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
Monday, December 7, 2009
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Budget Crisis at Indiana
Dear Colleague,
I wanted to share with you an important statement I made earlier today to the Trustees of Indiana University regarding the funding of higher education in Indiana.
The full text of that statement, which I hope you will have the opportunity to read, is below.
Yours sincerely,
Michael A. McRobbie
President
Statement to IU Trustees:
I think it is appropriate for me to make just a few brief comments about an announcement I believe that the Governor is making this morning regarding the state's financial difficulties and the implications that will have for the funding of higher education in this state and for Indiana University in particular.
Late yesterday afternoon I spoke with senior officials of state government -- as did all other public university presidents -- and was informed of significant further cuts to the overall funding of higher education in Indiana that will be implemented in the next 30 days.
The details of these cuts, and their impact on Indiana University, have not yet been determined.
We have been asked by state officials to work closely with them in determining how these cuts will be allocated among the state's public institutions of higher education, and we will certainly do so.
As we work with state officials on this matter, I intend to be clear on a few critical points:
First of all, we recognize and understand that these are difficult and extraordinary times. State revenues are under extreme pressure, and, unfortunately, state officials are forced to consider cuts in many important programs, including higher education. We appreciate the fact that the state has implemented other cuts before addressing higher education funding, and we accept the reality that we cannot expect to be immune from the consequences of this economic downturn and its impact on state revenues.
Second, I want to make it clear that as we work with state officials on this issue, we will be stressing the vital role that Indiana University plays in the life of this state and the importance of preserving the excellence that is reflected throughout this institution. Our faculty, staff and students have made great strides in moving this institution forward in recent years, and it is vital to the state, as well as to Indiana University, that we are able to preserve and build on these gains.
Third, we will be making it clear that it is absolutely essential that these cuts to the state's higher education budget, be fairly allocated among public institutions in this state. It should be noted that Indiana's two research universities have already rolled back trustee approved tuition this year in light of economic conditions facing Hoosier families. It is therefore essential that these new proposed cuts not fall disproportionately on institutions that have already made sacrifices that others were exempt from making.
Fourth, it is critically important that the role and the authority of trustees be preserved throughout this process. Trustees of our public universities have the legal fiduciary responsibility for their respective institutions as well as the responsibility for overseeing the strategic direction of their respective institutions. They are best positioned to work with university management to
determine how cuts within their institutions should be implemented.
Finally, I want to say that I have made it clear since becoming president, that one of our missions must be engagement in the economic life of our state. I am proud that we have made great strides in this regard.
In fact, before learning of these pending cuts to our budget, we were preparing to announce in a story that broke just this morning, that Indiana University, in conjunction with private philanthropic donors, would be establishing a $10 million venture capital fund to support the early stage growth and development of Indiana University technologies that have true commercial potential. This translates to more start-up companies, more jobs for Hoosiers, and new revenues to help support our fundamental teaching and research missions.
It is our hope that initiatives such as this will not be threatened by the scope and magnitude of the budget cuts we will have to make.
In these very difficult economic times we have two fundamental objectives:
-- to preserve and expand the academic core of the university by retaining and securing the best faculty and
-- to continue to build the infrastructure essential to supporting research and education at the highest levels of excellence.
Before turning to my report, let me reiterate one key point in all of this: I want to assure our faculty, our students and our staff that we will do everything in our power to ensure that Indiana University is able to sustain the forward momentum that we all have worked so hard to achieve in recent years and that we will emerge from this budget crisis as an institution of higher learning whose commitment to excellence in all our core missions is unquestioned.
I wanted to share with you an important statement I made earlier today to the Trustees of Indiana University regarding the funding of higher education in Indiana.
The full text of that statement, which I hope you will have the opportunity to read, is below.
Yours sincerely,
Michael A. McRobbie
President
Statement to IU Trustees:
I think it is appropriate for me to make just a few brief comments about an announcement I believe that the Governor is making this morning regarding the state's financial difficulties and the implications that will have for the funding of higher education in this state and for Indiana University in particular.
Late yesterday afternoon I spoke with senior officials of state government -- as did all other public university presidents -- and was informed of significant further cuts to the overall funding of higher education in Indiana that will be implemented in the next 30 days.
The details of these cuts, and their impact on Indiana University, have not yet been determined.
We have been asked by state officials to work closely with them in determining how these cuts will be allocated among the state's public institutions of higher education, and we will certainly do so.
As we work with state officials on this matter, I intend to be clear on a few critical points:
First of all, we recognize and understand that these are difficult and extraordinary times. State revenues are under extreme pressure, and, unfortunately, state officials are forced to consider cuts in many important programs, including higher education. We appreciate the fact that the state has implemented other cuts before addressing higher education funding, and we accept the reality that we cannot expect to be immune from the consequences of this economic downturn and its impact on state revenues.
Second, I want to make it clear that as we work with state officials on this issue, we will be stressing the vital role that Indiana University plays in the life of this state and the importance of preserving the excellence that is reflected throughout this institution. Our faculty, staff and students have made great strides in moving this institution forward in recent years, and it is vital to the state, as well as to Indiana University, that we are able to preserve and build on these gains.
Third, we will be making it clear that it is absolutely essential that these cuts to the state's higher education budget, be fairly allocated among public institutions in this state. It should be noted that Indiana's two research universities have already rolled back trustee approved tuition this year in light of economic conditions facing Hoosier families. It is therefore essential that these new proposed cuts not fall disproportionately on institutions that have already made sacrifices that others were exempt from making.
Fourth, it is critically important that the role and the authority of trustees be preserved throughout this process. Trustees of our public universities have the legal fiduciary responsibility for their respective institutions as well as the responsibility for overseeing the strategic direction of their respective institutions. They are best positioned to work with university management to
determine how cuts within their institutions should be implemented.
Finally, I want to say that I have made it clear since becoming president, that one of our missions must be engagement in the economic life of our state. I am proud that we have made great strides in this regard.
In fact, before learning of these pending cuts to our budget, we were preparing to announce in a story that broke just this morning, that Indiana University, in conjunction with private philanthropic donors, would be establishing a $10 million venture capital fund to support the early stage growth and development of Indiana University technologies that have true commercial potential. This translates to more start-up companies, more jobs for Hoosiers, and new revenues to help support our fundamental teaching and research missions.
It is our hope that initiatives such as this will not be threatened by the scope and magnitude of the budget cuts we will have to make.
In these very difficult economic times we have two fundamental objectives:
-- to preserve and expand the academic core of the university by retaining and securing the best faculty and
-- to continue to build the infrastructure essential to supporting research and education at the highest levels of excellence.
Before turning to my report, let me reiterate one key point in all of this: I want to assure our faculty, our students and our staff that we will do everything in our power to ensure that Indiana University is able to sustain the forward momentum that we all have worked so hard to achieve in recent years and that we will emerge from this budget crisis as an institution of higher learning whose commitment to excellence in all our core missions is unquestioned.
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
Friday, December 4, 2009
UCLA Faculty Open Letter to Chancellor Block on Police
OPEN LETTER TO CHANCELLOR BLOCK
Dear Chancellor Block,
As UCLA faculty we write to express our grave concern over the behavior of the Campus Police during the Regents meeting at UCLA. There are clearly documented examples (in both video and photographic evidence) of officers using tasers and batons on students, at least one incident of a security figure using either mace or pepper spray on students, as well as officers displaying tear gas rifles and pointing weapons at students. On a campus devoted to the free interchange of ideas and the rights of individuals to express their political views, these actions of the police were unacceptable.
We recognize that UCPD has the difficult task of balancing the security of the Regents with the free speech rights of protesters. We also recognize that protests are by their nature unpredictable and difficult to control. These challenges make it all the more important that campus police, as a force and as individuals, should avoid behavior that escalates tensions. Perhaps the UCPD considered the stance of their forces to be a deterrent to violence? Unfortunately, there is ample evidence to suggest that it had the opposite effect, serving only to raise tensions and intimidate individuals who were protesting the Regents’ actions.
We also recognize that the more egregious uses of force may have been individual actions rather than a common policy. But we would like to know what the protocols and policies are regarding the use of force. Officers wearing riot gear and carrying weapons should be trained and deployed in a manner that enables them to handle the unquestionable pressures of their position. Did Campus police prepare properly and plan for the meeting so as to minimize conflict and harm? While there have been some criticisms of protestors for their challenges to the Regents entering and leaving the building, it was the protestors who suffered most from the effects of the use of force. In what way did campus police and the event’s planners prepare the police to act appropriately? What steps were taken to ensure the safety not only of the Regents and University officials but students, staff, and faculty protesters?
We think that these events indicate a serious problem—not only for the individuals who suffered personally, but for the University as it moves ahead. UCLA has a long-standing tradition of vibrant political debate and the defense of First Amendment rights. There is, as you know, a good deal of distrust between students and the Administration. Your willingness to meet with students in a GSA led town hall meeting was an important first step. But a full and open investigation of last week’s events, as well as a review of campus policy on protests is required. We also call upon you to make a general statement to the Campus community that addresses the events of the Regents meeting and lays out the process of the Campus’ review of protocol and practice for ensuring the safety of all involved in future events.
Signed:
Edward A. Alpers, History
Andrew Apter, History
George Baker, Art History
Victor Bascara, Asian American Studies
Ali Behdad, English / Comparative Literature
Maylei Blackwell, Chicana & Chicano Studies
Gary Blasi, School of Law
Ra'anan Boustan, History / Near Eastern Languages and Cultures
Joseph Bristow, English
Karen Brodkin, Emeritus Anthropology
Carole H. Browner, Anthropology / Women's Studies / Neuroscience & Human Behavior
Shane Butler, Classics
Keith Camacho, Asian American Studies
Judy Carney, Geography
Jack Chen, Asian Languages & Cultures
Michael Chwe, Political Science
Michelle Clayton, Comparative Literature / Spanish and Portuguese
Michael Cooperson, Near Eastern Languages and Cultures
Donald Cosentino, World Arts & Cultures
Susan Curtiss, Linguistics
Jan De Leeuw, Statistics
Elizabeth DeLoughrey, English
Robin Derby, History
Helen Deutsch, English
Ellen Dubois, History / Women’s Studies
Aisha Finch, Women's Studies / Afro-American Studies
Matthew Fisher, English
Russell Ferguson, Art
Susan Foster, World Arts & Cultures
Andrea Fraser, Art
Dan Froot, World Arts & Cultures
Nouri Gana, Comparative Literature
Alicia Gaspar de Alba, Chicana and Chicano Studies
David Gere, World Arts & Cultures
Mishuana Goeman, Women's Studies
Andrea Goldman, History
Yogita Goyal, English
Nile Green, History
Gerry Hale, Emeritus, Geography
Sondra Hale, Anthropology / Women's Studies
Christian Haesemeyer, Mathematics
Natasha Heller, Asian Languages and Cultures
Tobias Higbie, History
Darnell Hunt, Sociology
Gail Kligman, Sociology
Grace Kyungwon Hong, Asian American Studies / Women's Studies
Sanford M. Jacoby, Management
Sarah Tindal Kareem, English
Katherine Callen King, Comparative Literature / Classics
Gordon Kipling, English
Raymond Knapp, Musicology
Namhee Lee, Asian Languages & Cultures
Rachel Lee, English
Francoise Lionnet, French & Francophone / Comparative Literature
Arthur Little, English
Chris Littleton, School of Law / Women’s Studies
Christopher Looby, English
David Wong Louie, English / Asian American Studies
Marissa López, English
Ghislaine Lydon, History
Reynaldo F. Macías, Chicana & Chicano Studies / Education & Applied Linguistics
Saree Makdisi, English / Comparative Literature
Elizabeth Marchant, Spanish & Portuguese / Women’s Studies
Victoria Marks, World Arts & Cultures
Valerie Matsumoto, History / Asian American Studies
Peter McClaren, Graduate School of Education
Kirstie McClure, Comparative Literature / Political Science
Kathleen McHugh, English
Muriel McClendon, History
Sara Melzer, French & Francophone
Michael Meranze, History
Ruth Milkman, Sociology
Kathryn Morgan, Classics
Peter Nabokov, World Arts & Cultures
Steven Nelson, Art History
Sianne Ngai, English
Thu-huong Nguyen-vo, Asian Languages & Cultures / Asian American Studies
Chon Noriega, Film, Television & Digital Media
Sung Deuk Oak, Asian Languages & Cultures
Frances Olsen, School of Law
Catherine Opie, Art
Vilma Ortiz, Sociology
John K. Papdopoulos, Classics / Archeology
Rafael Pérez-Torres, English
Peter Petersen, Mathematics
Meredith Phillips, School of Public Affairs / Public Policy
Gabriel Piterberg, History
María Cristina Pons, Chicana and Chicano Studies
Lionel Popkin, World Arts & Cultures
Jeffrey Prager, Sociology
Alex Purvas, Classics
Allen Roberts, World Arts & Cultures
Mary Nooter Roberts, World Arts & Cultures
Vilma Ortiz, Sociology
Jan Reiff, History
Geoff Robinson, History
Teofilo Ruiz, History
Michael Salman, History
Mark Sawyer, Political Science
David A. Scott, Art History / Archeological Conservation
Mark Seltzer, English
Jenny Sharpe, English
Shu-mei Shih, Comparative Literature / Asian Languages & Cultures
David Shorter, World Arts & Cultures
Brenda Stevenson, History
Susan Slyomovics, Anthropology
Zrinka Stahuljak, French & Francophone Studies
Timothy R. Tangherlini, Asian Languages & Cultures
Dominic Thomas, French & Francophone / Comparative Literature
Chris Tilly, Urban Planning / Sociology
Sharon Traweek, Women’s Studies / History
M. Belinda Tucker, Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences
Abel Valenzuela Jr., Chicana & Chicano Studies
Brian Walker, Political Science
Juliet Williams, Women’s Studies
E. Victor Wolfenstein, Political Science
Steven Yenser, English
****
Faculty Executive Committee, UCLA School of the Arts and Architecture
Dear Chancellor Block,
As UCLA faculty we write to express our grave concern over the behavior of the Campus Police during the Regents meeting at UCLA. There are clearly documented examples (in both video and photographic evidence) of officers using tasers and batons on students, at least one incident of a security figure using either mace or pepper spray on students, as well as officers displaying tear gas rifles and pointing weapons at students. On a campus devoted to the free interchange of ideas and the rights of individuals to express their political views, these actions of the police were unacceptable.
We recognize that UCPD has the difficult task of balancing the security of the Regents with the free speech rights of protesters. We also recognize that protests are by their nature unpredictable and difficult to control. These challenges make it all the more important that campus police, as a force and as individuals, should avoid behavior that escalates tensions. Perhaps the UCPD considered the stance of their forces to be a deterrent to violence? Unfortunately, there is ample evidence to suggest that it had the opposite effect, serving only to raise tensions and intimidate individuals who were protesting the Regents’ actions.
We also recognize that the more egregious uses of force may have been individual actions rather than a common policy. But we would like to know what the protocols and policies are regarding the use of force. Officers wearing riot gear and carrying weapons should be trained and deployed in a manner that enables them to handle the unquestionable pressures of their position. Did Campus police prepare properly and plan for the meeting so as to minimize conflict and harm? While there have been some criticisms of protestors for their challenges to the Regents entering and leaving the building, it was the protestors who suffered most from the effects of the use of force. In what way did campus police and the event’s planners prepare the police to act appropriately? What steps were taken to ensure the safety not only of the Regents and University officials but students, staff, and faculty protesters?
We think that these events indicate a serious problem—not only for the individuals who suffered personally, but for the University as it moves ahead. UCLA has a long-standing tradition of vibrant political debate and the defense of First Amendment rights. There is, as you know, a good deal of distrust between students and the Administration. Your willingness to meet with students in a GSA led town hall meeting was an important first step. But a full and open investigation of last week’s events, as well as a review of campus policy on protests is required. We also call upon you to make a general statement to the Campus community that addresses the events of the Regents meeting and lays out the process of the Campus’ review of protocol and practice for ensuring the safety of all involved in future events.
Signed:
Edward A. Alpers, History
Andrew Apter, History
George Baker, Art History
Victor Bascara, Asian American Studies
Ali Behdad, English / Comparative Literature
Maylei Blackwell, Chicana & Chicano Studies
Gary Blasi, School of Law
Ra'anan Boustan, History / Near Eastern Languages and Cultures
Joseph Bristow, English
Karen Brodkin, Emeritus Anthropology
Carole H. Browner, Anthropology / Women's Studies / Neuroscience & Human Behavior
Shane Butler, Classics
Keith Camacho, Asian American Studies
Judy Carney, Geography
Jack Chen, Asian Languages & Cultures
Michael Chwe, Political Science
Michelle Clayton, Comparative Literature / Spanish and Portuguese
Michael Cooperson, Near Eastern Languages and Cultures
Donald Cosentino, World Arts & Cultures
Susan Curtiss, Linguistics
Jan De Leeuw, Statistics
Elizabeth DeLoughrey, English
Robin Derby, History
Helen Deutsch, English
Ellen Dubois, History / Women’s Studies
Aisha Finch, Women's Studies / Afro-American Studies
Matthew Fisher, English
Russell Ferguson, Art
Susan Foster, World Arts & Cultures
Andrea Fraser, Art
Dan Froot, World Arts & Cultures
Nouri Gana, Comparative Literature
Alicia Gaspar de Alba, Chicana and Chicano Studies
David Gere, World Arts & Cultures
Mishuana Goeman, Women's Studies
Andrea Goldman, History
Yogita Goyal, English
Nile Green, History
Gerry Hale, Emeritus, Geography
Sondra Hale, Anthropology / Women's Studies
Christian Haesemeyer, Mathematics
Natasha Heller, Asian Languages and Cultures
Tobias Higbie, History
Darnell Hunt, Sociology
Gail Kligman, Sociology
Grace Kyungwon Hong, Asian American Studies / Women's Studies
Sanford M. Jacoby, Management
Sarah Tindal Kareem, English
Katherine Callen King, Comparative Literature / Classics
Gordon Kipling, English
Raymond Knapp, Musicology
Namhee Lee, Asian Languages & Cultures
Rachel Lee, English
Francoise Lionnet, French & Francophone / Comparative Literature
Arthur Little, English
Chris Littleton, School of Law / Women’s Studies
Christopher Looby, English
David Wong Louie, English / Asian American Studies
Marissa López, English
Ghislaine Lydon, History
Reynaldo F. Macías, Chicana & Chicano Studies / Education & Applied Linguistics
Saree Makdisi, English / Comparative Literature
Elizabeth Marchant, Spanish & Portuguese / Women’s Studies
Victoria Marks, World Arts & Cultures
Valerie Matsumoto, History / Asian American Studies
Peter McClaren, Graduate School of Education
Kirstie McClure, Comparative Literature / Political Science
Kathleen McHugh, English
Muriel McClendon, History
Sara Melzer, French & Francophone
Michael Meranze, History
Ruth Milkman, Sociology
Kathryn Morgan, Classics
Peter Nabokov, World Arts & Cultures
Steven Nelson, Art History
Sianne Ngai, English
Thu-huong Nguyen-vo, Asian Languages & Cultures / Asian American Studies
Chon Noriega, Film, Television & Digital Media
Sung Deuk Oak, Asian Languages & Cultures
Frances Olsen, School of Law
Catherine Opie, Art
Vilma Ortiz, Sociology
John K. Papdopoulos, Classics / Archeology
Rafael Pérez-Torres, English
Peter Petersen, Mathematics
Meredith Phillips, School of Public Affairs / Public Policy
Gabriel Piterberg, History
María Cristina Pons, Chicana and Chicano Studies
Lionel Popkin, World Arts & Cultures
Jeffrey Prager, Sociology
Alex Purvas, Classics
Allen Roberts, World Arts & Cultures
Mary Nooter Roberts, World Arts & Cultures
Vilma Ortiz, Sociology
Jan Reiff, History
Geoff Robinson, History
Teofilo Ruiz, History
Michael Salman, History
Mark Sawyer, Political Science
David A. Scott, Art History / Archeological Conservation
Mark Seltzer, English
Jenny Sharpe, English
Shu-mei Shih, Comparative Literature / Asian Languages & Cultures
David Shorter, World Arts & Cultures
Brenda Stevenson, History
Susan Slyomovics, Anthropology
Zrinka Stahuljak, French & Francophone Studies
Timothy R. Tangherlini, Asian Languages & Cultures
Dominic Thomas, French & Francophone / Comparative Literature
Chris Tilly, Urban Planning / Sociology
Sharon Traweek, Women’s Studies / History
M. Belinda Tucker, Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences
Abel Valenzuela Jr., Chicana & Chicano Studies
Brian Walker, Political Science
Juliet Williams, Women’s Studies
E. Victor Wolfenstein, Political Science
Steven Yenser, English
****
Faculty Executive Committee, UCLA School of the Arts and Architecture
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Bonfire of Anonymity: Putting out the Pyrotechnics
David Theo Goldberg
UCHRI
There is much about the crisis facing the university that we can and ought to critique. The humanities have been especially hard hit, in ways many have pointed out on this important website (Robert Meister's excellent analysis of the university budget, aired I believe on these pages, is a very good place to begin). While I am loath to enter into a public argument about the state of the humanities, not least for the university administration to point to as evidence of our infighting, I am the only humanities faculty across the University that Professor Anonymous (A. for short) explicitly names in the blog piece "Bonfire of the Humanities". A. has so muddled the case that I feel obliged to set the record straight regarding the terms of representation of the University of California Humanities Research Institute.
Professor A writes that "David Theo Goldberg now controls virtually all humanities research dollars". It would indeed be bad if any one person controlled all humanities research funding across the University of California, but this is so far from the truth as to undermine virtually everything else A claims.
Here are the facts. Last academic year, the Office of Research at UCOP announced that it would be recompeting much of the research funding directed to multi-campus research units (MRUs). This meant that the original Humanities Initiative with which UCHRI has always been affiliated would have to recompete with all others, including the sciences, for any research funding going forward. The competition was open to any UC faculty to submit proposals for ongoing or new funding. Following lengthy discussion, the Humanities Advisory Council (consisting of all Humanities Deans, some systemwide faculty representation, and the Director of UCHRI) agreed to submit a single proposal. That proposal was co-written by the deans, under the terrific leadership of UCSB's David Marshall, with input from the Directors of the campus Humanities Centers, Dante Noto for his systemwide experience representing the humanities, and myself representing UCHRI. As it became clear that with the halving of staffing at UCOP that the Humanities Initiative would no longer receive administrative support of any kind from the central office, UCHRI was asked to administer any systemwide funding that might be received. We agreed, even though this meant significantly more administrative responsibility in the face of shrinking budgets.
The new Humanities Initiative proposal, we are told, was the top ranked one in the entire MRPI competition, testament to the multiple inputs, collaborative engagement, collegiality, and creativity of those putting it together. It also received the largest award in the entire competition, though 12 percent less than the Initiative requested. In the face of dramatic cuts across the University, the Initiative funding for the next five years was about equal to what it had been receiving to date. UCHRI has worked closely with the deans and directors of the humanities centers to ensure that individual faculty fellowships will be increasing in number, that the humanities centers remain funded at close to their traditional levels, and that new systemwide humanities engagements open to all areas of interest are supported. At the same time UCHRI is receiving modestly less funding than it had in the past, and has contributed some of its own funding to make this all work.
The Office of the President now requires that research funding under the MRPI program go to a single campus. Because UCHRI is now administering the funds, it was thought best that the funding come to Irvine (after all, UCHRI has considerable experience disbursing funds systemwide). The day the funding for 2009-10 was received at UCHRI we transferred 75% of it to campus deans. UCHRI reports to more overseers, arguably, than any other research organization across the university. We report to a Board of Governors, an Advisory Committee, the oversight committee for the new Humanities Initiative (including all the Humanities Deans), the Office of Research at the University of California, Irvine, the Office of Research at UCOP, not to mention grant reporting to the various organizations from which we receive grant funds. This may be a critique of the over-bureaucratization of the university; but it is also strong testament against the claim that UCHRI or David Theo Goldberg personally "controls virtually all humanities research dollars," as Professor A. claims.
A. further claims that "the humanities center directors could not even begin to get David Theo Goldberg . . . to commit to Humanities rather than to education and science studies (and digital anything)". I have no idea what A. is basing this claim on, but, again, the truth is very different here. Areas covered by UCHRI's support range from classics, medieval and early modern projects, poetry, history and philosophy to postcolonial studies, critical theory, Asian studies, California studies, Jewish studies, Middle Eastern studies, European studies, African studies, ethnic studies, public humanities, political theology and science studies, at the very least. Anyone consulting the UCHRI website (www.uchri.org) can readily discern this. Additionally, virtually everything we support in learning, "science studies, and digital humanities" has been on the basis of external funding. But in any case, if the distinction between learning, literacies, networking knowledge, their epistemological and participatory implications, on one hand, and education, on the other, is not germane to the humanities, further woe to us.
The fact that UCHRI has been successful in external grant support has meant that, especially in this budget climate, we are able to direct more of our regular university funding to support work across the humanities. While it is safe to say that UCHRI has never received a proposal from a Professor Anonymous, I'd be more than happy to talk with A.,in public or private, about the multiple opportunities now available, though that of course would entail coming out from behind the veil of ignorance or resentful bias.
It can be said now too that there is today, surprisingly, at least as much support across the University for humanities research than there has been in recent years. The new Humanities Initiative supports graduate student funding, increased individual faculty fellowships, humanities centers on each campus, the systemwide institute, sponsors conferences, seminars, and workshops on every campus, working groups between campuses, multi-campus research groups, and residence research groups. There are few universities anywhere in the world that offer this range and level of support, all told.
While A. chides UCLA for "whor[ing] its Humanities people out to special interests in the donor community to get some support," in the past couple of years they have enjoyed a major Mellon grant which has been used to invigorate humanities research and teaching on campus. Berkeley also has enjoyed major support from Mellon, and UCHRI played a significant role in helping UC Press to secure a large Mellon grant to support California Studies. You would not know that from Professor A.'s account. A. offers not a word of productive or creative suggestion about how to respond to the crisis in public funding and the implications for the humanities. Many others have been working collaboratively and effectively to make humanities research available and viable, and it would be good to see Director A. throw support behind these efforts rather than do nothing but make our collective lives seem more miserable.
UCHRI
There is much about the crisis facing the university that we can and ought to critique. The humanities have been especially hard hit, in ways many have pointed out on this important website (Robert Meister's excellent analysis of the university budget, aired I believe on these pages, is a very good place to begin). While I am loath to enter into a public argument about the state of the humanities, not least for the university administration to point to as evidence of our infighting, I am the only humanities faculty across the University that Professor Anonymous (A. for short) explicitly names in the blog piece "Bonfire of the Humanities". A. has so muddled the case that I feel obliged to set the record straight regarding the terms of representation of the University of California Humanities Research Institute.
Professor A writes that "David Theo Goldberg now controls virtually all humanities research dollars". It would indeed be bad if any one person controlled all humanities research funding across the University of California, but this is so far from the truth as to undermine virtually everything else A claims.
Here are the facts. Last academic year, the Office of Research at UCOP announced that it would be recompeting much of the research funding directed to multi-campus research units (MRUs). This meant that the original Humanities Initiative with which UCHRI has always been affiliated would have to recompete with all others, including the sciences, for any research funding going forward. The competition was open to any UC faculty to submit proposals for ongoing or new funding. Following lengthy discussion, the Humanities Advisory Council (consisting of all Humanities Deans, some systemwide faculty representation, and the Director of UCHRI) agreed to submit a single proposal. That proposal was co-written by the deans, under the terrific leadership of UCSB's David Marshall, with input from the Directors of the campus Humanities Centers, Dante Noto for his systemwide experience representing the humanities, and myself representing UCHRI. As it became clear that with the halving of staffing at UCOP that the Humanities Initiative would no longer receive administrative support of any kind from the central office, UCHRI was asked to administer any systemwide funding that might be received. We agreed, even though this meant significantly more administrative responsibility in the face of shrinking budgets.
The new Humanities Initiative proposal, we are told, was the top ranked one in the entire MRPI competition, testament to the multiple inputs, collaborative engagement, collegiality, and creativity of those putting it together. It also received the largest award in the entire competition, though 12 percent less than the Initiative requested. In the face of dramatic cuts across the University, the Initiative funding for the next five years was about equal to what it had been receiving to date. UCHRI has worked closely with the deans and directors of the humanities centers to ensure that individual faculty fellowships will be increasing in number, that the humanities centers remain funded at close to their traditional levels, and that new systemwide humanities engagements open to all areas of interest are supported. At the same time UCHRI is receiving modestly less funding than it had in the past, and has contributed some of its own funding to make this all work.
The Office of the President now requires that research funding under the MRPI program go to a single campus. Because UCHRI is now administering the funds, it was thought best that the funding come to Irvine (after all, UCHRI has considerable experience disbursing funds systemwide). The day the funding for 2009-10 was received at UCHRI we transferred 75% of it to campus deans. UCHRI reports to more overseers, arguably, than any other research organization across the university. We report to a Board of Governors, an Advisory Committee, the oversight committee for the new Humanities Initiative (including all the Humanities Deans), the Office of Research at the University of California, Irvine, the Office of Research at UCOP, not to mention grant reporting to the various organizations from which we receive grant funds. This may be a critique of the over-bureaucratization of the university; but it is also strong testament against the claim that UCHRI or David Theo Goldberg personally "controls virtually all humanities research dollars," as Professor A. claims.
A. further claims that "the humanities center directors could not even begin to get David Theo Goldberg . . . to commit to Humanities rather than to education and science studies (and digital anything)". I have no idea what A. is basing this claim on, but, again, the truth is very different here. Areas covered by UCHRI's support range from classics, medieval and early modern projects, poetry, history and philosophy to postcolonial studies, critical theory, Asian studies, California studies, Jewish studies, Middle Eastern studies, European studies, African studies, ethnic studies, public humanities, political theology and science studies, at the very least. Anyone consulting the UCHRI website (
The fact that UCHRI has been successful in external grant support has meant that, especially in this budget climate, we are able to direct more of our regular university funding to support work across the humanities. While it is safe to say that UCHRI has never received a proposal from a Professor Anonymous, I'd be more than happy to talk with A.,in public or private, about the multiple opportunities now available, though that of course would entail coming out from behind the veil of ignorance or resentful bias.
It can be said now too that there is today, surprisingly, at least as much support across the University for humanities research than there has been in recent years. The new Humanities Initiative supports graduate student funding, increased individual faculty fellowships, humanities centers on each campus, the systemwide institute, sponsors conferences, seminars, and workshops on every campus, working groups between campuses, multi-campus research groups, and residence research groups. There are few universities anywhere in the world that offer this range and level of support, all told.
While A. chides UCLA for "whor[ing] its Humanities people out to special interests in the donor community to get some support," in the past couple of years they have enjoyed a major Mellon grant which has been used to invigorate humanities research and teaching on campus. Berkeley also has enjoyed major support from Mellon, and UCHRI played a significant role in helping UC Press to secure a large Mellon grant to support California Studies. You would not know that from Professor A.'s account. A. offers not a word of productive or creative suggestion about how to respond to the crisis in public funding and the implications for the humanities. Many others have been working collaboratively and effectively to make humanities research available and viable, and it would be good to see Director A. throw support behind these efforts rather than do nothing but make our collective lives seem more miserable.
Master Plan Hearings Monday December 7
For Immediate Release: December 1, 2009
Contact: Karen Zamel (650) 691-2121
Legislators and Top College System Administrators Meet to Assess How Master Plan
Must Change to Address Educational Needs and Keep California Competitive
Sacramento, CA - The Joint Committee for Review of the Master Plan on Higher Education, co-chaired by Assemblymember Ira Ruskin (D-Redwood City) and Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod (D-Chino), will conduct the first of five public hearings on Monday, December 7, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the State Capitol, in room 437.
The hearings commence as the Master Plan for Higher Education reaches its 50-year anniversary, at a time many agree the state system of higher education is in peril. The Committee's goal will be to evaluate the Master Plan for Higher Education and determine if it meets California's current and future educational needs, in light of changing forces in global competition, demographics, technology and public financing.
Monday's agenda will include a review of the plan's history, its status today and a beginning look at how the plan should evolve to meet the current and future needs of the state, its students and educators.
"Our higher education system has been the cornerstone for the state's preeminence the past 50 years, and the system is now in danger," Ruskin said. "If we don't recommit ourselves to higher education, we risk our ability to compete in the global economy and we threaten the continued development of the state. Studies show that by 2020, we will not have enough qualified graduates to fill jobs across all key sectors of the economy if we do not head off the impending collapse of our higher education system in California."
Morning sessions will include testimony from individuals who were involved in drafting the original 1960 Master Plan, former legislators involved in previous Master Plan reviews and top administrators from the UC, CSU and Community College systems. University of California President Mark Yudof, California State University Chancellor Charles Reed, and California Community Colleges Chancellor Jack Scott are scheduled to testify at 10:00 a.m. In the afternoon, administrators, educators, students, business and labor leaders will testify about what is needed for the higher education system to serve its stakeholders and the state.
"The time has come to revisit the California Higher Education Master Plan. It has been nearly 50 years since the plan was formulated and much has changed in California. California has become a more diverse population while our economic base has shifted from manufacturing to a service sector economy," said Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod, Co-Chair to the Joint Committee.
"It is time for a realignment of higher education in both mission and goals to address the changing economy and demographics of California," she added. "With all the financial chaos challenging California and our educational system, we must revisit our mission and goals and refocus our efforts for our children and their future."
The hearing Monday will be available via live webcast and broadcast. For the webcast link and specific channel listings, go tohttp://calchannel.com/.
The committee's four additional public hearings will be conducted during the first quarter of 2010, and will focus on eligibility and access, affordability and financing, accountability and quality, and coordination and efficiency.
Websites of Committee Co-Chairs:
www.assembly.ca.gov/ruskin
http://dist32.casen.govoffice.com/
Contact: Karen Zamel (650) 691-2121
JOINT COMMITTEE CONVENES TO REVIEW MASTER PLAN FOR HIGHER EDUCATION,
AS EDUCATION SYSTEM FACES PERIL
AS EDUCATION SYSTEM FACES PERIL
Legislators and Top College System Administrators Meet to Assess How Master Plan
Must Change to Address Educational Needs and Keep California Competitive
Sacramento, CA - The Joint Committee for Review of the Master Plan on Higher Education, co-chaired by Assemblymember Ira Ruskin (D-Redwood City) and Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod (D-Chino), will conduct the first of five public hearings on Monday, December 7, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the State Capitol, in room 437.
The hearings commence as the Master Plan for Higher Education reaches its 50-year anniversary, at a time many agree the state system of higher education is in peril. The Committee's goal will be to evaluate the Master Plan for Higher Education and determine if it meets California's current and future educational needs, in light of changing forces in global competition, demographics, technology and public financing.
Monday's agenda will include a review of the plan's history, its status today and a beginning look at how the plan should evolve to meet the current and future needs of the state, its students and educators.
"Our higher education system has been the cornerstone for the state's preeminence the past 50 years, and the system is now in danger," Ruskin said. "If we don't recommit ourselves to higher education, we risk our ability to compete in the global economy and we threaten the continued development of the state. Studies show that by 2020, we will not have enough qualified graduates to fill jobs across all key sectors of the economy if we do not head off the impending collapse of our higher education system in California."
Morning sessions will include testimony from individuals who were involved in drafting the original 1960 Master Plan, former legislators involved in previous Master Plan reviews and top administrators from the UC, CSU and Community College systems. University of California President Mark Yudof, California State University Chancellor Charles Reed, and California Community Colleges Chancellor Jack Scott are scheduled to testify at 10:00 a.m. In the afternoon, administrators, educators, students, business and labor leaders will testify about what is needed for the higher education system to serve its stakeholders and the state.
"The time has come to revisit the California Higher Education Master Plan. It has been nearly 50 years since the plan was formulated and much has changed in California. California has become a more diverse population while our economic base has shifted from manufacturing to a service sector economy," said Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod, Co-Chair to the Joint Committee.
"It is time for a realignment of higher education in both mission and goals to address the changing economy and demographics of California," she added. "With all the financial chaos challenging California and our educational system, we must revisit our mission and goals and refocus our efforts for our children and their future."
The hearing Monday will be available via live webcast and broadcast. For the webcast link and specific channel listings, go to
The committee's four additional public hearings will be conducted during the first quarter of 2010, and will focus on eligibility and access, affordability and financing, accountability and quality, and coordination and efficiency.
Websites of Committee Co-Chairs:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
UCSD Faculty Letter on Nonresident Admits
Compact with California
UC San Diego
December 12, 2009
“As colleges and universities shift toward revenue generation through academic capitalism, they invest less in historic democratic missions of providing increased access and upward mobility for less advantaged populations of students.”
--Sheila Slaughter and Gary Rhoades, Academic Capitalism and the New Economy (2009)
Dear Colleagues:
We believe that this campus needs to maintain its commitment to the people of California. As we contemplate the future in the midst of the worst financial crisis in several generations, UCSD must remain true to the fundamental principle that it is a public university charged first and foremost with educating young people from every community in our state. As the California State Constitution reminds us: “The University of California shall constitute a public trust” (Art. IX, Sec. 9).
With regard to the proposed reforms of our current undergraduate admissions policy, we feel strongly that all changes being considered must be weighed against potential negative and perhaps unintended outcomes. Specifically, any decision to increase the number of non-resident students should not contradict our commitment to serving California students, especially those from historically underrepresented communities (HURM). We agree strongly with the UC Berkeley Committee on Admissions, Enrollment, and Preparatory Education (AEPE): “Any proposal to increase nonresident enrollment must demonstrate that the increase will result in at least as much, or more, opportunity for California residents, not less.”
We write to you because we are concerned that the campus leadership, pressured by concerns over revenue streams and growing deficits, may be rushing into decisions that will have long-term negative consequences for California residents, especially HURM students. In what follows, we explain what the possible consequences could be and offer a series of mitigating strategies.
Context for increasing the number of non-resident students
There is no debate about the severity of the budget crisis. We understand that next year’s situation will be worse once the furlough program and and one time loans have run their course. The question we want to pose, however, has to do with what has been called the “diversity cost” of moving too quickly to the non-resident tuition model.
We submit that in addition to the budget crisis there is an on-going equity crisis on our campus. Despite an elaborate infrastructure of “diversity” initiatives and a highly developed rhetoric about UCSD’s commitment to diversity, the numbers of HURM students (African Americans, Mexican Americans, Native Americans) are among the worst in the UC system and the sense of isolation among many HURM students is as great as it was forty years ago. A report by the Black Student Union states: “Currently, the probability of UCSD students interacting with a Black student on campus is slim to none because there are such a small number of Black students that make up the student population. Therefore, this crucial element of cultural and social enrichment among UCSD students is extremely difficult” (Do UC Us?, 2009).
Chief Diversity Officer Sandra Daley recently referred to this crisis: “This is an emergency. The most important thing that we can do is recognize that we are in the midst of war. If we do not hold together, in this moment, in this state, we have lost a tremendous opportunity to initiate change. Every second counts. No second can be wasted” (This Week @ UCSD, 11/23/09).
Possible benefits of increasing the number of non-resident students
Despite the many denials that money is driving policy, most calls for increased non-resident students are based on the need for new revenue streams. But how much does increasing the number of non-resident students really help?
If we assume that each non-resident student brings $22K to campus, an increase of 1,000 students would provide an additional $22.5M. According to the UC Annual Financial Report for 2008-2009, the total UCSD campus budget is $2.6B. Therefore, the gain from non-resident tuition (NRT) would amount to less than 1% of our total budget. Even if we were to subtract the Medical Center from the total campus budget, the amount gained from NRT is approximately 1.2% of the total campus budget.
But as Andrew Dickson of SIO has shown, the $22.K “profit” per student may be a pipedream. He points out: “If a campus can replace in-state students with out-of-state ones while being allowed to keep its "base" funding from the State general fund, then it could seem quite profitable initially (about $22,500 per student).” However, Dickson adds, the likelihood that the State will continue to cut the marginal cost of instruction for more resident students means profit shrinks to about $12,000 per non-resident student. Add to this the fact that NRT does not return automatically to individual campuses but rather runs through UCOP where it can be levied or redistributed and the panacea of an increase in non-residents looks far less realistic.
In our opinion, the increase in non-resident students quite simply is a financial band-aid on a terminally ill patient. The overall impact on instruction and research budgets would be negligible. In order to make a major budgetary impact, the number of non-resident students would have to be multiplied many times over with a resultant sharp decline in California students.
But can’t the 1,250 overenrolled and unfunded California students whose numbers will not be replaced after they graduate simply be replaced with non-resident students? This is a clever solution but one that simply hides the displacement of California residents and one that does not prevent the negative consequences outlined below. Of course, the important point to be made here is that it is the decrease in State support that is really displacing California students. But rather than sneaking non-residents in the back door and claim nothing has changed, the University should be honest--California students are going to be displaced.
Likely costs of increasing the number of non-resident students
In their report to Chancellor Birgeneau, the UC Berkeley Undergraduate Task Force wrote: “Decreasing CA resident students will, at least in the short term, likely result in a less diverse student body—an outcome that the Task Force finds appalling, and which runs counter to core values of the campus community” (7/31/09). We believe UCSD will experience the same negative impact.
According to our analysis, there are at least five potential negative consequences of increasing the number of non-resident students:
• Decline in number of first-generation and HURM students
• Justifiable anger on the part of California’s families; decreased public support
• Likelihood that the State will continue to defund the UC system
• Increased costs associated with recruitment and yield of non-resident students and potential decline in standards
• Long-term change in public character of UCSD
Projections completed by both the UCSD and UCB admissions committees indicate clearly that an increase in non-resident students will decrease the number of first-generation college and HURM students. The Berkeley campus expects that its number of Chicano/Latino freshmen would fall from 681 to 580, African Americans from 121 to 105, and first-generation would decline from 681 to 580. At UCSD, similar outcomes (starting from a far worse position) can be expected.
Once it is made public that out-of-state students are taking seats from California residents, the public will be justifiably angered and the UC system will face a major public relations problem. At the same time, legislators already inclined to defund the University will point to NRT revenues as a reason why they can continue to cut funding. In effect, the move to higher non-resident admits lets the State off the hook.
At present, the approximate yield for non-resident students at UCSD is only 13%. Funding would have to be made available for increased yield activities in order to achieve even the modest gains in revenue expected.
We can also expect that UCSD will have to lower academic standards in order to attract out-of-state students. This is what occurred when the University of Michigan radically increased the number of non-residents to approximately 35%. An unforeseen consequence was that Michigan’s rankings in U.S. News and World Report began to drop. As Professor Sylvia Hurtado, the current chair of BOARS has warned: “Simply adding non-resident undergraduates to help cover budget shortfalls will likely accelerate declines in educational quality some believe are already occurring” (4/22/09).
Finally, the public character of the UC system will continue to deteriorate. The move to increase non-residents will make the student body more affluent and less representative of California. This has been the outcome at the University of Michigan where over 50% of freshmen in 2003 came from families with six-figure incomes in a state where only 13% of working families earned as much. We share the concern expressed by the AEPE Committee at Berkeley: “Any such increase would become permanent, regardless of whether the State returned to a more appropriate level of per-student funding, thereby fundamentally altering the character of the university that prides itself on excellence, affordability, and public access” (10/21/09).
Conclusion
In the recent past, the meaning of “diversity” at UCSD increasingly has become detached from the issue of “equity.” As California quickly approaches a minority majority population, meaningful “diversity” in a university context ought not be defined as an unprioritized range of superficial “differences” but rather as a commitment to serving communities whose young people have been denied a college education due to a history of economic exploitation, institutionalized racism, and lack of access to a quality K-12 education.
As the Black Student Union report indicates, UCSD continues to have the lowest number of African American students in the system and less than half the number of Mexican American students than other small campuses such as UC Santa Barbara. UCSD must ensure that any changes made to its undergraduate admissions policy are not driven primarily by budgetary concerns, do not jeopardize our contract with the citizens of California, and do not further decrease our HURM numbers.
In order to mitigate the possible negative consequences should UCSD’s faculty and Senate committees decide to increase the number of non-resident students (both out of state and international), we propose the following measures:
• We feel strongly that the total percentage should not exceed 10% (currently 5%).
• If non-resident students are to displace California students, they should replace only the bottom 3-5% of California admits.
• Any additional non-resident students admitted to UCSD should be held to the same admissions standards used for California residents.
• A percentage of the revenue raised by non-resident tuition should be designated as restricted funds for financial aid for California residents.
• A percentage of the revenue raised by non-resident tuition should be directed toward curricular and campus reforms designed to increase the yield of California HURM students.
• The campus should move from comprehensive to holistic review in admissions.
We agree with the chair of BOARS who wrote to the Chair of the Academic Council: “We fear this new pressure on campuses to increase non-resident enrollment may limit California resident access to UC, and as a result, damage UC’s primary historic land grant mission—to develop the talent of working people within the state to sustain its unique economy” (4/22/09).
We urge you to let the Chancellor, the Academic Senate’s Committee on Admissions, the Chief Diversity Officer, the Task Force on the Budget, the Committee on Diversity, the Diversity Council, and all Senate leadership know your opinions on this matter. We attach below the names of current chairs of those committees so that you can contact them directly.
Please feel free to circulate this letter to interested colleagues.
Sincerely,
Jorge Mariscal (Literature)
Jim Lin (Mathematics)
Ross Frank (Ethnic Studies)
Daniel Widener (History)
Brad Werner (Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics)
__________________________
People to contact:
Chancellor Marye Anne Fox: chancellor@ucsd.edu
John Eggers, Chair of Admissions: jeggers@ucsd.edu
Sandra Daley, Chief Diversity Officer: sdaley@ucsd.edu
Bill Hodgkiss, Task Force on Budget: whodgkiss@ucsd.edu
David Borgo, Diversity Committee: dborgo@ucsd.edu
Robert Continetti, Diversity Council: rcontinetti@ucsd.edu
____________________________
Recommended reading:
1. UC Berkeley Admissions Committee Response to Task Force Report on Increasing Nonresident Enrollment
2. Chris Newfield, “Can doubling out-of-state students save Berkeley’s budget” (9/1/09).
3. Josh Keller, “As Berkeley Enrolls More Out-of-State Students, Racial Diversity May Suffer” (11/4/09).
4. Rotem Ben-Shachar, “Budget cuts prompt UC to decrease in-state enrollment” (11/25/09).
UC San Diego
December 12, 2009
“As colleges and universities shift toward revenue generation through academic capitalism, they invest less in historic democratic missions of providing increased access and upward mobility for less advantaged populations of students.”
--Sheila Slaughter and Gary Rhoades, Academic Capitalism and the New Economy (2009)
Dear Colleagues:
We believe that this campus needs to maintain its commitment to the people of California. As we contemplate the future in the midst of the worst financial crisis in several generations, UCSD must remain true to the fundamental principle that it is a public university charged first and foremost with educating young people from every community in our state. As the California State Constitution reminds us: “The University of California shall constitute a public trust” (Art. IX, Sec. 9).
With regard to the proposed reforms of our current undergraduate admissions policy, we feel strongly that all changes being considered must be weighed against potential negative and perhaps unintended outcomes. Specifically, any decision to increase the number of non-resident students should not contradict our commitment to serving California students, especially those from historically underrepresented communities (HURM). We agree strongly with the UC Berkeley Committee on Admissions, Enrollment, and Preparatory Education (AEPE): “Any proposal to increase nonresident enrollment must demonstrate that the increase will result in at least as much, or more, opportunity for California residents, not less.”
We write to you because we are concerned that the campus leadership, pressured by concerns over revenue streams and growing deficits, may be rushing into decisions that will have long-term negative consequences for California residents, especially HURM students. In what follows, we explain what the possible consequences could be and offer a series of mitigating strategies.
Context for increasing the number of non-resident students
There is no debate about the severity of the budget crisis. We understand that next year’s situation will be worse once the furlough program and and one time loans have run their course. The question we want to pose, however, has to do with what has been called the “diversity cost” of moving too quickly to the non-resident tuition model.
We submit that in addition to the budget crisis there is an on-going equity crisis on our campus. Despite an elaborate infrastructure of “diversity” initiatives and a highly developed rhetoric about UCSD’s commitment to diversity, the numbers of HURM students (African Americans, Mexican Americans, Native Americans) are among the worst in the UC system and the sense of isolation among many HURM students is as great as it was forty years ago. A report by the Black Student Union states: “Currently, the probability of UCSD students interacting with a Black student on campus is slim to none because there are such a small number of Black students that make up the student population. Therefore, this crucial element of cultural and social enrichment among UCSD students is extremely difficult” (Do UC Us?, 2009).
Chief Diversity Officer Sandra Daley recently referred to this crisis: “This is an emergency. The most important thing that we can do is recognize that we are in the midst of war. If we do not hold together, in this moment, in this state, we have lost a tremendous opportunity to initiate change. Every second counts. No second can be wasted” (This Week @ UCSD, 11/23/09).
Possible benefits of increasing the number of non-resident students
Despite the many denials that money is driving policy, most calls for increased non-resident students are based on the need for new revenue streams. But how much does increasing the number of non-resident students really help?
If we assume that each non-resident student brings $22K to campus, an increase of 1,000 students would provide an additional $22.5M. According to the UC Annual Financial Report for 2008-2009, the total UCSD campus budget is $2.6B. Therefore, the gain from non-resident tuition (NRT) would amount to less than 1% of our total budget. Even if we were to subtract the Medical Center from the total campus budget, the amount gained from NRT is approximately 1.2% of the total campus budget.
But as Andrew Dickson of SIO has shown, the $22.K “profit” per student may be a pipedream. He points out: “If a campus can replace in-state students with out-of-state ones while being allowed to keep its "base" funding from the State general fund, then it could seem quite profitable initially (about $22,500 per student).” However, Dickson adds, the likelihood that the State will continue to cut the marginal cost of instruction for more resident students means profit shrinks to about $12,000 per non-resident student. Add to this the fact that NRT does not return automatically to individual campuses but rather runs through UCOP where it can be levied or redistributed and the panacea of an increase in non-residents looks far less realistic.
In our opinion, the increase in non-resident students quite simply is a financial band-aid on a terminally ill patient. The overall impact on instruction and research budgets would be negligible. In order to make a major budgetary impact, the number of non-resident students would have to be multiplied many times over with a resultant sharp decline in California students.
But can’t the 1,250 overenrolled and unfunded California students whose numbers will not be replaced after they graduate simply be replaced with non-resident students? This is a clever solution but one that simply hides the displacement of California residents and one that does not prevent the negative consequences outlined below. Of course, the important point to be made here is that it is the decrease in State support that is really displacing California students. But rather than sneaking non-residents in the back door and claim nothing has changed, the University should be honest--California students are going to be displaced.
Likely costs of increasing the number of non-resident students
In their report to Chancellor Birgeneau, the UC Berkeley Undergraduate Task Force wrote: “Decreasing CA resident students will, at least in the short term, likely result in a less diverse student body—an outcome that the Task Force finds appalling, and which runs counter to core values of the campus community” (7/31/09). We believe UCSD will experience the same negative impact.
According to our analysis, there are at least five potential negative consequences of increasing the number of non-resident students:
• Decline in number of first-generation and HURM students
• Justifiable anger on the part of California’s families; decreased public support
• Likelihood that the State will continue to defund the UC system
• Increased costs associated with recruitment and yield of non-resident students and potential decline in standards
• Long-term change in public character of UCSD
Projections completed by both the UCSD and UCB admissions committees indicate clearly that an increase in non-resident students will decrease the number of first-generation college and HURM students. The Berkeley campus expects that its number of Chicano/Latino freshmen would fall from 681 to 580, African Americans from 121 to 105, and first-generation would decline from 681 to 580. At UCSD, similar outcomes (starting from a far worse position) can be expected.
Once it is made public that out-of-state students are taking seats from California residents, the public will be justifiably angered and the UC system will face a major public relations problem. At the same time, legislators already inclined to defund the University will point to NRT revenues as a reason why they can continue to cut funding. In effect, the move to higher non-resident admits lets the State off the hook.
At present, the approximate yield for non-resident students at UCSD is only 13%. Funding would have to be made available for increased yield activities in order to achieve even the modest gains in revenue expected.
We can also expect that UCSD will have to lower academic standards in order to attract out-of-state students. This is what occurred when the University of Michigan radically increased the number of non-residents to approximately 35%. An unforeseen consequence was that Michigan’s rankings in U.S. News and World Report began to drop. As Professor Sylvia Hurtado, the current chair of BOARS has warned: “Simply adding non-resident undergraduates to help cover budget shortfalls will likely accelerate declines in educational quality some believe are already occurring” (4/22/09).
Finally, the public character of the UC system will continue to deteriorate. The move to increase non-residents will make the student body more affluent and less representative of California. This has been the outcome at the University of Michigan where over 50% of freshmen in 2003 came from families with six-figure incomes in a state where only 13% of working families earned as much. We share the concern expressed by the AEPE Committee at Berkeley: “Any such increase would become permanent, regardless of whether the State returned to a more appropriate level of per-student funding, thereby fundamentally altering the character of the university that prides itself on excellence, affordability, and public access” (10/21/09).
Conclusion
In the recent past, the meaning of “diversity” at UCSD increasingly has become detached from the issue of “equity.” As California quickly approaches a minority majority population, meaningful “diversity” in a university context ought not be defined as an unprioritized range of superficial “differences” but rather as a commitment to serving communities whose young people have been denied a college education due to a history of economic exploitation, institutionalized racism, and lack of access to a quality K-12 education.
As the Black Student Union report indicates, UCSD continues to have the lowest number of African American students in the system and less than half the number of Mexican American students than other small campuses such as UC Santa Barbara. UCSD must ensure that any changes made to its undergraduate admissions policy are not driven primarily by budgetary concerns, do not jeopardize our contract with the citizens of California, and do not further decrease our HURM numbers.
In order to mitigate the possible negative consequences should UCSD’s faculty and Senate committees decide to increase the number of non-resident students (both out of state and international), we propose the following measures:
• We feel strongly that the total percentage should not exceed 10% (currently 5%).
• If non-resident students are to displace California students, they should replace only the bottom 3-5% of California admits.
• Any additional non-resident students admitted to UCSD should be held to the same admissions standards used for California residents.
• A percentage of the revenue raised by non-resident tuition should be designated as restricted funds for financial aid for California residents.
• A percentage of the revenue raised by non-resident tuition should be directed toward curricular and campus reforms designed to increase the yield of California HURM students.
• The campus should move from comprehensive to holistic review in admissions.
We agree with the chair of BOARS who wrote to the Chair of the Academic Council: “We fear this new pressure on campuses to increase non-resident enrollment may limit California resident access to UC, and as a result, damage UC’s primary historic land grant mission—to develop the talent of working people within the state to sustain its unique economy” (4/22/09).
We urge you to let the Chancellor, the Academic Senate’s Committee on Admissions, the Chief Diversity Officer, the Task Force on the Budget, the Committee on Diversity, the Diversity Council, and all Senate leadership know your opinions on this matter. We attach below the names of current chairs of those committees so that you can contact them directly.
Please feel free to circulate this letter to interested colleagues.
Sincerely,
Jorge Mariscal (Literature)
Jim Lin (Mathematics)
Ross Frank (Ethnic Studies)
Daniel Widener (History)
Brad Werner (Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics)
__________________________
People to contact:
Chancellor Marye Anne Fox: chancellor@ucsd.edu
John Eggers, Chair of Admissions: jeggers@ucsd.edu
Sandra Daley, Chief Diversity Officer: sdaley@ucsd.edu
Bill Hodgkiss, Task Force on Budget: whodgkiss@ucsd.edu
David Borgo, Diversity Committee: dborgo@ucsd.edu
Robert Continetti, Diversity Council: rcontinetti@ucsd.edu
____________________________
Recommended reading:
1. UC Berkeley Admissions Committee Response to Task Force Report on Increasing Nonresident Enrollment
2. Chris Newfield, “Can doubling out-of-state students save Berkeley’s budget” (9/1/09).
3. Josh Keller, “As Berkeley Enrolls More Out-of-State Students, Racial Diversity May Suffer” (11/4/09).
4. Rotem Ben-Shachar, “Budget cuts prompt UC to decrease in-state enrollment” (11/25/09).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)