the world, and yet they have presided over staggering losses of funding. Their stewardship has been lax and ineffective. Their failure is unacceptable.
2) We need majority rule in California. A majority of the people of California support affordable access to a top-quality university education for themselves, their children, their grandchildren, and all those who can use it for the common good. Ask the panelists to declare their public support for majority rule.
3) The Schwarzenegger Tax harms us all. The Schwarzenegger Tax (tuition hikes covered by long-term student loans that must be repaid with interest and with after-tax dollars) will have terrible long-term consequences for the competitiveness of the California workforce and hence the future of the California economy.
Some background material:
Moving Forward from the 2009 Budget
Stanton Glantz, Professor of Medicine, UCSF
Former Chair, UC Committee on Planning and Budget
Privatization is The Issue
George Lakoff, Distinguished Professor of Linguistics, UC Berkeley
An Open Letter to UC Students (on the use of future tuition revenue to securitize bonds)
Bob Meister, Professor of Political and Social Thought, UCSC
President, Council of UC Faculty Associations
Ending minority rule in California
George Lakoff
Current Budget Trends and the Future of the University of California ("the Futures report")
Adopted by the UC Academic Council, December 2006
The Cuts Report
Adopted by the UC Academic Council, March 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)