Illustration by Bela Messex.

Assemblyman Bill Monning (D-Carmel) spoke and initiated an open discussion in the UC Santa Cruz Namaste Lounge last Thursday. Monning addressed how the state, the UC and students are all affected by the state budget crisis.

“I hope we can use this afternoon not just as a Q&A, but as a brainstorming session on how we might best continue to mobilize and work with students and the community, and not just in Santa Cruz, but in the state of California,” Monning said to the group at the beginning of the discussion.

Students, faculty, community members and executive vice chancellor Alison Galloway engaged in a lengthy discussion after the Q&A session.

Although she felt Monning answered some questions indirectly, “like a politician,” Tiffany Loftin, chair of the Student Union Assembly (SUA), said the meeting was informative and a beneficial venue for addressing budgetary concerns. Loftin also serves as the national people of color student coalition chair of the United States Student Association.

“All the questions we wanted to ask we got to ask, and it increases shared governance when assembly members come to us,” Loftin said. “When we come to them we have 15 minutes, when he comes to us we have two hours.”

Questions from the audience ranged from the possible but unlikely advantage of Democrats voting for an all-cuts budget to the social and economic benefits of criminal sentence reform.

The topic most frequently brought up was a need to secure the four assembly votes that would make an overall two-thirds vote, and the governor’s signature, which would pass the proposed budget.

The extent of the state budget’s implementation of cuts to higher education hinges on the passing of tax extensions at the state level. Without the tax extensions in the proposed budget, the UC system faces an all-cuts budget that could lead to a $1 billion cut instead of the proposed $500 million.

Monning chided the actions of Republicans who will not vote to pass the budget nor present a budget of their own.

“The main problem is not the legislation or the regents,” said Jeremy Wolff, immediate past president of the College Democrats at UCSC. “It’s the system itself, and as long as the officials we elect face roadblocks like the two-thirds vote, we will continue seeing the degradation of the UC system.”

President of the SUA Amanda Buchanan played an integral role in organizing the talk. Buchanan prefaced Monning’s talk with a speech.

“Students in this room are here to work,” she said to the group. “We are here to collaborate with faculty, staff, unions, community members and administration to produce an outcome that meets the educational, social and cultural goals of the UC. Give us something to fight for. Give us the issue that makes our power come to life.”

Buchanan said students have already begun to feel the cuts in larger class sizes, longer wait lists, and discontinued majors, and the impacts will only go deeper. Wolff addressed this trend, saying that long-term lack of revenue could take the form of lowered student admission, increased fees, cut classes, online classes and a physical deterioration of the campus that will become apparent in about five years.

“As long as we continue to lose funding because the system doesn’t allow [us] to get new revenue sources we will see the UC system get weaker and more privatized, and less accessible to the majority of California,” Wolff said.

Monning spoke of the importance of student activists teaming up with community members and more disenfranchised populations to get the proposed budget, which includes the $500 million cut rather than an all-cut budget, passed.

“I think our secret weapon is the activism on the campuses, from community colleges to California State Universities to UC all around the state,” Monning said.

Loftin said that Monning’s presence at UCSC was empowering to student activists who often feel unheard by elected officials.

“He came to us and said ‘I see what you’re doing and it’s important,’” Loftin said. “I feel like there were a lot of students there and I felt very empowered by that, because it’s not every day that an assembly member comes to UCSC.”

Though Loftin observed a large student presence, she said there was a lack of students of color in attendance.

Students present at the talk voiced their desire for action. College Nine SUA representative Sasha Muce said it is time to demand that elected officials “step up.”

April 11–15 is a week of action for Higher Education, which some UCSC student organizations will be observing. A rally will be held on April 14 in front of Gov. Jerry Brown’s Los Angeles office. UCSC’s SUA will be organizing buses to transport students who wish to attend.

Photo by Isaac Miller.

Story updated 2/25/2011 at 7:56pm.

In responsible hands, a firearm can provide solid home security and make feasible for an experienced wielder impressive feats of showmanship. However, in the wrong hands a gun can end a life — or several lives — in just seconds. With every shot, the balance between the costs and benefits of private gun ownership is upset.

In the wake of the Tucson, Ariz. shooting — which killed six, including UC Santa Cruz graduate Gabriel Zimmerman — many have attributed the tragedy to a gaping hole in domestic gun control laws. From the congressional floor all the way down to the local police department, calls for change and action have rippled across the nation.

“Obviously, a gun can’t fire without a person behind it,” said Nina Salarno-Ashford, executive board member of Crime Victims United of California (CVUC), speaking for herself and not the organization, which does not have a formal stance on gun control.

Each year, tens of thousands of people are killed in the United States by acts of gun violence. So far this year, over 13,000 people have been shot or killed, according to death certificates collected by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. The deaths from the combined murders, suicides, accidents and schoolyard shootings have motivated a handful of states in the union to adopt stringent gun control laws.

But outside of the Northeast and California, firearms — handguns, shotguns, rifles, machine guns — are all controlled relatively loosely. In Arizona, for example, anyone over the age of 18 can acquire guns, in bulk, without a state-mandated background check, without being required to report if any of them should become lost or missing.

Kelly O’Brien, the fiancée of the late Gabriel Zimmerman, appeared on “Good Morning America” to voice her criticisms of the nation’s gun control policies.

“[The Tucson gunman] was only stopped when he ran out of bullets,” O’Brien said. “If not Gabe — other people could have been saved that day, absolutely more people could have not had the injuries they had to sustain.”

Yet precisely what change means and how it should be implemented is not entirely clear-cut.

Gun rights advocates and lawmakers in Congress — Democrat and Republican alike — are not certain about how federal gun control laws will change, if at all. Historically, Congress’ legislative response to headline shootings, such as the 1999 Columbine High School Massacre and the 2009 Fort Hood Shooting, has been minimal.

Despite Congress’ historically stagnant legislative response, Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) are spearheading the adoption of stronger gun control laws. In a press conference in Riverside, Calif. on Jan. 19, Boxer named several gun control provisions within California that she would like to see enacted across the nation.

Not everyone, however, is keen about proposed additions to gun control, like Boxer’s provisions.

“Instead of passing laws, the legislators could look to fund the local tools that can help fight [gun violence],” said deputy police chief Steve Clark of the Santa Cruz Police Department. “Out of [shootings], we get bad legislation that puts law enforcement at the forefront of what is really a social issue.”

Among the list of provisions Boxer provided, which included measures to raise the legal age to purchase a handgun to 21 and implement registration paperwork at gun shows, was the reenactment of the federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. Prior to its expiration, the federal assault weapons ban had outlawed the commercial sale of high capacity magazines like the ones the Tucson gunman used.

“We have so many freedoms in this nation, but those freedoms must come with a sense of individual responsibility,” Boxer said at the conference. “If we don’t act responsibly, we threaten our rights and freedoms. I also believe we should look at sensible gun laws — the kind we have here in California — that give people their gun-ownership rights while also preventing the sale of guns to criminals, people with serious mental illnesses and people who abuse a spouse or partner.”

The sentiment is shared by O’Brien, who rejected the idea of immunity that the Second Amendment has provided against gun control.

“Everything, within reason, should have limits,” O’Brien said. “You can’t go into a theater and yell, ‘Fire,’ but we still have freedom of speech. With every right comes responsibilities.”

A strong opposition, however, has been brought to bear against the agendas of gun control advocates like Boxer and O’Brien. Ray del Valle, a Monterey County gunsmith, said stronger gun control does not directly translate to stopping gun violence. For del Valle, the only people who respect gun control are law-abiding citizens.

“[The Tucson gunman] was a complete nut job,” del Valle said. “Do you think any number of gun control laws would have stopped him from setting out what he meant to do? Of course not. There were guys there — they had concealed weapons — and they did the responsible thing in not pulling their guns when the shooting started happening. They were worried about shooting someone else.”

At the national level, the National Rifle Association has won significant victories in Supreme Court hearings against gun control. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in District of Columbia v. Heller to allow individuals to own a loaded handgun for personal use. In 2010, the NRA won again in a 5-4 decision in McDonald v. Chicago. The case, which overturned several local laws in Chicago, has since cast doubt on the government’s ability to put into place limitations on the Second Amendment.

More locally, the NRA has combined efforts with the California Rifle and Pistol Association (LAP) to overturn California state gun control law. Their most recent success came on Jan. 19, when a Fresno Court ruled AB962 to be “unconstitutionally vague.” The law would have banned all mail-order ammunition and required a record of sales for all handgun ammunition sold. However, precisely what qualified as “handgun ammunition” puzzled both police and licensed arms dealers, as many of the thousands of bullets produced worldwide are interchangeable among handguns, rifles and other firearms.

In a series of interviews conducted over phone calls and e-mails, Clint Monfort, one of the LAP lawyers who helped overturn AB962, revealed the extent to which gun control laws are battled. Monfort said the LAP is actively litigating numerous cases at the state and local levels.

“[We are] currently preparing an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for this lawsuit challenging San Diego’s strict requirements for obtaining a [conceal and carry weapons permit],” Monfort said in an e-mail. “This case may resolve the legal question of whether the right ‘to bear arms’ means a right to carry a handgun outside the home.”

The LAP has successfully rescinded bans on handguns in public housing in San Francisco, challenged broad search-and-seizure warrants issued by Los Angeles police, and opposed various ordinances in Desert Hot Springs, Fairfield, Long Beach and Santa Clara.

Despite the overwhelming opposition from gun advocacy groups, there is still a strong push for “sensible” gun control laws by politicians and victims alike.

“Most people own handguns for self-defense, and there’s nothing you can do with 10 bullets that you can’t do with 30,” said O’Brien, who was engaged to the late Gabriel Zimmerman. “It’s so sad to see 19 people gunned down in 15 seconds by these high-capacity clips.”

But the devil is in the details, and the details of gun control are in the paperwork. So how strong are gun control laws?

“The federal paperwork never goes away,” Chris Gillespie, owner of Markley’s Indoor Range and Gun Shop in Watsonville, said. “We never, ever, ever get rid of our federal paperwork. We get audited once a year by [the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)], and not once have we ever come up empty-handed.”

At its basic level, acquiring a firearm legally through a federally licensed dealer requires filling out an ATF 4473 form. The form takes note of the buyer’s name, address, date of birth, photo ID and an affidavit stating the buyer is eligible to purchase firearms under federal law in the first place. Additionally, the firearm’s make, model and serial number are also recorded.

Beyond this, states, counties and cities occasionally possess additional forms of legislation demanding stricter records be kept. In the state of California, which is widely recognized as possessing some of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation, the sale of a handgun would require additional records of sale. These include the buyer’s thumbprint, date of sale and proof of lock or safety devices.

This process occurs for each of the 3,000 to 4,000 guns Gillespie sells annually to his clients — paperwork he is legally obligated to retain record of for the entire duration of his career as a firearms salesman.

The paperwork doesn’t end there. In order for Gillespie to remain in business, he must annually update his certificate of eligibility (COE) to possess a firearm, California firearms dealer (CFD) license, federal firearms license, local business license, handgun safety certificate instructor card, as well as licenses to possess firearms, ammunition, and equipment that he may only sell to law enforcement.

For del Valle, a Monterey County gunsmith, the red tape ultimately is more of a hindrance than anything else.

“I’ve got piles of paperwork over here. I spend 95 percent of my time just dealing with it, and maybe get one to two hours of actual time to craft,” del Valle said. “I’ve had to hire some people just to handle all of it. Look, I don’t think you’ll find a better way [than gun control] to stop acts of gun violence, but as it is, they don’t work.”

Many gun enthusiasts, salesmen and even law enforcement agree that there are shortcomings to gun control legislation in preventing acts of gun-related violence. Separate reports filed by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention in 2003 and the National Research Council in 2004 — both institutions that have counseled the federal government on policy issues — stated that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that gun control measures were effective.

Gillespie said some gun control laws “might as well be a moot point.”

“Look, I’ll do whatever it takes — whatever paperwork they want me to do, I’ll do it — when it comes to controlling access to guns,” Gillespie said. “Felons, the criminally insane — they shouldn’t have guns, I wholeheartedly agree. But people forget that laws don’t apply to criminals. A law might restrict a certain type of gun or magazine, but for someone who is intent on doing something bad, they’ll find a way.”

Despite California gun laws, which include a ban on assault weapons and require local police departments to approve all concealed weapons permits, the acquisition of firearms illegally is not difficult.

Santa Cruz has its share of problems with illegal arms trafficking, local deputy police chief Steve Clark said.

“Gun control is just a Band-Aid,” Clark said. “You can drive across state lines and get guns. You can buy guns through some guy with a squeaky-clean record. Many gangs here have weapons caches stashed around the county. We’re seeing the same guns reappearing.”

Straw purchasing, or the purchase of a firearm by someone who can legally do so only to hand the gun over to someone who legally cannot purchase a firearm, is a common problem for law enforcement. Additionally, with most of the responsibility of gun control turned over to state legislators, the diversity in gun control laws from state to state makes trafficking all the easier. What may be illegal to purchase in California could be, and probably is, perfectly legal in Ohio, Nevada and Arizona.

“We had a guy robbing banks a little while back,” Clark said. “One day he appears and we see he’s wielding a TEC-9 [submachine gun] and we’re like, ‘Holy smokes, where’d he get that?’ Turns out he was able to buy it through a newspaper ad in Vegas, where he was blowing off the money he stole.”

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the federal background checking system that handles all 4473 forms, is often able to catch and deny purchases to those who have been “adjudicated as a mental defective,” have felony convictions and other reasons. However, there is still a major problem: disarming gun owners who acquired their firearms legally, only to later lose their right to possess a gun, for reasons such as committing a felony.

Unlike any other state, however, California has an automated system — the Armed Prohibited Persons System — in place to notify local authorities if or when such a change in status should occur. The system, however, is not without its shortcomings. As a state-operated system, it relies on the supplemental state paperwork. However, the state does not typically keep records of most rifle and shotgun purchases, creating significant gaps in state records. Additionally, with names added daily to a list that includes over 18,000 people, local law enforcement is hard-pressed to keep up.

“Among other things, you need proactive law enforcement to stop gun violence from happening,” Markley’s gun shop owner Gillespie said. “Look at how low the police department is cut down to on their budget. Even with the tools available, they’re understaffed.”

Another fault exists at the judicial level. Sgt. Dan Flippo of the SCPD said gun charges can serve as a disposable bargaining chip for judges to convict plaintiffs on more serious offenses.

“Usually there has to be some cooperation between the state and federal levels in order to bump up charges,” Flippo said. “If they get convicted of a federal charge, they’d be done for life. But for these smaller sentences — anything smaller than a federal charge — if they’re not stuck with the gun charge, they could later walk out and get a firearm still.”

Flying in the face of the automated systems, despite the combined might of the federal and state legislatures and the cries from those victimized by gun violence, firearms continue to find their way into the hands of the emotionally distraught, the mentally unstable, and the criminally capable.

“I’m not anti-gun control,” said SCPD deputy police chief Clark. “Gun control does have its merits — it does stop some people from getting a hold of one. But we haven’t seen gun control stop gun violence.”

So what can stop gun violence?

“The question is deeper than that,” Clark said.

Clark said the solution “isn’t around gun control but community.”

“We’ve got to work together,” Clark said. “Gang violence, school shootings — this is community violence, and it’s larger than law enforcement. The community can’t be under the illusion that we can simply arrest away the problem.”

Markley’s gun shop owner Gillespie said an active citizenry is the strongest measure that can be made against gun violence.

“How do you stop shootings? Besides proactive law enforcement, you have to do what you can with your neighborhood,” he said. “An attentive citizenry is better than any knee-jerk reaction in the law.”

Within Santa Cruz, there are a number of community-led programs and initiatives that actively tackle gang violence and encourage at-risk children from succumbing to acts of gun violence.

One program, a combined effort between local schools and the SCPD, is the program PRIDE, or Personally Responsible Individual Development in Ethics. The program, a gang-prevention strategy initiated in May of last year, focuses on educating and mentoring “at-risk” middle school students. The program combines negative reinforcement through prison tours and talks from former gang members with positive reinforcement through success stories and local community leaders.

“PRIDE is about mentors and pointing kids in other directions than joining gangs,” Clark said. “The thug lifestyle has become glamorized and an established cultural norm. A kid may not be a card-carrying gang member, but looking the part is the first step. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, for all intensive purposes it’s probably a duck.”

Take Back Santa Cruz, founded in October 2009 by Analicia Cube, is another such program. The group, whose mission statement is to take a stand against drug dealing, violence, and other criminal activity, has attracted hundreds in its outdoor walk-outs — “positive loitering,” as Cube puts it — to reclaim Santa Cruz’s streets.

“We’re an anti-crime organization,” Cube said. “We’ll go out as a community together — neighbors, business owners, everyone — to let the drug dealers and gangsters know they’re not in control. We do whatever the community feels like it needs, even checking that the political leadership in Santa Cruz is doing things that we feel are about safety.”

The collaborative efforts between the politicians, law enforcement and local communities are what make for the strongest defense against gun violence, Cube said.

“It has to be a combination effort,” Cube said. “The community alone isn’t going to solve gun violence. The law itself can’t solve it. The politicians can’t solve it. We all need to be a part of the solution. We can have as many laws as you want, but it’s going to have to come through the actions and voices of many for gang violence and gun violence to come to an end.”

For Cube, such a combination effort is not a far-fetched idea. Despite the challenges, Santa Cruz’s local community efforts offers a window into how the problem may be addressed across the country.

“I’m seeing a stronger collaborative effort between the police, city council and the community than ever before,” Cube said. “I’m excited about it, I’m hopeful, and I believe. We’re going to keep doing what we can. Is it perfect? No. But I’m seeing a lot of positive action to take down gun violence.”

Illustration by Rachel Edelstein.

Now that Jerry Brown has taken the gubernatorial seat, the California Development, Relief and Education of Alien Minors (DREAM) Act will once again be up for passage. Likewise, the federal DREAM Act, a pathway for high-achieving, undocumented students to gain citizenship, will soon face a new Republican majority Congress. The results could affect students and veterans alike at UCSC and elsewhere.

Currently, many undocumented high school students are denied the opportunity to attend college due to lack of financial support. The only form of financial aid they are afforded falls under AB 540, a bill that states undocumented high school graduates who have attended a California high school for three or more years can pay in-state tuition — thousands of dollars lower than out-of-state tuition. In addition, without citizenship, graduates exit college with very limited choices, their only job options being those that do not require social security numbers. This essentially renders their degrees useless.

The California DREAM Act, if passed, would give undocumented AB 540 students equal opportunity to receive the same financial aid a citizen receives for any state college or university from the state of California.

Claudia Magaña, external vice chair of the Student Union Assembly at UC Santa Cruz, offered some insight on why the University of California Student Association (UCSA) has made passing the California DREAM Act its primary campaign this year.

“For every student that is enrolled in a UC, 32 percent of what we pay in fees goes into this pot for financial aid, and the financial aid is distributed based on merit to all students,” Magaña said. “Undocumented students pay into this, but they have no access to that money. So that’s a big issue.”

Magaña said that in September, when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the act, it was the state’s large deficit that prevented the act’s passage. The act would add an estimated $40 million to the already increasing California deficit, according to an article posted in September on examiner.com.

“The main argument against it was a fiscal issue,” Magaña said. “The state is in a big deficit, and the governor said we couldn’t afford it.”

Still, Magaña has hope for the future of the DREAM Act not only for California, but on the federal level.

“We just contacted Jerry Brown’s office, and he said he’d sign it,” Magaña said. “What I really want to see pass is the Federal DREAM Act to give students access to citizenship. Because in the end, what are they going to do with their degrees once they graduate?”

Prospective applicants of the federal DREAM Act must have come to the United States before the age of 16 and hold a high school diploma or GED equivalent. Applicants must have lived in the United States for at least five years. Once accepted, the student will be set on a six-year track to citizenship, unlike the California DREAM Act, which only offers greater access to financial aid.

Another main benefit offered by the federal DREAM Act is that it expands aid and gives temporary residency status to people who plan to serve in the military, regardless of whether they have a green card.

Support for the act has come from an unexpected place since its first proposal in 2001, said Daniel Wilson, Veterans Student Support Coordinator for the Veterans Education Team Support (VETS) program on campus.

“In 2005, the Department of Defense listed the DREAM Act as a No. 1 priority, which is really odd,” Wilson said. “Because we were in two heavy wars at the time, we had recruitment issues. This act would increase recruitment.”

Although the DREAM Act potentially poses financial problems for students who are citizens of the United States, Wilson said, he believes the benefits for high-achieving undocumented people outweigh these costs.

“The argument against it would be that these people without citizenship are taking money away from the financial aid fund that could go to American citizen students,” Wilson said. “[But] my experience with the veteran community is that it is highly expected that people who serve in the military should receive citizenship.”

UCSC students have been fighting on behalf of these issues for a while. Third-year Chris Cuadrado, a Latin American and Latino studies major, took part in a protest at Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s office earlier this year, and is passionate about passing the federal DREAM Act.

“It will contribute to the decriminalization of undocumented persons,” Cuadrado said in an e-mail. “It will make state funding, like FAFSA, available to undocumented youth, ultimately alleviating the stresses of college life for AB 540 students.”

In Wilson’s opinion, both the federal and state DREAM Acts, though different, provide a chance to harness the potential of all the people who live in the United States, no matter where they hail from.

“Intelligence is evenly distributed across the planet. It doesn’t care where your parents are from or your heritage,” Wilson said. “There are a lot of smart people out there without support because of the decisions that their parents made.”

Illustration by Rachel Edelstein.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the California state budget Oct. 8., providing the UC system with $3 billion in funding.

The signing of the budget bill coincided with the 50th anniversary of the California Master Plan for Higher Education.

Schwarzenegger would not sign a state budget without the increased funds for higher education, he said at an April meeting in Sacramento with UC President Mark Yudof, CSU chancellor Charles Reed and California Community Colleges chancellor Jack Scott.

The governor upheld his promise when he approved the budget proposed by California legislators after multiple revisions. The budget includes approximately $3 billion for academic programs, student financial aid and health education and research. This is a $370.4 million increase over the 2009–10 budget.

“Although we have a long way to go to make up for the cuts of the past three years, it is encouraging to see lawmakers willing to reinvest in the university,” said UC Santa Cruz chancellor George Blumenthal in an e-mail to the campus community.

Before the budget was approved, California faced a budget gap of $19.3 billion.

“A budget gap is the difference between spending and revenues,” said Max Selfridge, a third-year College Ten economics and politics double major. “To close the gap, they have to keep cutting spending.”

The other option in closing the gap is to raise taxes, but in the 2010–11 May revision of the California state budget, Schwarzenegger pledged to increase funding for higher education without raising taxes.

Assistant professor of economics Justin Marion explained the aspects of the budget that will affect public education in California.

“Some of the things they would do would be to defer payouts in certain programs until the future fiscal year, so it looks like they’ve done that a couple times. Some of the funding for K–12 education actually in the current budget is going to be put on next year’s budget,” Marion said. “It’s obviously a good thing for UC to get the additional funding, but eventually the state revenues are going to have to come back for us to get something more permanent.”

The 2010 budget gap was $5 billion smaller than in 2008.

The 2010 Budget Act took effect after the proposed budget bill was signed into law by the governor. The act bridged the gap by cutting spending to the Department of Parks and Recreation, health and human services, child welfare services and community-based services, among other areas.

The daily lives of Santa Cruzans will be affected, as they will likely see cuts to public services.

“The Metro service is going to be devastated because public transportation is one of the first things to go,” said Ryan Coonerty, city councilman, UCSC professor and soon-to-be-mayor.

However, there is a plan underway in Santa Cruz’s Westside to stimulate business.

The Delaware Addition is a large space under development that will include 44 land parcels, each consisting of at least 9,000 square feet. Each of the parcels will include a prepared building pad, all service utilities, paved access streets and roads, improved parking lots, drainage facilities and common area amenities.

“The idea [of the Delaware Addition] is for people to live and work in the same space to grow business,” Coonerty said.

While taxes are not going up, student tuition is. In addition to last year’s midyear fee increase — at the November 2009 meeting, the UC regents approved a 2010-11 fee increase — as of fall 2010, student fee increases included $1,344 for resident undergraduates, $1,458 for non-resident undergraduates, $1,344 for resident graduate students and $1,398 for non-resident graduate students. At their Nov. 16-18 meeting this year the regents will consider a proposal for an additional 2011–12 fee increase.

Despite the increased funding over the last year, “permanent state support for UC remains 10 percent below the level provided in 2007-08, and since then UC’s enrollment of California residents has increased by 16,000 students,” said Patrick Lenz, UC vice president for budget in his official statement regarding the budget.

In November, the UC regents will meet at UC San Francisco Mission Bay to vote on the spending plan for the 2011–2012 year. The most important aspects they will consider are enrollment, UC Retirement Plan contributions, employee compensations, retiree health benefits and student fees.

Photo by Arianna Puopolo.

Assemblyman Ira Ruskin is the co-chair of the California legislature’s Joint Committee on the Master Plan. This committe is reassessing California’s public higher education system during the year of the Master Plan’s 50th anniversary. Photo by Arianna Puopolo.

Illustration by Kenny Srivijittakar.

2010 marks the 50th anniversary of California’s commitment to higher education.

One half-century ago, California implemented its Master Plan for Higher Education. Since, it has become one of the state’s most lasting achievements.

“I think nothing has been more important in the past 50 years to the economic vitality and the quality of life in California than the Master Plan for Higher Education,” said Assemblyman Ira Ruskin, who currently co-chairs a joint legislative committee on the Master Plan.

In 50 years, California’s public universities have become some of the most esteemed in the world, educating millions with instructors who make groundbreaking research — even some who hold Nobel Prizes.

But in the past 30 years, the universities have increasingly become underfunded, budgets sliced by lawmakers at the state capital. Still, the California Master Plan for Higher Education continues to shape the debate on how to educate California’s, the nation’s and the world’s young people.

The Master Plan created a new structure of college education in California — a system dedicated to enabling students from any background to attend college.

“The important accomplishments of the Master Plan,” said Todd Greenspan, director of academic planning for the University of California Office of the President, “were reducing costs and promising access to everybody.”

The Plan

By 1960, California had almost 16 million residents, many of whom were World War II veterans who had moved west after the war. Their sons and daughters, members of the “baby boom” generation — almost 80 million Americans, born between the end of World War II and the early 1960s — were soon to enter California’s colleges in droves.

“We had a huge wave of students coming [to begin college],” Greenspan said, “and no real clear way to educate all of these students.”

The Master Plan for Higher Education was an attempt to efficiently funnel these young Californians into college. It sounded simple enough.

In 1960, Gov. Edmund Brown signed the Donahoe Act, dividing the three systems of public higher education in California — the UC, the California State University (CSU) and community colleges — into three specific functions. This act was the part of the Master Plan enshrined into law.

The University of California became foremost a research university, which would confer undergraduate and graduate degrees plus professional degrees, such as law degrees and MBAs. The California State University would emphasize teaching and award undergraduate degrees and master’s degrees. Community colleges would become two-year preparatory schools, facilitating transfer to a UC or a CSU, focusing on lower-division classes while also providing vocational and remedial training.

This division was an attempt to reduce the costs of administering California’s large higher education system while still providing admission to students interested in pursuing a college degree. With the three-tier system, UC and CSU campuses could take their capacity of students while the rest could go to a community college for two years, then transfer to the CSU or UC of their choice.

The Master Plan allowed the UC system to add two new campuses, UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz, while the CSU opened three.

Clark Kerr, an architect of the Master Plan and president of the UC in 1960, described it years later as a bold and pioneering blueprint for educating college students.

“We started [the] Master Plan asking the state to commit itself … to creating a place in higher education for every single young person,” Kerr said during a 1999 committee hearing on the Master Plan.

“It was the first time in the history of any state in the United States, or any nation in the world, where such a commitment was made — that a state or a nation would promise there would be a place ready for every high school graduate or person otherwise qualified,” Kerr continued. “It was an enormous commitment, and the basis for the Master Plan.”

The Master Plan has had a tremendous effect on the education levels of California residents. According to a 2005 presentation to the Assembly Higher Education Committee, enrollment in higher education jumped from around 300,000 in 1958 to over 1.8 million in 2003. By 2008, the California Postsecondary Education Commission concluded that 2.45 million students were enrolled in some form of higher education in California.

The Plan’s Unwritten Commitments

The Donahoe Act specified the role of each university in California’s broadening higher education system. However, the Master Plan was also an expression of certain goals not written into law.

First among them was a student enrollment formula. Access and affordability was key. The authors of the Master Plan proposed that the UC guarantee admission to the top 12.5 percent of high school graduates in the state. They further proposed that the CSU promise spots for the top third of the graduating class, and the rest would find space in community colleges.

Second, the Master Plan pledged to continue California’s century-old tradition of keeping higher education tuition-free to residents of the state, but recognized that students should pay supplementary costs for housing, athletics and other student activities.

This idea — of a college education affordable to all — has become a point of contention during the recent state budget crisis, which has prompted student fee increases and campus protests.

The State of California, which provides funding for the bulk of instruction at California’s public universities, has slowly shifted funds away from these institutions.

“I think the problem now is that the state is not committed to funding it,” academic planning director Greenspan said.

While legislators engage in fiscal fistfights over balanced budgets, taxes and spending cuts, higher education has seen less and less money. The UC and the CSU have been forced to rely more and more on student fees.

Steve Boilard is the director of higher education policy at the California Legislative Analysts Office, the nonpartisan policy analysts for the California State Legislature.

“The idea that the state should not charge tuition has really gone by the wayside,” he said. “Ten thousand dollars to go to a UC — even though we call it fees, in effect that’s tuition.”

The Current Review

This year, the first members of the “baby boomer” generation will reach retirement age and begin their generation’s exit from the American workforce.

Fifty years after the California Master Plan for Higher Education ensured a place in college for this retiring generation, legislators at the state Capitol in Sacramento are beginning to reassess the Master Plan.

The California legislature has convened the Joint Committee on the Master Plan for Higher Education. It is headed by Assemblyman Ira Ruskin from the 21st Assembly District, encompassing San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, and Sen. Gloria Negrete McLeod from the 32nd District, which includes the cities of Pomona, San Bernardino and Montclair.

This is the legislature’s eighth review of the Master Plan. During the last review in 2002, ideas for a master plan from kindergarten to college were discussed, but no laws were ever formalized.

“The last Master Plan review really didn’t result in any changes,” said Boilard, who testified before the current committee. “[But] it’s a good thing to have these conversations.”

The committee has held three hearings: an opening hearing, one on universal access and one on affordability and financial aid.

Assemblyman Ruskin spoke from his office after the hearing on affordability and financial aid on Feb. 17.

“The most important reason for convening the committee,” he said, “is that our system of public higher education is at risk, and we to have to take an objective and honest look at the system and make decisions about it.”

The committee has scheduled three more hearings, after which its members hope to put forward bills to amend or update the Master Plan. Some ideas, like major increases in financial aid in conjunction with higher student fees and a reorganization of the original division in the Master Plan, have been discussed by committee members and speakers invited to testify for the committee.

The goal of the committee is not to find a short-term fix for funding problems and fee increases, but rather to fashion a long-term vision for the state’s role in public higher education.

“If we recommend modification of policies, we need to do it with the long term in mind,” Ruskin said. “We owe that to the people of California. That’s what the people did who set the Master Plan.”

“The world has changed since even the last review of the Master Plan,” he continued. “We are now in a global market, and our graduates have to compete in a global marketplace. … So higher education has to be viewed through that lens more so than ever before.”

The committee is addressing ideas for amending the Master Plan, while also trying to ensure that California can educate enough young people to keep its economy competitive.

“In order to replace the baby-boomer generation, it’s important that young people from disadvantaged communities go to college and university and graduate,” Ruskin said.

Some higher education policy analysts believe the committee should propose laws that concretely address the fundamental idea of the Master Plan: access and affordability.

“On affordability, there should be a clear policy on what’s the basis for fees, how much we can charge [and] how much they can grow year after year,” Boilard said. “There are no targets for how many students should be enrolled in the university or what percentage of the state population should hold a B.A. There’s no goals for that, and [the Legislative Analysts Office] thinks it would be very helpful if the legislature would adopt some of those roles.”

A Legacy Going Forward

In 1960, the Sacramento Bee quoted Gov. Edmund Brown regarding the Donahoe Act, the part of the Master Plan enacted into law. “I am proud that with this bill, California takes the lead among the nation’s states in giving direction and purpose to higher education,” he said.

States like Oregon, Texas, North Carolina and Indiana have all modeled their college systems on California’s, but in 50 years California has yet to set the Master Plan on an updated course for the 21st century.

“A number of other states over the years have adopted a framework similar to what [California] had adopted. In recent years, a lot of them have gone far beyond us,” Boilard said.

“There’s new approaches that are being adopted [by other states], such as performance-based funding, better kinds of accountability system, … better goal-setting — having quantitive, measurable goals for higher education.”

UCSA President Victor Sanchez meets with Assemblymember Furutani during intermission. Photo by Arianna Puopolo.

California must pay. Schools, prisons, roads, welfare and — according to the 50-year-old Master Plan for Higher Education — the University of California are wards of the state.

The 2010 Joint Committee on the Master Plan for Higher Education (JCMPHE) met for the second time Feb. 2 in Sacramento. Based on the testimonies of California students, parents and higher education professors and administrators, the JCMPHE will recommend how the state’s budget should accommodate the Master Plan. The Plan set a precedent of tuition-free higher education in California.

The committee, co-chaired by Assemblyman Ira Ruskin (D-Redwood City) and Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod (D-Chino), will meet a third time before making its recommendation for the 2011 budget.

JCMPHE’s latest meeting focused on “Universal Access.”

“You cannot talk about [access] without talking about affordability,” said fourth-year Victor Sanchez, UC Student Association (UCSA) president and UCSC external vice chair, who made the drive to the Capitol to testify in defense of the Master Plan.

The 1960 Master Plan was tendered to the state legislature in a special session and passed. However, some aspects of the Plan were not put into law.

Among other things, the Master Plan mandates that the UC accept 12.5 percent of California’s high school graduating class and restrict enrollment on every campus to 27,500. Currently, Berkeley, LA and Davis violate this policy.

Dowell Myers, professor of urban planning and demography at USC, testified in the first panel: “The Importance of Universal Access.” He estimates that California gets a $3 to $1 return on investments in college students.

A primary concern of many witnesses was maintaining diversity at the UC.

Ruth Love, P.h.D., professor of education leadership at UC Berkeley and San Francisco State University, emphasized the importance of diversity at higher education institutions.

“Education remains the primary vehicle for social and economic mobility,” she said.

Sanchez shares similar sentiments, warning that current UC enrollment isn’t adequately reflecting the changing California demographics.

Love warned the panel against enacting policies that might contribute to the widening access gap, fearing that the continued reduced enrollment and curriculum is detrimental to students, academically and financially.

“I can’t think of anything more important today in higher education than quality of higher education, affordability of higher education and access of higher education,” she said.

Assemblyman Warren Furutani (D-Los Angeles) sits on the JCMPHE. He urges Californians to abandon their fear of taxes, because the 90 percent rise in fees over the last seven years are taxes incognito. However, unlike taxes, fees are not voted on and disproportionately affect middle-class students.

“Let’s not mistake what’s going on in higher education,” he said. “The middle class is getting taxed all to hell.”

Furutani attributes California’s aversion to taxes to mistrust of the legislature.

“The lack of confidence is there because they figure that any tax put on the table is going into this dark hole,” he said.

Until the JCMPHE meets again, Furutani urges students to consider the rationale of their actions.

He said students should put their energy into authoring legislation to generate funds for higher education.

“You can demonstrate all day long but it’s not going to generate any revenue,” he said.

Henry Powell, a representative of UC Academic Senate on behalf of the Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates (ICAS) addressed the committee in the second panel: “How Access Should Operate in an Ideal World.”

He said the decision to reduce enrollment across all three public higher education systems — the UC, the CSU and community colleges — has serious repercussions for students.

“Eligibility is being redefined on a campus-by-campus basis in order to manage enrollment,” he said.

Keeping in stride with the theme of the discussion, Powell asserted that access is not just about admissions.

“For students, the term ‘college access’ means more than acceptance into college,” he said.

Powell maintains that the state of California is breaking its promise to enroll qualified students, because students are meeting the standards laid out for them by the UC but — due to enrollment cuts — they are being denied.

UCSA President Sanchez posits that the state’s failure to financially support its students has monumental repercussions, which can best be articulated by the slogan, “We’re graduating with mortgage-size loans and no homes.”

If passed, higher education, one of the few items in the plan that received an increase in funding compared to the previous year, will receive a $224.5 million increase from last year, in addition to a restoration of $370 million of last year’s cuts.  The $370 million of proposed restoration funds falls short of the $913 million that the University of California Office of the President (UCOP) requested.  To take effect, the budget plan would have to pass both houses of the legislature by a two-thirds vote.

Earlier this week, Schwarzenegger also proposed a new constitutional amendment to cement funding for higher education and prisons from the state’s general fund.

“We can no longer afford to cut higher education … I will protect education funding in this budget,” Schwarzenegger said in his final State of the State address to the California legislature on Wednesday, Jan. 6. “Never again do we spend a greater percentage of our money on prisons than on higher education.”

In response to Schwarzenegger’s proposed constitutional amendment, as well as his plan to increase education spending for the fiscal year of 2010-11, UC President Mark Yudof said in a statement, “These restorations, in addition to the governor’s proposed constitutional amendment earlier this week, are clear evidence that the governor understands the vital role public higher education plays in California.”

The governor’s proposed amendment would cap the contributions to the California prison system from the state’s budget at a maximum of 7 percent while allocating a minimum of 10 percent of the general fund to higher education.

Last year, California prisons received 11 percent of the state’s general fund while 7.5 percent went to higher education.

To make these cuts, the governor proposed a plan to allow the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to contract with private corporations to make up for the lost funding.

“If California’s prisons were privately run, it would save us billions of dollars a year,” Schwarzenegger said. “That’s billions of dollars that could go back into higher education, where it belongs and where it better serves our future.”

The trade of funding between prisons and universities must first be approved by a two-thirds vote of both the California State Senate and the California State Assembly in order to be placed on the ballot. A majority of California voters would then need to pass the initiative in the November election for the amendment to be added to the California Constitution. If passed, the two spending limits would become effective in the 2014-2015 fiscal year.

In an interview with the New York Times, Schwarzenegger’s chief of staff Susan Kennedy said, “Those protests on the UC campuses were the tipping point. … Our university system is going to get the support it deserves.”

The protesters walked throughout campus yelling chants and spreading the word about the budget cuts. Photo by Morgan Grana.

A rally in the Quarry Plaza took place April 22, 2009 to protest all of the cuts UCSC has been making throughout the school. Many student speakers fired up the eager crowd before they made their way to Kerr Hall. Photo by Alex Zamora.

Photo by Morgan Grana.

In the current round of budget cuts in the California State Legislature, there is even more at risk for the students and staff of UC Santa Cruz. Both a proposal by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and a second proposal introduced by State Democrats in the legislature call for further cuts to the University of California.

Such cuts would amount to $28.7 million in reduced state funding to UCSC, according to a June 23 statement issued by Chancellor George Blumenthal and Campus Provost David Kliger.

Of the $28.7 million, an estimated $12.5 million is expected to be saved through salary reductions and furloughs, leaving UCSC administrators with $16 million in further cuts to make to the campus’ budget. These cuts will be in addition to the $13 million already cut from the budget for the upcoming school year.

“Community Studies and Latin American and Latino Studies was just part of round one,” said Matthew Palm, the Commissioner of Academic Affairs (CAA) for the Student Union Assembly (SUA), referring to the proposed cuts to both departments, which caused much controversy on campus in the spring. “If the cuts get bigger, you’ll be looking at even more controversial cuts. It could come down so fast and so sudden, it could be worse.”

The statement by Blumenthal and Kliger summarized the desperate circumstances now facing UCSC due to the state’s budget insolvency.

“The magnitude of the cuts we as a campus must make requires that we think and act differently,” the statement said. “Clearly, making these cuts will be a painful process and will require elimination and consolidation of programs, reductions in services, and an additional loss of personnel. We know the difficulty that layoffs will pose to some members of our campus community and their families, but additional layoffs seem unavoidable.”

To address this new round of cuts, Kliger is reportedly putting together a budget retreat with UCSC’s principal administrators to discuss where further cuts can be made.

This round of cuts will have further involvement from students, with CAA Palm and SUA Chair Kalwis Lo among those invited to take part in the retreat.

Palm was optimistic about the outcome of the retreat.

“We will hopefully get a real look at these cuts,” Palm said.

As of now, both state Democrats and Republicans have not yet reached a consensus on next year’s budget. Since a 2/3rds majority is needed to enact the proposed budgetary changes immediately, members from both sides of the aisle in the state Assembly and Senate will need to vote together to pass proposals.

Where does this situation leave the University of California?

Palm recalls a meeting he sat in on a few days ago. “One of the deans said, ‘There’s a chance we’re all going to be on vacation next week.’”

“If they don’t pass anything, everything’s going to shut down,” Palm continued. “We’re in the ultimate worst-case scenario. We can’t borrow to buy more time.”

Members of both the Assembly and Senate are expected to continue meeting over the coming days to find a plan that most everyone can agree on. The final impact this budget process will have on higher education remains to be seen.

Congressman Kevin Deleon and Victor Sanchez (left), the external vice chair for UCSC’s Student Union Assembly, discussed the drastic cuts at a state budget hearing in early June. Photo by Arianna Puopolo.

To fix gaps in budget, state might cut integral financial aid program

For over a month, legislators in Sacramento have been debating California’s financial future, working to balance the 2009-2010 state budget.

But some of the proposed cuts hit too close to home for California’s higher education students.

Among the myriad of proposed cuts being tossed around in Sacramento is a proposal from Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger that would eliminate new Cal Grants from being issued in the 2009-2010 fiscal year, effectively phasing out the program by 2011.

Should the proposal to pass, it would result in a cut of [grants?] $201 million in the 2009-2010 fiscal year and $478 million in the 2010-2011 fiscal year, according to a press release from the University of California Student Association (UCSA).

At UC Santa Cruz, the elimination of the Cal Grant program “would be a significant loss,” said Ann Draper, the director of financial aid at UCSC.

“Currently about 4,000 UCSC students receive Cal Grants and the total amount UCSC students received in 2008-09 was about $26 million. It represents 1/3 of total grant aid UCSC students receive,” she said.

The cuts to the Cal Grant go beyond just those students whom receive aid from the program.

“Eliminating the Cal Grant program would affect all students who receive grant support since UC, federal and state grants are pooled to ensure students of equal financial means receive similar grant awards at UC campuses,” Draper said. “About 7,000 undergraduates – roughly half of our undergraduates- receive grant support at UC Santa Cruz. All of these students would be impacted.”

Matthew Palm, the Commissioner of Academic Affairs (CAA) for the Student Union Assembly (SUA), believes it’s “hard to overestimate” the impact these cuts could have on UCSC students. “Cal Grants are one of the most effective programs,” Palm said referring to the efficacy of the program at getting students financial aid.

Unfortunately, options for replacing the Cal Grant remain limited. “There are no viable alternatives to offset the loss of this critical source of aid funding,” Draper said. “For reference, campus and private scholarships currently provide less than $6 million annually for our students. It would take several years and a significant effort to replace this loss.”

Palm also saw dramatic effects resulting from the slashing of Cal Grants.

“Without Cal Grants, people would be taking out a lot more loans,” he said. “Hopefully people won’t be dropping out.”

While it is unclear how long it will take for legislators in Sacramento to come to a consensus on the state budget, it is clear that the Cal Grant does have its share of supporters in the state legislature.

“We’re fighting like hell to protect it,” said Assemblymember Bill Monning (D-Santa Cruz/Monterey/Santa Clara). “Education is the future of this state and its economy.”

Monning, along with many of his Democratic colleagues, has voiced support over keeping the Cal Grant program intact. Their general proposal, however, remains under fire by Schwarzenegger and Republican leaders, whom oppose the introduction of any new taxes in this draft of the budget.

Yet the harsh reality is California’s $24 billion deficit needs to be closed somehow. “There’s no program immune from cuts,” Monning said. “There’s no magic wand, there’s no magic piggy bank.”

While lawmakers tackle the budget in Sacramento, Palm said that is will come down to how much pressure students put on the state legislature.

Both he and Draper urge students who wish to keep the Cal Grant program intact to contact their local state representatives. “We know we can do it,” Palm said. “We just gotta make it happen.”

Congressman Kevin Deleon and Victor Sanchez (left), the external vice chair for UCSC’s Student Union Assembly, discussed the drastic cuts at last week’s state budget hearing. Photo by Arianna Puopolo.

Twelve hours after leaving UC Santa Cruz, the caravan of student government officers and interns prepared to leave Sacramento behind. Hundreds of UC, CSU, and California Community College system (CCC) students filed out of the Capitol Building, clinging to the hope that legislators might heed their testimonies. 

“What is at stake here,” UCSC Student Union Assembly (SUA) external vice chair Victor Sanchez said to the budget committee, “is more than the future of our system of higher education, but that of the state of California.”

This public hearing, during which the public was allotted time to address a special budget committee, was scheduled in response to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s recent budget proposal.

The proposed statewide cuts would cut academic preparation programs; slash UC, CSU and CCC budgets; eliminate the Cal Grant; cut subsidized child care programs; release nonviolent prisoners one year early; eliminate the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids Program; shut down 80 percent of California’s state parks and beaches; and reduce or eliminate various public healthcare programs.

Originally scheduled to start at 10:30 a.m. with comments from advocates of public healthcare for children, the hearing ran several hours late. Students and employees of California higher education systems formed a line obstructing any walking room in the halls outside the hearing facility. 

Of 11 UCSC SUA members present at the Sacramento hearing, only two had the chance to deliver their personal stories and pleas to the committee.  

UCLA student government representatives drove to Sacramento the night before the hearing to have their chance at the podium. Only one of the four who made it was able to address the budget committee.

UC San Diego students who flew up for the hearing chose to reschedule their flight home to accommodate the scheduling delays, only to ultimately miss the hearing when student testimonies were delayed until late into the 4 p.m. hour.

The chancellors of the CSU and CCC systems and UC President Mark Yudof addressed the committee before students entered the chamber.  

Yudof attempted to convince Chairwoman Noreen Evans, of the 7th Assembly District located near Napa, of the importance of protecting Cal Grants and warned against the overarching implications of such a budget cut. 

“This will be, in many ways, an unraveling of a master plan in terms of access research and all the rest of what went into that great master plan that California adopted about 50 years ago,” he said, referring to the establishment of the California Master Plan for Higher Education (CMPHE).

The CMPHE was developed in 1960 by a survey team organized by the UC regents and the California Board of Education. Its goal was to define the objectives of the UC, CSU and CCC and establish the admissions standards to be used throughout the UC system. Additionally, the CMPHE established that every Californian is entitled to higher education regardless of economic standing. 

This focus on accessibility to higher education for all Californians was central in Yudof’s argument against the cuts.

“The hardest hit is on the low-income families, with [annual earnings] under $60,000,” he said. “That’s just the reality of it.”

UCSC SUA treasurer Eric Piccolotti is a second-year feminist studies major affiliated with College Ten. He was one of several students denied the opportunity to speak at the budget hearing due to time restrictions.  

Piccolotti said he trekked to Sacramento because Cal Grants and curricular diversity are important to him, and he fears the implications of the proposed budget cuts to these areas.

“Education is a right for all Californians,” Piccolotti said. “These budget cuts are infringing upon that right.”

Olgalilia Ramirez is the director of the Office of Governmental Relations for the California State Student Association (CSSA) and an alumna of CSU Sacramento. She attended the budget hearing as a liaison for CSU students.  

“It’s important that students give their story, because they’re the only ones that can give that story and that is very valuable for the community to hear,” she said. “[It is also important] to get across the message that investing in students is an investment in California’s future economy and also our present economy.” 

Ramirez and Clais Daniels-Edwards, the legislative director of UC Students Association (UCSA), collaborated to organize students present at the hearing.  

As an indication of solidarity between California public higher education institutions, students wore yellow bands on their wrists, which they raised every time a fellow student said “California” during their testimony. 

Callin Curry, a UCSC first-year and SUA intern, relayed his personal story to the committee. 

With the proposed elimination of Cal Grants, and having come out of the California foster care system without family to help him cover the costs of a university education, Curry faces an ominous future. 

“With the government’s current proposal, a dream 19 years in the making [of attending a four-year university] is slowly being destroyed,” Curry said. “I have protested as I have watched higher education take those devastating cuts, with affordability and access decreasing exponentially. This current situation is one of the biggest threats to education.”