Save California's universities
The promise of affordable higher education is dying. The University
of California's students and faculty demand answers
Judith Butler
4 October 2009
It may seem that the thousands of people who converged on the
University of California Berkeley's famous Sproul Plaza, home of the
free speech movement, on 24 September were simply upset about money.
Where has all the money gone? Who has taken it away?And perhaps there
is no one to blame.
The University of California finds itself with a shortfall of $1.15bn
for the next two years, the result of an $813m cut in state funding
and another $225m increase in costs for student enrolment. Everyone
knows that the state government is dysfunctional, that public funding
decreased by 40% between 1990 and 2005 and that this year alone
brought another 20% reduction, accelerating the abandonment of the
premiere public university by a California legislature fully
paralysed by minority rule (a two-thirds majority is required for
sealing any budgetary deal) and Proposition 13 (the 1978 ban on
increasing property taxes that strangleholds any attempt to increase
revenues for public services).
It would seem like UC faces the same situation as other public
services and institutions: layoffs, cutbacks, decreased services and
the prospect of a seriously compromised education for undergraduates
and graduates alike. So what's the problem?
Mid-summer, when no one was around, UC president Mark Yudof invoked
"emergency powers" to implement furloughs on staff and faculty, and
sent word to campuses that drastic cuts had to be made in operating
expenses. Claiming that the UC system has no funds from which to draw
in such dire moments, Yudof devised a plan, which includes a
graduated salary reduction programme for staff and faculty.
One might have expected faculty and staff to understand the dire
circumstances that led to these lamentable cuts. But it became clear
that certain cuts actually devastated some programmes, while others
absorbed the setback with ready reserves. The administration did not
wait to reach a settlement with the unions. The faculty briefly
canvassed were certainly not party to the decision.
As a result, the bad news that deans handed down at the beginning of
the semester eliminated 2,000 positions, gutted programmes that train
high school teachers in science education, closed courses in East
Asian languages and advanced Arabic, overburdened classrooms, shut
students out of their majors, let scores of lecturers go and closed
the university library on Saturday. In addition, the administration
demanded of students tuition and fee increases of nearly 40%,
imperilling the very notion of an affordable public university and
forcing many students to leave the university or scramble for full-time jobs.
Yudof's attempts to explain himself have only helped solidify a sense
of outrage on the part of faculty, staff, students and the wider
public. The result is a profound and growing scepticism about Yudof's
ability to advocate for the future of the public university.
Those of us who were trying to develop a balanced critique of both
the paralysis of the state economy and the questionable governance by
UC administrators were incredulous when Yudof gave an interview to
the New York Times Magazine in which he bragged about his own
$800,000 salary, shamelessly displayed his anti-intellectualism,
described his entry into the field of education as "an accident" and
complained that he tries to speak to faculty and staff about the
budget, but it is "speaking to the dead".
Suddenly, the problem was not only fiscal "we don't have the money"
but a more profound loss of confidence in the mode of governance
and the figure of authority entrusted with making the case for public
education to the state and federal government during these hard times.
Faculty, staff and students are collectively outraged that the
university has failed to make public and transparent what the cuts
have been and will be, and by what criteria and set of priorities
such cuts are made. Rage also centres on the devastation of "shared
governance" the policy that faculty must be part of any
decision-making that affects the academic programmes and direction of
the university. In its place, a "commission" was appointed by the
administration with paltry representation by faculty. Emphatically
missing are those in the arts and humanities.
No answers are forthcoming to a set of burning questions: Why in this
age of slash and burn has the UC administration bloated by 283%, as
their own public financial reports make plain? And why does the
university spend $10m a year on inter-collegiate athletics and over
$123m on a new athletic centre?
During a time of corrosive neo-liberalism and rising doubts about
education and the arts as public goods worthy of state support, the
administration ducks and hides when it is not boasting about its
own stupidity, failing to take up the task of making its
decision-making process transparent, refusing to honour the mandate
to bring in the faculty to share in establishing priorities and
weakening the safeguards against a rampant privatisation of this
public good that will undercut the university's core commitment to
offer an education both excellent and affordable.
Many sceptics murmured that the call for a walk out and teach in on
24 September would come to nothing. So when over 5,000 students,
staff and faculty crowded the open common of Berkeley alone (and
several thousand more on the other 10 campuses), every major national
and international media outlet took stock.
The vocal and theatrical demands of the demonstrators were not, as
governor Arnold Schwarzenegger quipped, just noise coming from
another "screaming" interest group. On the contrary, a rare
solidarity among unions, students and faculty sought to "save the
university", and their cry clearly struck a chord across a broad
political spectrum. Robert Reich, former US secretary of labour,
joined other faculty for a pointed speak-out the night before.
Faculty and students clustered into an array of groups, pursuing
strategies from mainstream lobbying to anarchist display. The
administration was clearly shaken, and subtle hints of division among
administrators could be detected. Some congratulated the
demonstrators, and others hissed.
My wager is that the walls of the university will shake again and
again until the message is received: This fiscal crisis is also a
crisis in governance. The administration needs to make their books
transparent, re-engage shared governance and set their priorities
right so that the US can continue to claim a public institution of
higher learning where a student does not require loads of money to
receive a superlative education.
This is the promise that we see dying at this moment, and the very
thought sends us into the streets en masse.
--------
Student Protesters Gear Up for Oct. 24 Conference at UC Berkeley
By Riya Bhattacharjee
Thursday October 01, 2009
About 200 students gathered in Lower Sproul Plaza Wednesday evening
to discuss the upcoming Oct. 24 mobilizing conference at UC Berkeley,
potentially the next big event planned in protest of the university's
budget cuts, furloughs and fee hikes.
Various student groups who took part in the Sept. 24 faculty and
student walkout in the 10-campus UC system organized Wednesday's
general assembly in front of Eshelman Hall for students to brainstorm
ideas for future protests or other forms of action.
A group of UC Berkeley students moderating the meeting described it
as "an open forum for all groups to come together," calling the
walkout the "first time faculty, staff and students had come together
in a show of solidarity."
Later that night, students met to form three committeesthe general
assembly committee, an Oct. 24 committee and a peace committee which
would ensure that all future protests were non-violent.
UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau and Executive Vice-Chancellor
and Provost George W. Breslauer sent an e-mail to faculty, staff,
students and members of the campus community thanking them for the
"orderly, peaceful and effective way in which the Sept. 24 budget
protest actions were held on and around campus."
The letter acknowledged that although a large number of people took
part in the day's actions, there was minimal disruption to university
operations and classes.
"Berkeley is proud of being the home of the Free Speech Movement and
yesterday's protests exemplified the best of our tradition of
effective civil action," the letter said. "Your actions have sent a
clear and important message to our legislators and to the California
public that the State's disinvestment in public higher education must
stop. We hope that we can build on these actions together to continue
to inform the public and the State legislature that cuts to the
University of California undermine our state's future and that it is
in the interests of all of the people of our great State of
California to reinvest
in public higher education."
UC Berkeley is facing a 20 percent cutabout $637 millionin its
budget for the 2009-10 fiscal year as part of the budget agreement
between the legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The
university's current budget is $2.6 billion.
Birgeneau announced Thursday that UC Berkeley had hired Bain &
Company to help identify ways the campus could increase efficiency
and cut costs.
Representatives from CalSERVE, the Solidarity Alliance, the
Associated Students of the University of California, AFSCME and other
Bay Area colleges and organizations spoke at the meeting, promising
support for the conference.
Although many proposals were tossed aroundranging from benefit
concerts to statewide strikes to rallying outside California Hall in
an attempt to shut it downmost students stressed it was important to
focus on the conference.
Ten minutes into the meeting, students from the Oct. 24 committee
handed out invitations to the conference. The slip of paper said that
all "UC, CSU, CC and K-12 students, workers, and teachers were
invited to the all day conference which would seek to "democratically
decide on a state-wide action plan capable of winning this struggle,"
which would define the future of public education.
"Why is this important?" asked Eric Blanc, a student at City College
of San Francisco who is a member of the Oct. 24 committee. "Because
we have a huge opportunity, a historic moment to win this statewide struggle."
Organizers are trying to get the word out by various means, including
Facebook, and through campus student groups throughout California.
Blanc announced to cheers from the audience that the San Francisco
Labor Council had endorsed the conference.
Students also revealed the movement's two main goalsto defend public
education and reform the structure of the UC systemand six demands,
including no student fee increases; no layoffs or furloughs; no
paycuts to workers earning less than $40,000 a year; full disclosure
of the budget; the halt of efforts to privatize California public
education; and the election of UC regents by students, faculty and staff.
"[Sept.] 24th was beautiful," said Maricruz Manzanarez, representing
the UC custodians union Local 3299. "It never happened before at UC
Berkeley. We hope the numbers increase by the day. It's time for
Birgeneau to come out of the bushes and talk to us and make the right
decision."
Union members handed out petitions which asked the university to stop
laying off custodial staff and furloughs.
A member of the university's Professional and Technical Employees
Union, who did not want to use her name for fear of retribution, said
her union had been without a contract for 15 months because of the
budget cuts.
Students also emphasized the need for a coordinating committee which
would play an important role in any imminent protests.
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment