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.
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."
The CSU Board has just responded to the budget cuts of about $650 million by increasing tuition again:
Today trustees approved a 12 percent increase that comes on top of a 10 percent increase approved last year. Combined, the two increases bring undergraduate tuition at CSU's 23 campuses to $5,472 a year. That's an increase of about 23 percent compared with last year, and does not include campus-based fees that average $950 a year. (SacBee)
So, yay for low taxes, right? Oh, hope you didn't have any kids at your local CSU, because that is a big-time bummer, huh?
At the same time, Gov. Brown is also asking San Diego State to reconsider the additional $100K they want to pay their new president:
Gov. Jerry Brown has sent a letter to California State University trustees asking them to reconsider plans to give the new president of San Diego State a salary that would be $100,000 higher than his predecessor's.
The board is gathered in Long Beach today to take up a number of issues, including setting compensation for Elliot Hirshman, the new president of San Diego State, and raising student tuition by 12 percent.
At the very least this is some very bad optics. The $300,000 salary that the outgoing president probably could have gotten a qualified candidate without taking the PR hit of a huge increase to $400,000 per year.
The Board apparently came up with their figures through studying other institutions and their salary patterns, but to be honest, now is somoe really bad timing to even bring pay up to market. Brown pretty much had to say something about this new arrangement.
The Administrators and Trustees of the UC/CSUs could probably make better money in other jobs, I don't really debate that. But it is hard to argue to janitors who are taking pay cuts and students facing 24% increases that administrators need that additional salary.
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.
It likely won't come to a shock to most CSU students, but they will be seeing higher bills next semester. Not only did Chancellor Charles reed ask the trustees for a 20% fee increase, but he also indicated that he would be looking for ways to save money throughout the system. That means furloughs, more classes taught by less expensive "lecturers," and fewer office hours.
Of course, if you were cynical, you could point out that fee increases seemingly always happen in the summer, when must students are away from their campus. So, it is harder for students to organize. However, that doesn't mean that students will simply lie down. Steve Dixon, president of the California State Student Association plans on making sure the Chancellor and the Legislators hear from students.
"We're very upset," Dixon said. "Every time Sacramento can't balance the books, we students end up bearing the financial responsibility. But we're not getting an increase in quality. We'll see increased class sizes, fewer courses and fewer teachers of Ph.D. quality. Worse, we'll also see tens of thousands of students denied access." (SF Chronicle 7/17/09)
Both state university systems have been making huge cutbacks, and this will hit employees extremely hard. It is unfortunate that despite the fact that Californians want to ensure that we have quality higher education, Far-Right Legislators use the system to once again block wise fiscal and education policay.
The SF Chronicle has a good list of some of the impacts of the budget crisis upon the systems.
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?
As we've reported before, the CSU has had a problem with refusing to allow potential employees to modify the state's loyalty oath to fit the employee's religious needs, despite the fact that the UC system has had no problem accommodating such religious freedoms. Eventually People For the American Way got involved and today they reached an agreement with CSU that gets one of the fired employees a job this fall and ensures that CSU will finally begin properly administering the oath:
CSU has agreed to appoint [Wendy] Gonaver as a temporary lecturer teaching two classes in American Studies and Women's Studies during the fall 2008 semester, and to allow the attachment of a revised explanatory statement to the oath that CSU agrees does not undermine or qualify the oath....
Judith E. Schaeffer, Legal Director of People For the American Way Foundation and Gonaver's attorney, said the settlement clears the way for others with religious or other objections to the oath to attach an explanatory statement, as long as the statement does not undermine or qualify the oath.
This is a welcome result - Wendy Gonaver should never have been fired and the CSU should have had better practices to handle religious objections to the oath. Still, this doesn't mean everything is now fine - the loyalty oath still exists, and remains an obsolete relic of a McCarthyist past. California legislators should ramp up their efforts to do away with this pointless oath, so that schools and teachers can get on with the business of educating their students.
"There's no good reason for Cal State not to let employees express their religious or other objections to signing the state's "loyalty oath."
"Please uphold freedom of religion and freedom of speech by adopting a policy that allows employees to add an explanatory statement to the oath that will allow them to sign it without violating their beliefs.
"This is already common practice at the University of California. You should make it the practice of Cal State."
PFAW Foundation President Kathryn Kolbert explained it this way:
"It is simply beyond irony that a teacher planning an American studies course with a section on the McCarthy era would be required to sign a 'loyalty oath.' Our members are engaged around this issue, and we're committed to seeing it through to the end. This should be a straightforward matter for the University, the protection of religious freedom and free speech. We're hopeful this issue will be resolved soon."
There is no reason for the CSU system to not embrace these calls for reform. The loyalty oath is an anachronism from the 1950s, and while CSU cannot refuse to administer it, they are under an obligation to handle it with respect to Californians' religious freedoms. The recent firings of CSU teachers at the Fullerton and East Bay campuses suggest that CSU needs to change its policies and practices.
You can also sign the petition online - and help ensure religious freedom and civil liberties at the CSU system.
A Quaker who lost her appointment as a Cal State Fullerton lecturer after she objected to a state loyalty oath submitted a revised statement of her beliefs Thursday in a bid to win the job back.
People For the American Way, a Washington-based civil rights group now representing lecturer Wendy Gonaver, called on the university to reinstate her and adopt a policy protecting the religious freedom of all California State University system employees.
"She is willing to sign the oath as long as she can exercise her free-speech rights and note that her views as a Quaker would prevent her from taking up arms," said Kathryn Kolbert, president of the organization and a constitutional lawyer. "We would like to avoid filing a lawsuit, but we are certainly prepared to do so if we need to."
PFAW has clearly stepped up on this, and rightly so - this is a clear-cut case of violation of constitutional rights and Wendy Gonaver deserves support. They have proposed a new CSU policy regarding the oath in a letter to the Cal State Fullerton administration:
CSU recognizes that some of our employees may have religious or other objections to taking this oath. It is our policy to accommodate the religious and other beliefs of our employees by allowing an employee to append an explanatory statement to the employee's signed oath.
This would be a sensible policy, at least until the state finally does away with the moronic oath. No word yet on whether CSU is going to accept this, but the recent incidents suggest that CSU needs to reexamine their practices regarding the oath and need to adopt proposals such as this to guarantee the rights of their employees. There is absolutely no reason for them to resist this.
Unfortunately for Wendy Gonaver, Cal State Fullerton is resistant on offering her the job again:
[CSU General Counsel Christine] Helwick said the campus might not be able to rehire her despite the revision: "The addendum she is now proposing is different in tone, scope and content from the one she originally presented. However, the position for which she originally applied last August had to be filled by someone else when she refused to sign the oath."
This is BS. It wasn't Gonaver's fault, as the CSU implies, but their own. The CSU system, and CSUF in particular, should be able to offer her another position. And the CSU system needs to implement the PFAW's proposed policy change as well as get behind Alan Lowenthal's effort to do way with the oath. Enough is enough.
When Wendy Gonaver was offered a job teaching American studies at Cal State Fullerton this academic year, she was pleased to be headed back to the classroom to talk about one of her favorite themes: protecting constitutional freedoms.
But the day before class was scheduled to begin, her appointment as a lecturer abruptly ended over just the kind of issue that might have figured in her course. She lost the job because she did not sign a loyalty oath swearing to "defend" the U.S. and California constitutions "against all enemies, foreign and domestic."...
As a Quaker from Pennsylvania and a lifelong pacifist, Gonaver objected to the California oath as an infringement of her rights of free speech and religious freedom. She offered to sign the pledge if she could attach a brief statement expressing her views, a practice allowed by other state institutions. But Cal State Fullerton rejected her statement and insisted that she sign the oath if she wanted the job.
"I wanted it on record that I am a pacifist," said Gonaver, 38. "I was really upset. I didn't expect to be fired. I was so shocked that I had to do this."
This comes on the heels of the firing - and reinstatement - of a CSU East Bay instructor who modified the oath - she too was a Quaker. The article in the LA Times does an excellent job of showing the background of the oath and the different ways it is treated in California higher ed - whereas the UC system advises signers of their rights to modify the oath to suit their religious needs, CSU campuses do not.
It suggests that there should be some sort of investigation of the CSU system, to see if there have been any directives that were sent from the central offices to campuses regarding strict - and illegal - interpretations of the oath.
All this demonstrates is how absurd this oath is. There is no good reason for it to remain as part of our state's constitution - the Soviet Union is dead and buried and communism is barely clinging to life - literally and figuratively - in the few remaining outposts it has where it hasn't morphed into neoliberalism.
California higher education has not been having a good decade. When Arnold first took office a series of major cuts were made to the UC, CSU, and community college budgets. In 2004 a compact was agreed to between the UC and CSU leaders and Arnold, guaranteeing a stable, if low, level of funding. That agreement has been heavily criticized for having accepted a lower standard of state support - and that criticism looks to be merited, as Arnold now proposes to violate that agreement with his 10% cut of higher ed funding.
As a new study by the Campaign for College Opportunity shows, the proposed cuts would have the effect of severely curtailing enrollment by as much as 27,000 over the next two years, which is the size of an average UC or CSU undergraduate campus enrollment. And a study by the UC Academic Senate found that "to maintain educational quality" student fees would have to rise from $7,500 to $10,500 - a staggering increase from an already high level.
"The Schwarzenegger revision accelerates the redefinition of the University of California away from a public university and toward a 'public-private partnership,' " the UC study said. "The university becomes dependent on high student fees for delivering its core educational mission. . . . The university becomes quasi-private or poor -- or perhaps both at once."
UC has been suffering for years from what the Academic Senate study called a "hollowing out" because of lack of money. "From a distance, all appears normal; once one goes inside, the damage is clear," it said. Leaky roofs go unrepaired; valuable faculty leave for better-paying universities...
The problem of "faculty brain drain" from public to private institutions is a serious one across the country but is hitting UC and CSU the hardest, as their funding has been the most dramatically impacted.
The study and the cuts were the subject of an article in today's LA Times which contained some quotes from higher ed leaders about the impact of these cuts:
Diane Woodruff, chancellor of the California Community Colleges, said the governor's proposed cut would mean those campuses would not be able to provide classes for more than 50,000 students. An additional 18,500 would not receive financial aid.
The cutbacks would most affect low-income, first-generation and nonwhite students, who generally depend more on university services, she said...
"By 2025. if we continue on this same course of cumulative budget cuts on a cyclical basis, the California workforce will be 3 million short and California will not be competitive," Cal State Chancellor [Charles] Reed said.
In other words, Arnold's proposed 10% cut of higher education would have a crippling effect on California's economy. The student fees increases would squeeze middle-class families even more dramatically, and would be difficult for young students to pay - especially as student loan availability is shrinking due to the credit cruch - even the notorious Sallie Mae claimed "we're at the cusp of peak lending."
But this is sadly part of a larger pattern for Arnold and his Republican allies. Don't let their occasional bickering and infighting fool you - they stand shoulder to shoulder when it comes to this state's future. They all agree that our economy and the middle- and working-classes should be sacrificed for the sake of a few wealthy Californians who don't want to pay more taxes. They agree that to save voters $150 a year in vehicle license fees, public education - from kindergarten to undergraduate - should be destroyed.
The article notes that "Despite the dire situation the universities and community colleges find themselves in, education leaders have been reluctant to challenge the governor." It looks like that task is going to fall to the students who, abandoned by their schools' administrators, are launching a statewide protest on Monday, April 21 to oppose these cuts.
At CSU San Bernardino we had over 1000 faculty, staff, and students gather in a standing room only meeting to discuss the budget cuts for the CSU that are on the table. The CFA campus president (who has been very active in CFA for 25 years or so) said that he'd never seen the CFA and CSU work together on something as they are working now. (You'll recall that faculty nearly struck a year ago over egregiously poor salaries and other problems.)
They've set up a website to help stand up for the CSU:
I encourage all of you to speak up for the CSU and to encourage others to do the same.
It won't be easy. Just yesterday I received a newsletter from my Senator (Margett) which read like an internal memo to GOP loyalists written by Grover Norquist. Really strong stuff; I was pretty shocked that it was coming out in a general newsletter. I'm getting similar stuff from my Assemblyman.
But we have to win this fight. I grew up in Illinois in a family that wasn't rich. When I was a child, I wished I lived in California. It had such amazing public high schools, and after that, I would have a chance to go to some of the greatest public universities virtually free of cost. It was an educational beacon on a hill to people outside the state. No longer. We can't let it get any worse.
