Chancellor facing calls for resignation after pepper spray incident
by Brian Leubitz
In case you aren't one of the approximately 1.5 million viewers of the Davis pepper spray video, here it is, the video that changed Chancellor Linda Katehi's life.
The pepper spraying of students was without a doubt overkill for the situation. After all, who would it really have hurt to allow the students to remain on the Quad. Instead, Davis administrators are now dealing with national scrutiny on their police policies, pay levels (officers make twice what those who actually teach), and their level of respect for their customers/students.
When Chancellor Linda Katehi took the stage at a rally of students held to protest last week's pepper-spraying by police she was apologetic.
"I'm here to apologize," said Katehi. "I really feel horrible for what happened on Friday." (SacBee)
When you click through to that link you will see something of a live-blog and video of both Katehi's apology and of the tents returning to the UC-Davis Quad. One has to imagine that pepper spray is not an option this go-round. Katehi will continue to face increasing scrutiny as she is trying the time-tested "name a panel" stalling technique.
The Davis panel is supposed to return a report within 30 Days, and then the matter will be handled further. Legislators, including Sen. Ye, have been calling for something more substantial, but no additional word has emerged.
The student protesters are calling for a boycott on Nov. 28.
SF State President says Gov. Brown hasn't stood up for higher education
by Brian Leubitz
Yesterday we saw the scary fact that tuition would exceed state support in the UC system. Today, the long-standing president of San Francisco State, Robert Corrigan, made his feelings known about the current budget situation and the governor's leadership in an exit interview with the Bay Citizen.
The president of San Francisco State University said Monday that Gov. Jerry Brown "doesn't seem to appreciate high-quality education in California." ...
President Corrigan is leaving after 24 years as president of the San Francisco campus amongst mixed opinions. Many seem to think that he could have done more to protect students, while others seem resigned to the situation in Sacramento. Ultimately, the question really can't be answered at any of the individual campuses of either CSU or UC. It is a failing of our state, our leaders, and our voters. Together we have conspired to deprive our institutions of higher education of the necessary funding and then essentially required them to make the education cost prohibitive to much of the state's population.
It is easy to question Gov. Brown, especially in hindsight. But, with structural problems blooming like a stinking rose in Sacramento, the Governor is hardly the only person worthy of blame. It is a sad fact that we once were wholeheartedly committed to education, today we cannot say that.
Tuition will exceed general fund support for the first time for UC system this year
by Brian Leubitz
There was once a vision for education in California that allowed us to dream big. It allowed the state to have expectations for the future, because we were investing in it through education. We went so far as to build a master plan that included tuition free higher education. Those days now seem like an extremely distant dream.
For the first time, the total amount that University of California students pay in tuition this year will surpass the funding the prestigious public university receives from the state. It is a historic shift for the UC system and part of a national trend that is changing the nature of public higher education.
Propelled by budget crises in California and elsewhere, the burden of paying for education at a public college or university, once heavily subsidized by taxpayers, is shifting to students and their families. (LA Times)
While the Right is crowing about class warfare, they are doing their damnedest to ensure that those below them can't work their way up. Higher education, for several generations, has been the most significant way of upward mobility. Decreasing access further cements that the rich stay rich. A sad day for the California dream, indeed.
State Audit reveals no major malfeasance, but a deep lack of transparency
by Brian Leubitz
Sen. Leland Yee has been all over the UC system, arguing that nobody knows what is going on with the system. But while State Auditor Elaine Howle didn't find anything legally wrong, she did find that much more could be done to shed light on the process
The University of California should justify to the public why it spends thousands of dollars more per student at four of its 10 campuses and also do a better job of explaining how it spends more than $1 billion it allots annually to "miscellaneous services," state auditors said Thursday.
The audit found no major malfeasance in the university system's budgeting or spending, but noted a lack of transparency in the way it handles its finances that could erode public trust.
For example, $6 billion was budgeted for the UC president's office over five years, all of it falling under a line-item category called miscellaneous services. (SF Gate)
Now, most of the money can be traced back to legitimate expenses, but why was so much money just tossed into a "miscellaneous" file. UC can do better than that. Heck, they have a whole fleet of accounting professors that can help them out with that. But we would all be served by a bit more sunshine in the Office of the President.
The report also revealed that several campuses receive much smaller amounts of funding per student. UCSB receives $12,309 per student, while UC-Davis receives $17,660. Much of this has to do with some important underlying factors such as percentage of graduate students, but once again, a little sunshine could make this whole process smoother. If the UC just did a better job in keeping its books open, many of these issues wouldn't get heated at all.
Meanwhile both the UC system and Yee are taking the report as a win. Hooray for that.
University of California regents today voted to raise tuition by about $1,070, sending the total cost to $12,192 for the upcoming school year.
After a recently approved $650 million cut in state funding, UC regents said they had no choice but to raise tuition to close about a quarter of the system's $1 billion budget deficit. When combined with a previous hike, tuition will be 18 percent more -- about $1,890 -- in fall 2011 than it was in fall 2010. Each campus also charges undergraduates about $1,000 in additional fees. (SacBee)
The university systems are both on the hook for another $100 million in the triggered cuts if we don't reach the higher, hopeful, revenue figure. By the way, the Controller announced today that we aren't actually $230 million behind where we need to be, but $85 million, because somebody forgot to tally a big check from the unclaimed property account.
That being said, the discussion about the additional cuts was bumped until a later date, but don't be shocked if more increases aren't on the horizon.
One vote against the increase: LG Newsom.
"The biggest threat to our democracy is income inequality, the loss of the middle class," Newsom said. "And here we are once again, putting the nail in the coffin of the middle class. That's exactly who gets hurt in this debate."
While the nation is still dealing with the Wisconsin labor debate, UC Regent nominee David Crane thought a few days before his confirmation process was a good time to get involved in the issue. In fact, the timing was so awesome that he thought the occasion was ripe to put an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle. Oh, and --Spoiler Alert!-- he wants to get rid of collective bargaining for public employees.
Collective bargaining is a good thing when it's needed to equalize power, but when public employees already have that equality because of civil service protections, collective bargaining in the public sector serves to reduce benefits for citizens and to raise costs for taxpayers. Citizens and taxpayers should consider this as they watch events unfold in Madison. (SF Chronicle)
This was published back on February 27, and now that a week has passed, and Crane is making his way to the Capitol, Senators Ted Lieu and Leland Yee both put out press releases stating that they will lead the charge against Crane's confirmation as a UC Regent. From Sen Lieu's statement:
"I actively oppose the confirmation of David Crane as a UC Regent. I read Mr. Crane's Op-Ed in the San Francisco Chronicle in which he argues for the elimination of collective bargaining for public sector employees. I cannot support someone for the powerful post of UC Regent who continues to perpetuate the myth that collective bargaining caused our state economic crisis and has a fundamental misunderstanding of how our state budget operates.
*** *** ****
The specific reason our general fund spending sharply declined was because the person Mr. Crane advised, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, reduced the Vehicle License Fee and replaced it with . . . nothing. As a result, the state general fund lost over $5 to $6 billion in revenues per year for every year Mr. Schwarzenegger was in office. The VLF reduction has resulted in a total loss of over $30 billion to the state, an amount in excess of the current California budgetary shortfall. How conveniently Mr. Crane forgot to mention that critical fact when it doesn't suit his ideological assault on public sector unions.
Given that so much attention is being paid to the budget, who knows how much attention this will get. However, given the national climate, I expect that this might gather some focus in Sacramento while Crane tries to get approved.
I'm sure people have seen the news about the proposed 8% "fee" increase (no tuition here, no sir) at UC for next year. The regents are trying to make it seem not so bad with a one-time discount for families under certain income limits. As if we'd all forget that college lasts generally a bit longer than one year. It's like a mugger giving you a cookie.
I'd propose that this kind of thing - enormous fees on the one hand, penurious aid to "deserving" students on the other - is exactly why people hate taxes and hate government. It's one of the fundamental neoliberal flaws that we need to face and fix. And Jerry Brown taking the Governor's office again is a perfect hook to explain what's gone wrong.
There has been a proposal floating around Sacramento that calls for the UC system, which has a plethora of really outstanding medical schools and associated hospitals, to take over prisoner healthcare. You know, that mess that has been under federal receivership for its unconstitutionality? Well, the Governor thinks, why not do a little Glee-style mashup between the UC hospitals (good) and the prison healthcare system (disaster)? Why not indeed?
University of California leaders made clear Thursday that they were not in a rush to embrace a controversial proposal for UC to provide healthcare for state prison inmates, with an emphasis on connecting doctors and patients remotely over the Internet.
The UC regents were scheduled to discuss the issue at a meeting in San Francisco but delayed it for at least two months, deciding to form a committee to study the plan and other options. "This is a very complicated issue, and we are going to have to spend a great deal of time to determine how and if the university is going to get involved," regents Chairman Russell S. Gould said at the meeting.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed having UC, with its prestigious medical schools, manage healthcare for prison inmates; a recent report by a consultant estimated that the change could save the state $12 billion over a decade. Besides the expansion of telemedicine, the plan calls for a special hospital for chronically ill inmates, reducing the need for overtime pay for prison guards for hospitalized patients. (LA Times)
In the end, what will probably end up happening is that there will be some advisory or small scale involvement between the UC and the prison healthcare system that will probably only make the situation more confusing.
But, if the UC deal does happen, and they do take over the health care systems, I think we may end up seeing crime sprees by the elderly and a rash of crimes from cancer victims. Heck, even with the healthcare reform bill, insurance ain't cheap.
I kidd of course. As it stands right now, the prison system basically holds on to sick prisoners and slowly watches them die. Until recently, resources were dangerously lacking. Much of that is changing with the receivership, as you would expect. But the pricetag of all this remains high.
Students at public universities in California are planning a series of demonstrations across the state protesting tuition hikes today. While a few isolated incidents in recent weeks have provided fodder for some in the media to dismiss their concerns, the students' cause is incredibly important. If we continue to yearly raise tuition in California far beyond inflation, we threaten to derail all that has enabled my home state to prosper in decades past.
It is no accident that the Golden State's Golden Age of economic innovation coincided with the establishment of and continued investment in the best public university system in the world. Fifty years ago, forward-thinking policymakers declared that California would be a state where higher education was the birthright of every qualified resident. Since then, we've become the world's great innovator in computers, biotechnology, space exploration, and clean technology.
Unfortunately, the vision that made California one of the largest and most diverse economies on the planet has fallen to the wayside in recent years, as Governor Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers have decided that it's politically easier to balance state budgets on the backs of students.
The result? Student fees have more than doubled at the University of California and California State University systems over the past decade, and enrollment was reduced by more than 45,000 in the past two years. When you price students out of a college education, you don't just harm the individual. You deny the state the future teachers, nurses, and engineers necessary to propel our economy forward.
AB 656, authored by Assembly Majority Leader Alberto Torrico, would have established an oil and gas severance tax (California being the only oil and gas producing state in the union not having one) and earmarked the proceeds for puiblic higher education, giving our universities a financial base upon which to operate and easing the burden on the general fund.
On Thursday, the Assembly Appropriations Committee took action on it that essentially defeats the bill for this legislative cycle. The committee deleted the oil and gas severance tax portion of the bill and replaced it with a simple reporting requirement. The amendments require the state Board of Equalization to annually report to the legislature the amount of revenue that would be generated for public higher education if the oil and gas tax was implemented.
Maybe it can be resurrected as we get closer to trying to deal with this year's budget problems, especially since the Governor has placed a high priority on helping the CSU's and UC's recoup some of their cuts. This could be the way top offset the Governor's political shenanigans of trying to play off higher education unions against the prison unions.
On November 19th, 52 UC Davis students were arrested after peacefully protesting the new 32% fee increases established by the UC Regents. As a second year undergraduate, I was hopeful that students were beginning to see the bigger picture: California is broken.
Students, so far, have been forcing most of the blame on the UC Regents. While it is true that the 20 Regents who voted for the increase certainly deserve a heaving portion of the blame for borrowing tens of millions (from a non-CA bank, NY Merrill Trust) while forcing students into a cycle of debt in order to protect UC's eerily superb bond rating, the only way for students to move towards enacting change is to recognize that UC's woes are symptomatic of the larger disease that has infected the entire state.
The UC student, to widen the umbrella for a movement that might have the capability of rallying support for reform, should understand that he or she risks turning people off by angling attacks towards the Regents and the Regents only. It is important to recognize that while it is a travesty that UC is becoming an unaffordable option for many California families, it is nearsighted to think that UC fees are anything more than a slice of the pie that is California's broken political system. The state workers that have been furloughed, the elderly Californians that are losing their access to Medicare, the thousands of previously middle-class Californians that have had their homes foreclosed, and the over 12% of California that is unemployed might tell students that UC is not the only government program that is underfunded, mismanaged, and increasingly unavailable to the people who need it.
NOTE: These are my prepared remarks for today's keynote address as the Scripps Seaside Forum, sponsored by the Sustainability Alliance of Southern California, Heartland Foundation-United Green and Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
It's great to be at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, one of our country's most important research facilities. The work of this institute has led the way in understanding climate change, the effect of the warming oceans and how we can adapt to the inevitable changes in our environment.
I'm here today to talk to you about the next industrial revolution. The world's economies are fueled by carbon based fuels that have polluted our atmosphere and set up a warming climate. Now when I talk about the next revolution, I don't mean the coal-and-oil fueled economy of yesteryear. The irrefutable science of climate change requires that we take a different path, and with sound investments in renewable energy, green technology, and education, we can create a new green industrial revolution that will put countless thousands of our residents back to work.
President Obama understands what's at stake. Under his stimulus package, California is expected to receive more than $1.5 billion for job-creating alternative energy, energy efficiency, energy conservation, and other energy and climate related efforts. Included in this estimate, the U.S. Treasury and Energy Departments announced that at least $3 billion in competitive grants will be distributed nationwide to support an estimated 5,000 biomass, solar, wind, and other renewable energy projects. Note to Secretary Chu: consider using some of the $3 billion as a loan guarantee, thereby expanding the use of the funds.
Incentives for renewable energy generation and installation are also fueling the growth in green jobs. In just the first four months of 2009, solar installations nearly tripled compared to the year prior. Homeowners, businesses, and government all benefit from the California Solar Initiative (CSI), which provides incentives that reduce the total cost of installed systems by an average of 20 percent. Signed into law in 2006, the CSI aims to install 3,000 MW of new solar power by offering $3 billion in solar rebates over 10 years. Additionally, businesses and homeowners qualify for a federal investment tax credit of 30 percent on renewable energy systems. According to the California Community Colleges Centers of Excellence, the solar industry in California is on pace to produce 40,000 new jobs by 2016.
Forty years ago, one man took a small step that inspired a country. The Apollo 11 mission to the moon was a great moment for America as viewers across the nation, in unison, watched one of our own step foot on an otherworldly body for the first time. America's potential was limitless.
I still remember the journey of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. I had just returned from my own life-changing adventure: a two-year stint serving Ethiopia in the Peace Corps. I served in a country that could not afford to feed its population, let alone educate them, and this loss of human potential still slows progress there today. A quality education is important not just for the betterment of individuals but also for society as a whole. In my decades of public service, I have worked tirelessly to ensure that we provide our children with the highest quality education, because I know that our economic growth depends on their intellectual growth.
The success of Apollo 11 would never have happened without the work of America's best and brightest scientists. They were the product of our country's commitment to STEM - science, technology, engineering, and math education. America led the globe in science education, but due to funding cuts and increased international competition, we're falling behind the curve.
During the University of California Board of Regents meeting today in Riverside, I explained to the Board why I think it's time all of us -- students, community leaders, bloggers, and education advocates -- reject further student fee increases. Simply put, I don't think it's appropriate to consistently shift the tax burden, year after year, to one of the segments of our society that are least capable of affording the costs.
Adjusted for inflation, student fees have more than doubled at the UC and CSU systems and more than tripled at the community colleges since 1990. When the state dissuades students from pursuing a higher education, we only rob ourselves of potential tax revenues in later years and increase the number of today's youths who will be tomorrow's prisoners or recipients of aid. To address our budget woes, we need to turn away from the easy fix of taxing students and begin the process to repeal the two-thirds legislative majority requirement to pass budgets and adjust taxes.
A transcript of my remarks to the board is below the fold, and you can also listen to audio here.
I don't know how many times I have read this kind of article this decade, but it's still once too often:
Facing a significant budget shortfall, the University of California plans to increase tuition at its 10 campuses by nearly 10 percent by July, in time for the summer session.
The proposed 9.3 percent fee increase would raise basic tuition for undergraduate students from $7,126 a year to about $7,789. In addition, various student services fees are also expected to rise....
Birgeneau said middle-class families will bear the brunt of the tuition increase.
Under the proposal, families earning more than $100,000 would pay the full fee increase. Families earning from $60,000 to $100,000 would pay half the fee increase, or about 4.65 percent. Families earning less than $60,000 would not be subject to the fee increase.
Even considering this graduated level of increased tuition, the price is unsustainable. An annual tuition of $7,500 is out of the reach of most families, period. It's nearly double what I paid from 1996 to 2000, and is a 570% increase over what a UC grad would have paid from 1961 to 1965. Student loans might make up the difference, but those are much more difficult to get during a credit crunch and even if you can get one, they'll be an anchor around your neck for decades, preventing you from finding financial security.
Although the UC and CSU systems (which are likely to follow UC in making their own fee increases soon) remain officially public entities, they have been effectively privatized over time, as their funding now depends on private giving or student payments. The state contribution is now becoming almost incidental - with this recent budget nearly 80% of UC funding is coming from sources other than the state of California.
Even with the massive fee increases, educational quality isn't necessarily going to be sustained. New faculty hires are going to be dramatically scaled back, meaning new profs who bring new ideas and fresh blood to the university - and who often bring the best teaching to the classroom - will be fewer in number.
The original goal of the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education was to guarantee access to college and affordability for those who were qualified in order to grow the middle class in California. It worked spectacularly, creating one of the leading economies of the globe over the last 50 years. But in the last 20 years this has begun to ebb, as fewer people can afford higher ed. And as the California Budget Project's study A Generation of Inequality found, young college educated Californians have had a harder time finding work than those with just a high school diploma while they are saddled with debts they cannot pay off.
In Vietnam they "destroyed the village in order to save it." Here in California, it seems clear that the goal is just to destroy higher education and the economic mobility and the foundation of the middle class along with it. It's time for us to determine how to reverse this trend.
While Arnold Schwarzenegger is making claims to want "economic stimulus" with his demands for gutting environmental and labor laws, he is also undermining one of the core means of economic stimulus and recovery - higher education.
When the economy is in recession many laid-off workers take the time to return to school and finish a degree, or get new forms of training and expertise. This helps keep the workforce skilled and up-to-date on the latest innovations and insights, thereby keeping California workers globally competitive. And it can create jobs at the colleges to meet the demand. At the local community college enrollment is soaring - instructors are finding long waiting lists to get into their classes, which they haven't seen for a long time.
For all this to work, of course, those students need financial aid, since in a recession they have a difficult time affording a return to school out of pocket. Which is why Arnold's plan to slash Cal Grant funding is so reckless:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is proposing major cuts in Cal Grants, the state's main financial aid programfor college students. The most significant change would involve abandoning the state's commitment to cover any rise in tuition for grant recipients, and it comes as officials at both the University of California and California State University are gearing up for 10% fee increases in response to the yawning state budget gap....
A spokeswoman for the governor said he "understands how difficult these cuts will be" but is responsible for leading the state through the economic crisis. "The governor doesn't want to cut programs and he doesn't want to raise taxes, but in the face of a $42-billion budget deficit and with the Legislature's failure to pass a comprehensive solution, we're simply running out of options," she said.
Which is the typical BS being put out by the governor's office these days, quotes not worth the paper on which they're printed. The Legislature DID pass a comprehensive solution and Arnold vetoed it. Arnold has been completely unable to get a single Republican vote for his budgets over the last few years, yet continues to insist against all available evidence that the two parties in the Legislature try and work out some agreement, which is impossible as long as Republicans refuse to play.
Cal Grant cuts combined with yet another UC and CSU fee increase will put higher ed out of reach for thousands of qualified students and workers looking to remain competitive. California as a whole will suffer - but perhaps that's the point, the endgame of Arnold's term in office: destroying what remains of our shared prosperity so his friends in the elite can grab what is left over.
I will be on KRXA 540 AM at 8 this morning to discuss this and other issues in California politics
In 1960 the state of California made a promise. All students who met eligibility requirements would be given a place in the state's higher education system, and that education would be provided free of charge (although students would be responsible for room and board and books, they were not to be charged for the cost of instruction). Sure, that place might be at a UC, or a CSU, but under Governor Pat Brown both Republicans and Democrats agreed that for the good of the state, its economy, and its future, affordable higher education had to be guaranteed.
That was the essence of the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education and it perhaps more than any other project of the Pat Brown era was responsible for catapulting California to global economic leadership, creating broadly shared prosperity, and making this state a better place to live. Without it we would be much worse off than we are today.
The Master Plan has been betrayed before, starting with Governor Ronald Reagan's 1967 student fee hikes. Over the decades the promise of free college has eroded, but at least those who met the eligibility requirements could get a place. In recent years that opportunity became more remote and more dependent on debt, but at least it was there.
Under Arnold Schwarzenegger the slow but steady decline of California higher education has dramatically accelerated. Arnold has shown nothing but contempt for higher ed and no interest whatsoever in upholding the promises of the Master Plan or securing a prosperous future for all Californians.
So it comes as no surprise that he is again targeting higher ed for massive cuts, and cuts that are leading the Cal State system to turn away eligible freshmen for the first time ever:
Under one of the cost-cutting proposals, the CSU system may turn away eligible freshmen for the first time in its history. If the proposal from Chancellor Charles Reed is enacted, schools will give priority to freshmen in their "service area," meaning CSUMB would first admit Monterey County residents. Students from outside the county would be put on a waiting list.
Institutions of higher education statewide stand to face a staggering $464.1 million in combined cuts under the governor's plan to plug an $11 billion drop in state revenue projections.
During a recession, you want students to attend college. Regardless of age, students get education and job training that will help them grow the economy upon graduation. It is a tried and true form of economic stimulus. Arnold's cuts are going to forestall this:
The community college system, which would be hardest hit by the cuts, would lose about 10 percent of its state funding under the governor's plan....
"When unemployment goes up, enrollment at community colleges goes up," Pyer said. "So we'll have more students, and we won't get money for that."
Tough economic times also force some four-year students to drop down to two-year institutions, Pyer said.
The proposed budget cuts are not the only fiscal adjustment to education bouncing around Sacramento. The state Legislative Analyst's Office has proposed fee increases that would raise community college tuition by 50 percent by fall 2009...
"It's the community college's feeling that it's the worst time to raise fees when the economy is in a slump," said Monterey Peninsula College spokesman Rich Montori.
Disclosure: I teach part-time at MPC but do not anticipate being affected by any of these cuts.
Community college cuts are especially pernicious. These schools are the primary location where working-class and lower middle-class Californians get a chance at upward mobility. Even small fee increases can put college and work skills further out of reach, especially since most of these students already work full-time.
As this budget crisis unfolds it is becoming clear to everyone that what is at stake is more than just a fiscal plan for the state government. Our very future is at risk here. I don't know how to put it more clearly. If these cuts continue, if this overall situation is not reversed, California will simply not be sustainable for most of its residents. The prosperity of the 20th century will have given way to the aristocracy and inequality of the 21st.
Are we going to let the Yacht Party get away with it?
The University of California (UC) has managed the two oldest and largest nuclear weapons labs since their creation nearly 60 years ago. Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) have been at the forefront of the research and design of all nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal. University employees even created the bombs that dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Over the last five years, the UC has partnered with such multi-national corporations as Bechtel Group and BWXT to continue managing the labs as a limited liability corporation.
As classes are starting up again on UC campuses across California, the movement for a nuclear free UC is also starting up again. A new avenue to demand accountability from the university is emerging - students & alumni pledging to withhold post-graduate support through an online campaign, until the UC takes action:
Five reasons the UC should sever ties to the labs:
- The UC is implicitly endorsing non-compliance with the UN Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty by participating in the creation of new nuclear weapon technologies.
- The nuclear industry is notorious for its devastating environmental and health impacts.
- Nuclear weapons testing and waste disposal from the labs is a major factor in the ongoing genocide of Native American peoples today. The Nevada Test Site and the proposed waste disposal site at Yucca Mountain are both on Western Shoshone land.
- Bechtel Group, UC's lab-management partner, has a long history of irresponsible environmental practices and human rights violations. Currently, they are one of the largest profiteers of the Iraq War.
- UC holds no real control over research directions or policy at the labs nor does the funding they receive from the Department of Energy go towards anything but the labs themselves. Their management is in name only and simply acts as a stamp of legitimacy for the nuclear weapons, military-industrial complex.
Calling all UC students & alumni - take a stand now against nuclear development and corporatization at your school. Show the UC how you feel about being complicit in the nuclear industry by joining the "No Nukes at the UC" campaign:
A while back I put up a very brief post about a strike at the University of California system for more than 20,000 UC patient care and service workers that AFSCME represents. That strike has been cancelled as both parties seek to move back to the bargaining table.
We'll try to keep this story updated. Full letter over the flip.
When I was an undergrad at Berkeley in the late '90s we paid around $4400 in "student fees." It was higher than it should have been given the cost of living at the time, but the state of California had held UC costs at a fixed level from 1995 to 2001.
Of course, during the 1960s the state and the UC system actually held to the promises of the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education, which included a promise to never charge students for the cost of instruction. In the 1960s when state treasurer Bill Lockyer attended UC Berkeley his total cost - for all 4 years - would have been $880. Figuring inflation and that's $5,808 in 2007 dollars.
UC tuition will rise $490 to $7,126 plus campus fees, which average $881 this year. The tuition would reach $8,180 if raised to the 10 percent total.
Hume said students at UC's nine undergraduate campuses can expect a more difficult time registering for some classes, larger class sizes, and cuts in student services.
"We will be less efficient. They will take longer to graduate. They will not be able to get classes. They will not be able to get their majors," Hume said.
The CSU is following suit with a 10% increase of its own:
CSU Chancellor Charles Reed said during the same editorial board meeting that he is recommending that the CSU Board of Trustees approve a 10 percent tuition increase next week but that he will not go back for more later in the year. Fees at CSU will rise by $276 to $3,048 plus campus fees, which were an average of $749 per student this year.
These increases are going to make it even more difficult for qualified Californians to attend college, improve their earning power, and strengthen the state economy. With the credit crunch reducing the availability of student loans these increases leave me wondering whether this isn't a sly way to drive students away - applications and freshman classes have been soaring year after year.
It's also a further step in the privatization of our higher education system. With decreasing public support the onus is now on students to self-finance their education, which is in direct contravention to the principles of the UC and CSU systems as laid out in the 1960 Master Plan. If California is to have an economic future in the 21st century - if we are to keep pace with European and Asian economies - we need trained and skilled Californians able to handle the tasks of a 21st century civilization. Instead the state of California is abandoning that mission - for the sake of preserving the 20th century, we are going to sacrifice the 21st.
