Illustration by Caetano Santos

Ever fall off the class attendance horse and use eCommons to get back on? Thanks to the energy surrounding online education, millions worldwide can use the internet to get on in the first place.

UC Santa Cruz is now one player in a wave of universities offering a selection of classes online — for free. Coursera, a for-profit online education platform listed UCSC alongside 28 new partner schools, doubling the number of schools as the Silicon Valley-based startup approaches its first anniversary.

Chancellor George Blumenthal said offering courses, free of up-front charges, to anybody with an internet connection is in line with the democratization of education that UCSC supports.

Three classes currently under development — C++ programming, The Holocaust and Children Acquiring Literacy Naturally — will be available by this summer, with potential for additional classes to follow. Most, if not all of the class materials will be available online for free.

In a university press release, professor and senior advisor for online courses Ira Pohl said the invitation to join the platform in proximity to world-renowned universities such as Princeton, Duke, Columbia and Brown has shed UCSC in a positive light.

While the Coursera offerings target those unable to attend UCSC and don’t earn one university credit, the UCSC extension already offers hundreds of fee-based online courses, which may be applied towards concurrent enrollment.

Response to Coursera will inform how online education at UCSC evolves. The Baskin School of Engineering in particular is looking to advance the M.A. in Engineering degree through online education.

In their last meeting, the UC Board of Regents, in concert with Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and Gov. Jerry Brown, revitalized online education research — citing efficiency as a top priority.

As part of the larger conversation about online education, Student Union Assembly Chair Nwadiuto Amajoyi expressed her hesitancy to accept online education as a beacon of education democratization in her Feb. 15 letter to the San Francisco Chronicle.

“The plan may increase access for students from communities who otherwise wouldn’t be able to have a UC education and may result in more much-needed graduates,” Amajoyi wrote, “but will it be at the expense of a quality education?”

Also published on Feb. 15, professor and chair of the Committee on Educational Policy at UCSC’s Academic Senate Tracy Larrabee’s op-ed commented on the importance of staying realistic about the so-called boom of online classes.

“Sometimes when people talk about online education, the implication is that we are choosing between a small room where an instructor practices the Socratic method and a cold, two-dimensional course with little flexibility and no human contact,” Larrabee wrote. “I [use online education as] a warm, personalized middle ground that has evolved for not only my comfort and efficiency but also for the comfort, flexibility and elucidation of my students.”

Photo by Simren Bolaria

UCSC Chancellor George Blumenthal and Executive Vice Chancellor Alison Galloway sat down with student media organizations to answer questions of concern. The meeting took place on April 24 and included City on a Hill Press, KZSC, Banana Slug News, and The Fish Rap Live! 

CHP: UCSC receives less money than many other UC schools, one disparity in funding among UC campuses. What kind of pressures are being exerted on the office of the UC president for more equal allocation?

B: When I became chancellor, I discovered student fees were not distributed back to the campus from which they were collected and UC Santa Cruz got back about 67 cents on the dollar. The disparity was and still is significant. Last year I finally persuaded [the president] to look at this issue and reevaluate the budgeting of the university. The president agreed to put in place rebenching – a revaluation of how state money is allocated among the campuses. On that committee representing UCSC were myself and Susan Gilman, the chair of Academic Senate. When the report comes out it will be reviewed by the campuses. It should be available for students to look at as well. UCSC stands to gain a significant amount of funds from this process.

CHP: This year, the UC faced substantial reductions in state funding as well as increases in costs. How much of this was absorbed by tuition increases and how much of this was absorbed by cuts to jobs, classes, and resources?

B: We face two challenges: one are the cuts from the state, which were about $750 million university-wide last year. To put that into context, $750 million is roughly equal to the total state support for UC Santa Cruz, UC Santa Barbara, and UCLA, so that’s a huge, huge cut. In addition to that, we continue to face increasing costs. Increases in pension contributions from the university is a good example of that. If you average it out over the last four years, [student fee increases] were roughly half that total of cuts plus cost increases.

CHP: At the last regents meeting. Students argued that they didn’t have enough time to voice their opinions and they were calling for a more democratic process. Do you think that will be effective?

B: Currently, regents meetings last three days. Each have public comment periods for half an hour where students get a chance to express their views. There’s a balance between keeping [the meetings] open for public comment forever versus keeping public comment too short. [Regents meetings] aren’t fundamentally a democratic process. I think it’s quite appropriate that [the regents] hear constituents of the state – that they hear from students and faculty but ultimately [the regents] are charged with making decisions about the university. I think having input is really important but I would not feel comfortable if the state voted on every issue surrounding the university.

CHP: How can students get more involved with the decisions made at regents meetings?

B: At the last regents meeting, two UCSC students spoke and their comments were very different from comments made by other speakers. They were calm, persuasive — they made a rational argument and I think they were listened to because they were not screaming at the regents. Another way to be involved is to write a letter to the regents and president. The third way of getting involved is to come talk to people on campus. Allison holds office hours at Quarry Plaza and I hold office hours in my office; I meet with students all the time. Even if I don’t agree with a student, I’m happy to give them advice on a particular issue and on how to be influential in the process. I think there are a lot of ways that students can get involved and have their voice be heard so they can have a good chance at having an effect on university policy.

Chancellor George Blumenthal and executive vice chancellor Alison Galloway answer questions from student media organizations. Photo by Kyan Mahzouf.

Chancellor George Blumenthal and executive vice chancellor Allison Galloway met with Student Media Organizations for their Quarterly Meeting on Oct. 10. Blumenthal discussed private UC funding and the critical race and ethnic studies movement on campus.

CHP: Regarding the Sept. 15 Board of Regents meeting: there was a certain sentiment that the UC system ought to be pursuing more sources of private funding, in light of President Yudof’s four-year proposal. What are your thoughts on this?

Blumenthal: We would love to see more private funding, no doubt about that. Don’t be misled that we don’t already do private funding. Last year, our private funding was up 10 percent. We already do a lot. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do or try to do more … There is an effort to reach out to the largest corporations in California, who are in some ways beneficiaries of higher education because they get to hire trained people. That’s a perfectly legitimate thing to do. The bottom line is, we’ve taken tremendous cuts … President Yudof’s plan was a plan to bring some stability, and to make it clear that if tuition goes up, [here's] where the finger needs to be pointed: the state and the legislature have not provided adequate funding for us to continue to do what is our mission.

TWANAS: Now that we have seen the critical race and ethnic studies movement go through several steps, students are wondering where you two see your position as salient to the movement, and what involvement you have, if any.

B: We’ve been very supportive of the major. We’ve provided funds for faculty. I’d love to see it happen. We regard it as a major initiative.

Galloway: We’re hoping to get a proposal out of the faculty quickly, and through the academic senate process where it would be approved. Personally, I’m very supportive of this … As executive vice chancellor, I’m delighted to see it move forward.

CHP: In addition to current private funding, what direct approaches do you think would be practical for corporations in showing them their advantage in funding a UC?

B: We owe it to the next generation of students to give back. People take it seriously — our donations were up last year. When I go to a group of business leaders, one of the key questions they ask concerns education and higher education. They run companies that send jobs out of the country because there aren’t enough qualified people here. It’s obvious that there should be more financial support for the benefit of our state, country and economy.

CHP: Do you think the UC system at large has done enough with regard to providing information for students about the fee increases?

B: Almost certainly no. We could do a better job of it, and we could do a better job of communicating with the people of California and the legislation. It’s frustrating that, though last year was great in terms of lobbying in Sacramento to bring the issue forward, at the end of the day higher education cuts were devastating. We have to do better, or we have to find alternatives — private fundraising, specially designated higher education funding from the state. We have to do something else.

CHP: What can students do to impress upon the private sector that it is in their best interest to invest in the UC system now?

B: I was really impressed by how students, faculty and admins worked together in Sac[ramento] last year. We came together to convey that we had the same message. I think that can translate in the private sector as well. I think it would be entirely appropriate to respectfully have student groups meet with private sector groups. Some are already there: The Silicon Valley Leadership Group is as supportive as any of higher education. We need to reach out more broadly to individual companies, though.

Photo by Prescott Watson

UCSC Chancellor George Blumenthal and executive vice chancellor Alison Galloway sat down on April 14 with student media organizations to discuss issues facing the university. City on a Hill Press, KZSC, SCTV, TWANAS and The Fish Rap Live! touched on the topics of decentralization and the $500 million cut to the UC system.

City on a Hill Press: At the UC Board of Regents meeting in March, you said if the state legislature ends up cutting $1 billion from the UC system, “some fundamental assumptions have to be thrown out.” In regards to UCSC, what assumptions are you referring to?

Blumenthal: I really don’t believe that the campus can responsibly take cuts of that magnitude and still maintain the kind of student experience that you’ve come to expect. I think that the responses will have to be systemic — there will have to be a major effort to bring additional money into the system, and that’ll have to be done on a systemwide basis. I think in the short run, it’ll probably lead to significant fee increases. I don’t see any other choice … A billion-dollar cut to UC really is Armageddon, and the way you deal with Armageddon is with really radical solutions.

SCTV: On April 5 [Gov.] Jerry Brown said “the university is an engine of wealth creation.” I’d like to get your response to that idea.

Blumenthal: I completely agree with that. Let me limit my response to California. California is a knowledge-based economy — there’s a lot of farming, but a lot of California’s economy has a lot to do with intellectual property, creating things, whether it’s Hollywood or IP. We really need an educated populace in order for that to happen. It’s true that for every dollar invested in UC, the long run repays that investment many times over. It’s a great investment for the state of California. The reason they don’t do it is because they need the money now, and they’re not so worried about the future. I think it’s short-sighted.

CHP: Regarding the decentralization plan, where all the campuses will pay a flat tax to UCOP instead of paying them funds and getting funds back — this will probably be more beneficial to smaller campuses rather than larger campuses. Could you comment on that?

Blumenthal: It’s a little more complicated than that … For every different color of money that came to the system, like the mafia, they would take a piece of the action off the top, and it was a different piece and percentage based on the color (health, lab, state, student, federal money). They used a complicated formula to do that. Generally, they took more money from state general funds than from medical centers. But if you look at the total budget for UC, the total state funded budget for UC next year under Jerry Brown is $2.4 billion. But the total budget of UC, if you include medical centers and all that, is closer to $20 billion. A flat tax on all expenditure is going to be advantageous to campuses like Santa Cruz, which are more dependent on state funds, as opposed to campuses like UCLA for example, where a large part of their operation is a huge medical center.

KZSC: With the increase in student fees, what is the outlook for incoming freshmen next year? There’s the possibility that they won’t be able to apply because they can’t pay, and with the removal of more grant programs, how can they enter a UC?

Blumenthal: First the good news — Cal Grants have been preserved in the budget at the federal level, although as you probably know from reading the papers, there was a push by some to severely limit them … We have at UC the Blue and Gold Program, which guarantees that students with a household income of less than $80,000 don’t pay fees. They should not be concerned. The people who are really hurt by fee increases are people in the middle class.

KZSC: Just going off availability for classes, there was a proposal to cut the class time to 60 minutes, down from 70. Is this correct … [and] was the purpose to save revenue or to increase availability?

Galloway: It was largely to increase availability, because it would give us an extra slot in the day in which students could get a class. One of our problems is we have so few large lecture halls, so it’s difficult to have the large classes which preserve the smaller classes. Another slot would help us move enough students through so they could all get into a class.

KZSC: What do you think the potential benefits and downfalls are to this plan?

Galloway: Benefits would be students getting into classes that they need. Less delays in their progress to their degree. Downsides are pretty obvious — if you have less time in class, you’re going to get less out of the class. It’s frustrating as a faculty member when you have a certain amount of material you have to get through. We’re teaching a semester’s worth of material in a quarter. It’s hard to do in the first place.

The UC Board of Regents convened on Wednesday, March 16 to discuss how the University of California will address another half-billion dollar drop in state funding from Governor Brown’s proposed budget. The proposed cuts reduce the state’s expenditures by $12.5 billion. The state’s budget deficit is $25.4 billion. If Governor Brown’s proposed tax extensions fail, the state will need to find other areas to reduce spending and the university could see a $1 billion cut of state funding.

Chancellors from three campuses present the difficulties of absorbing past cuts. Chancellor Blumenthal of UCSC presented grave expectations for our campus’ future. “We will not be able to make these cuts strategically … These reductions will cut right to the heart of our instruction and research missions.” Photo by Prescott Watson

The first half of Wednesday’s meeting featured Chancellor Robert Birgeneau of UC Berkeley, Chancellor George Blumenthal of UC Santa Cruz, and Chancellor Michael Drake of UC Irvine in a presentation on the effects of previous cuts to their campuses. Chancellor Drake said UCI “spent a year with Band-Aids just holding it together. We were just not breathing, not moving forward.” Blumenthal described the cuts as “making us vulnerable in many ways,” and said the campus “can’t even exempt public safety operations – fire, police, and environmental health and safety.”

Vice President for Business Operations Nathan Brostrom presents to the Board of Regents data on system-wide faculty and staff reductions. Since 2008 over 4,400 faculty and staff have been laid off and 3,700 positions were eliminated or have gone unfilled. Photo by Prescott Watson

Nathan Brostrom, vice president for business operations (left), and Chancellor George Blumenthal of UCSC (right) address reporters on the effects of a possible $1 billion reduction in state funding. Photo by Prescott Watson

Campuses could face much more severe reductions if Governor Brown’s proposed tax extensions aren’t enacted, said UC Vice President for Budget Patrick Lenz. The tax extensions could fail to get on a ballot measure or be rejected by voters in June. Though a statewide survey from the Field Poll at UC Berkeley shows the majority of Californians support the proposal, several regents said they doubted its viability. If the extensions fail, the UC could be looking at a $1 billion cut. Chancellor Birgeneau of UC Berkeley said, “We have no model to accommodate that $1 billion … it would devastate our staff and faculty.” Blumenthal said if the legislature cuts that much from the UC, “some fundamental assumptions have to be thrown out.” He said there is no way we cannot cut academic enterprises and that “we are at the point of compromising quality.”

UCLA Chancellor Gene Block looks towards Doug Wagoner, university affairs chair at the UC Student Assembly, after Wagoner made a passing reference to recent controversy involving a UCLA student’s racist Youtube rant, which attracted over a million viewers and garnered national media attention. Wagoner described a program designed to fight hate across the UC. Photo by Prescott Watson

Claudia Magaña, SUA’s external vice chair, and Doug Wagoner, university affairs chair of the UC Student Assembly, presented new information on hate crimes on UC campuses. “We are concerned that there is no mention of constructive means of healing hate on our campus,” Magaña said. UCLA has attracted national attention recently from a student’s racist rant posted to Youtube, which has drawn equally controversial responses. Decrying the hateful responses to the UCLA student’s video, Wagoner said the UC community must advocate for “restorative justice,” which involves “educating the offender instead of exacting retribution on the offender.”

SUA External Vice Chair Claudia Magaña presents to the Board of Regents information on increasing incidents of hate crimes at the UC. Photo by Prescott Watson

Doug Wagoner, university affairs chair at the UC Student Assembly, presents to the Board of Regents a plan for a program based on “restorative justice” to combat hate crimes. Photo by Prescott Watson

Chancellor Gene Block of UCLA talks to City on a Hill Press about the racist rant posted online by a UCLA student, which drew national attention to the campus. “The UCLA described in the video is not the university I know, and not the university that many of our faculty, staff and other students know,” he said. “Our community has always embraced our diverse make-up.” Photo by Prescott Watson

President of the University of California Mark Yudof talks with the Chair of the Board of Regents, Russel Gould, about the decentralization of funding at UC campuses. Currently, funding at each campus is given directly to the University of California Office of the President (UCOP), and is then dispensed among the 10 campuses and other UC facilities. Decentralization would mean campuses would retain the funding they generate and pay a tax to UCOP. Photo by Prescott Watson

Chancellor Blumenthal of UCSC has been a strong advocate for increasing the amount of money UCSC gets from UCOP. Currently, all campuses generate funds and sent them to UCOP to redistribute, which results in some campuses receiving more than they generated, and vice versa. UCSC has historically received less than 100 percent of the funding generated by the campus community. Chancellor Blumenthal has fought to get what he often describes as UCSC’s “fair share” of funding.

Chancellor Blumenthal answers questions about President Yudof’s decentralization plans. Photo by Prescott Watson

A restructuring of the funding structure proposed by President Yudof would change all of this. The proposal would have each campus keep its funding, with UCOP assessing a tax, leaving the president with much less influence in funding matters. Yudof said “no great university has ever been built from a central office.” Not all campuses are as enthusiastic about this restructuring as UCSC, however. Large campuses with medical facilities will receive less money than usual under the new plan, as they are limited by what their campus communities can generate. “The smaller campuses will benefit from this,” said Nathan Brostrom, vice president for business operations for the UC. “The major opposition to this was from medical centers, [which] may be taxed more than they have been. [The proposal] is designed to be revenue neutral, not biased towards or against any campus.” This restructured funding model would allow administrators to reduce UCOP’s budget by $50 million, said Brostrom.

Photo by Prescott Watson.

Chancellor George Blumenthal and executive vice chancellor Alison Galloway met with student media news organizations at the chancellor’s quarterly press conference Monday. Among other issues, the administrators responded to queries about the governor’s proposed budget and the future of American studies.

City on a Hill Press: How will the potential suspension of American studies affect the chancellor’s vision of a “cross-cultural” campus?

GB: Both American studies and community studies are programs that do have important cross-cultural contributions that they have made. But I still think, that even with the suspension of admission of new undergraduate majors in both cases, there remain programs on this campus that really do provide significant cross-cultural opportunities for students. [The suspension] by no means reflects a reluctance to have them. The steps that involve those suspensions came about for a lot of different reasons, including the question of whether or not we can continue to support these students at the level they have been enrolling. But their suspension provides us an opportunity to rethink some of these programs and perhaps have them come back in a different form that might better the cross-cultural initiatives we’d like to see on this campus. I don’t see that as a takeaway. I see that as an opportunity to improve.

AG: [The suspension of American studies] it is very much something we need to work on with the faculty to see if we can take this decision and make it into an opportunity to reformat some of these things, in particular around ethnic studies.

GB: There has been a lot of concern on the part of students as to whether or not we can have an ethnic studies program or major on the campus. The faculty decided many years ago that our equivalent of ethnic studies would live within the American studies major. So the potential suspension of that major does give us an opportunity to rethink things, and we could very well end up in a better place than where we started with.

CHP: How will the university account for the lack of diversity in student interest that might come with the suspension of American studies?

AG: Well, the majors themselves have probably [had] around 200 majors in each of those or maybe a little bit less. So it’s not an incredibly large number of students. More than likely, most of those students would be adopted to other majors on campus. Those programs may not serve exactly the kind of things they would like to do, but we still have the option for the individual majors as well, so some students may be constructing their own majors around that. There are internship programs, such as were provided to community studies, in other fields as well. Sociology and environmental studies, for example, have internship programs. So students may go into those areas as well.

KZSC: In light of the governor’s proposed cuts to higher education, do you have any insights as to what is going to happen to the university?

GB: We are fortunate that we haven’t spent all the money we got last year. But we will have to make some significant additional cuts. That will mean that we won’t be able to do everything that we currently are doing, which is already cut back from what we were doing a few years ago. I don’t think we’re in a position to say specifically which programs might be affected. We can say that a year from now, if this budget passes as it was proposed today, we will have to make cuts. Making cuts means that a year from now there won’t be as many people working at the university as there are today and that’s going to mean a loss of services for students. Exactly where they’re going to be, we don’t know yet.

AG: Obviously, cutting programs in and of itself does not save us money unless the costs associated with those programs go away. And that is something we haven’t done. We have kept the faculty going with most of the departments. The idea that we can just simply go in and discontinue teaching certain areas as we have done in the past doesn’t save us money. So we’re looking at ways of trying to preserve as much of the academic mission as we can. But still realizing savings in other areas.

On the Spot: As UCSC isn’t predominantly a graduate program-focused campus, when budget cuts are enforced, do graduate programs get cut more than undergraduate programs?

GB: It isn’t easy to look at budget cuts always and say, “This is undergraduate, and that is graduate.” We do have a graduate division which does have some money. But most of the cuts that take place on campus affect support units or even if they affect the department, they might affect graduates the same as undergraduates depending on the department and depending upon where the department’s priorities may lie. In addition to that, I would say you’re right, graduate students constitute 10 percent of the student body in this campus and that is one of the lowest if not the lowest of the UC system. But it has long been a goal of the campus and a goal of mine to increase the percentage of graduate students, certainly not to the level of Berkeley or UCLA but at least up to a level that is more consistent to the rest of the UCs. I think it may not be a priority we can easily attain during a time of decreasing budgets, but it is still a priority.

AG: Many times the cuts that we think of as being primarily focused towards the undergraduates have profound effects on the graduate programs as well. Examples of these are things like the temporary support for teaching. In many cases we cut those teaching assistants but also teaching fellows. So we have fewer sections available for undergraduates. We have fewer course offerings available for undergraduates. Unfortunately, those have implications on graduate students too, for whom teaching assistantships and teaching fellowships are a very important means of support, so it hits both undergraduates and graduates. And unfortunately, that is the way things are: One blow does not hit just one people — it hits many.

CHP: With the budget cuts, how can we keep and attract great professors?

GB: I think a lot of our faculty come here and stay here because of the quality of our students, because of the nature of their interactions with other faculty. The research environment and the teaching environment are very important for the faculty, as well as what the future will hold, if things will get better or if they will get worse. I will say up front that we do not pay our faculty adequately. Our faculty are underpaid by national standards — they are easily more than 10 percent underpaid relative to faculty elsewhere at equivalent institutions. Over the past few years our faculty have even been underpaid relative to the UC system. We’ve been trying, over the last two years and will continue this year, to make sure that our faculty are at least not underpaid relative to other UCs. We don’t have enough money to make them not underpaid relative to the rest of the country, but at least relative to the rest of the UC system, I think that’s one of our obligations. We’ve made enormous progress in that regard in the last two years, and I’m hoping we’ll finish the job this year.

At a meeting for the year’s first press conference with student media, Chancellor George Blumenthal (left) and executive vice chancellor Alison Galloway (right) addressed student media’s most urgent concerns. While the discussion focused on serious topics, the pair managed to keep the tone positive. Photo by Prescott Watson.

Student media news organizations put hard-hitting questions to Chancellor George Blumenthal last Thursday. Newly appointed executive vice chancellor Alison Galloway joined us at the chancellor’s quarterly press conference. Among other issues, the administrators responded to queries about student activism and the future of campus programs.

~~~~~~

City on a Hill Press: What went into the decision to appoint Allison Galloway as our new EVC?

Blumenthal: I really feel very, very lucky, because at the same time last year that we were doing our EVC search, several other campuses were doing EVC searches as well. Some of them were unable to complete their EVC search and make an appointment. I had four outstanding finalist candidates, any of whom could’ve stepped into that position. But in choosing Allison, I was motivated by the fact that she is very committed to the campus. She understands the campus well, and she really has demonstrated her ability to administer programs … I think Allison brings the whole package, and because we worked together in a variety of different capacities over the years I thought that we would work well. And lastly Allison isn’t afraid to tell me when I’m wrong.

TWANIS: What do you want to be your legacy at UCSC?

Blumenthal: First, I’d like people to look back and say that during our term here, the university continued its upward trajectory among universities in the country and the world. I think that was true as I was coming in as chancellor, and I’d like to continue that trend and really move it forward in a very meaningful way. Secondly, I’d like people to look back and realize that this was a very difficult financial time for the university, and that we found ways to stabilize the university during what were very difficult times and prepare us for hopefully better times ahead.

KZSC: You talked last year about increasing the graduate student population to help the undergraduate population in their quality of education — how is that going?

Blumenthal: I actually really believe in my heart of hearts that graduate students do benefit undergraduate students, and we have one of the lower, or maybe even the lowest, percentage of graduate students in the UC system … it seems to me that for a research university we could benefit from more graduate students, and I think our students would benefit. I’d also remind you that our graduate students are not evenly distributed around campus, we have a much higher percentage of graduate students in the sciences and engineering, for example, than in the other divisions, which makes me very gratified that over the last few years we opened new Ph.D programs more broadly across campus in social sciences and humanities, and that we’re now starting two new Ph.D programs in the arts … if your question is where should we make investments, graduate students versus more classes for undergraduates, those are hard choices, and we’ll have to look at all of those choices. I think that that’s a priority just as making sure that resources are available so students can get classes. I don’t see the two as being mutually inconsistent. Both of them are important priorities.

City on a Hill Press: The TA’s union on campus has asked you to be somewhat of an advocate for them to the UC Regents in their contract negotiations — how specifically have you been able to do this?

Blumenthal: Of course, I can’t talk in detail about union negotiation … collective bargaining doesn’t take place on this campus, it’s system-wide bargaining, it isn’t really with the regents, it’s really with the UC president, the president has the authority to agree to a contract with unions. We have input into it, we have representatives on the bargaining team, those issues are discussed with the chancellors, before agreements are made we all get to comment on them and provide input. I think our graduate students in general, TAs in particular, are a really key part of the campus. TAs have it tough, not only are they students but they also teach. It is a job, many of them have families to support, I think it’s really important that we make sure that they are able to survive in a reasonable way.

TWANIS: Are you going to make an effort this year to come to rallies and show public support for the UAW/students in general?

Blumenthal: I will be out there, and I’m going to try to be accessible to people. I’m more than happy to talk to anyone as long as the conversation takes place at a reasonable decibel level. I do keep office hours, I am available for people to talk to. Second, there is a presumption that chancellors are all powerful … I think there is a power in the ability to be persuasive, and to persuade the appropriate decision makers of the rightness of a position. Just because you may not see me doing it doesn’t mean that I’m not an advocate for certain positions. I am a part of the management of the university, and to the extent that a union negotiation is management versus union, it would not be appropriate for me to speak outside of normal channels in that regard. I certainly can be available to listen to concerns, I can talk to people to hear what their concerns are, and use my voice, which I actually believe is a lot, to be persuasive about the right things to do in terms of negotiations with the Office of the President. I would never write an open letter to the president urging him to do something, for example. I think that would decrease my credibility with the president even if it might win me some brownie points with those who want me to be more openly an advocate.

KZSC: What are your thoughts on the student activism against the UC?

Blumenthal: There’s nothing wrong with activism, I was an activist myself as a student. I encourage our students to speak out, I think it’s great that Santa Cruz as so many students whose voices want to be heard. There are lines, though. Sometimes, activism that exceeds what I think are the appropriate bounds of behavior can be negative for the university. I spend a lot of my time with donors and legislators, and I’d rather be talking about what they can do to help the university really provide education for a broader spectrum of Californians than having to defend the university against accusations that our students don’t understand the good things that they have. I think that activism, if it’s overboard, or it exceeds the appropriate level of behavior of respecting other people’s rights, I think that that can actually be a negative for the university. And it detracts from the conversation.

City on a Hill Press: This summer the New York Times published a story about Mark Yudof’s residence — how do you think it reflects on the University of California that the president’s rent monthly is more than a student’s annual fees?

Blumenthal: Each of the ten chancellors has a chancellor’s residence on campus, which we use … it’s a very legitimate thing. It turns out that the president has for many, many years an official residence. It’s a very large house, and I would never live there. It’s run-down, I would be afraid it would collapse around me if there was an earthquake … so when Mark Yudof was appointed president the university faced a decision of what to do … the cost to fix Blake House is $10 million, rough figures, I don’t know it exactly. The university felt it shouldn’t do that, so the decision was made, instead, to rent him a place in the Berkeley-slash-Oakland area. Now, it had to be a large enough residence, to be frank with you, to do a couple of things. One, it had to provide the opportunity to entertain … he uses his house to entertain and that’s an important part of the job, so I think it was appropriate for the university to rent a house for him. There’s also a second issue, which is security concerns, and so they had to rent something that they felt would be a secure place for him to live. As for the exact rent, well, they weren’t going to put him in a $100-a-month apartment. I can’t comment on exact numbers … what can I say? Rents are expensive in Oakland. I think it’s legitimate that they rented him a house.

Members of the UAW present the Chancellor’s Chief of Staff, Ashish Sahni, with a mock report card which grades the UC administration. Photo by Isaac Miller.

Teaching assistants and fellow students gathered at Kerr Hall to deliver a “report card” to Chancellor George Blumenthal, Monday while the the same report cards were delivered to UC Chancellors systemwide. The evaluation, graded and signed by 6,000 members of UAW Local 2865, graded administrators on sharing the budget crisis burden equitably, prioritizing excellent education, making the UC affordable and accessible, and showing leadership in an effort to remedy California’s budget problems. UAW Local 2865 represents 12,000 teaching assistants, tutors and readers across the University of California system. More than 300 signatures came from union members at UC Santa Cruz.

The same report card was delivered to the University of California’s Office of the President last week.

Each receipient was given failing grades in all categories but demonstrating leadership, in which they were given an “incomplete.”

“It’s horrible,” said Ian Steinmia, a third-year College Ten student, of the administration’s handling of cuts to education. “I’m in one class … [where] there are no official teaching assistants or sections.” Steinmia’s class, Bio-Molecular Engineering 80H, has over 200 enrolled students.

Students at every campus have had their student fees increased after UC Regents voted last year on a 32 percent increase.

Students protested the handling of the budget crisis with occupations, sit-ins and class boycotts.

Oct. 7 will be the next day of protest, called the National Day of Action to Defend Public Education.

According to information released by the UC in 2008-2009, Academic Student Employee (ASE) hiring decreased by 2.2 percent while a San Francisco Chronicle analysis of UC salaries showed an increase in hired executives of 6.3 percent.

“The UAW’s statewide leadership put the report card together after surveying a majority of their members regarding the budget cuts and their effects,” said fifth-year graduate student and UC Santa Cruz campus chair of the United Automobile, Aerospace, Agricultural Implement Workers Union (UAW) Brian Malone.

“[The report card] is basically focusing on the core instructional mission of the UC — prioritizing instruction, keeping UC affordable and accessible for students, and also fighting for public education at all levels in the state,” Malone said. “The Office of the President takes Chancellor Blumenthal seriously and we’re asking him to be an advocate for quality of education and for a fair contract for the TA’s.”

Though no one on campus could comment on the status of system-wide negotiations, UCSC spokesperson Jim Burns said administrators support student employees.

“The state’s decision to underfund the University of California by nearly a billion dollars in recent years has impacted employees of the 10-campus system and certainly impacted students,” Burns said in an e-mail to City on a Hill Press. “That’s why UC, including campus chancellors, have regularly advocated for a restoration of those cuts and a reinvestment in public higher education.”

The delivery of the report card coincides with the September 30 expiration of the UAW’s current contract with the UC. Negotiations over the new contract began in late June with initial salary proposals. However, a counter wasn’t offered until two months later at the end of August.

“I haven’t seen [the UC] taking it very seriously — they’ve been uninterested in meeting, they’ve canceled a number of bargaining dates … and when they do show up, they almost never have anything to say,” Malone said in a follow-up e-mail to City on a Hill Press.

Unfair Labor Practice charges have been filed against the UC for failure to provide relevant information necessary to the bargaining process and for engaging in surface bargaining.

These charges are over union members’ access to information concerning their economic proposals — childcare, leaves and fee remissions — that would allow them to assess the impact to UC. Malone said, UC representatives say they are unable to afford graduate students access to these proposals and will not reveal what the cost would be. Union representatives say this lack of transparency is holding up the bargaining process, as the UC has given increased wage proposals that are conditional on the withdrawal of the UAW’s economic proposals.

Items up for negotiation include fewer cuts to teaching assistantships, and the UC’s ability to cut teaching assistantships without first consulting the union.

“We’ve talked a lot about limits on class sizes to prevent these gigantic sections … ” Malone said. “A recent report by UC’s own vice chancellor for research and graduate studies identified that UC lags behind its peer institutions in graduate student compensation by a full 7 percent.”

The report card is the latest in many actions by students to show their opinions of the UC’s handling of the budget crisis .

Illustration by Patrick Yeung.

Despite a letter drafted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) objecting to the UC Santa Cruz’s judicial process, the administration has opted not to amend the protocol. 35 students are currently facing a restitution charge of $944 to cover the damages to Kerr Hall.

The letter, addressed to Chancellor George Blumenthal and Academic Senate Chair Lori Kletzer, states that the university has not afforded students due process, and must amend aspects of the process to assure constitutionality of the student judicial process.

“The administration failed to provide any hearing on the restitution. Students were being fined without due process,” said Julia Harumi Mass, an ACLU staff attorney who drafted the letter. “We were objecting to that.”

The ACLU’s presence follows the administration’s issuing of “voluntary resolutions” that found multiple students responsible for 10 violations of the Student Code of Conduct (SCC).

Some of the 35 students sanctioned were given a warning — they are eligible for an appeal to an appellate officer.

Students given any sanction greater than a warning may appeal to the Student Judicial Board for a hearing.

UCSC Chancellor George Blumenthal stated that the process is in fact affording the students due process.

“[Appealing provides] the right to confront the evidence against them, to bring in an attorney if they wish, and to present evidence in their defense,” Blumenthal said. “That is a hearing and I believe that it meets the requirements of due process.”

Blumenthal made one modification to the process prior to receiving the letter from the ACLU: students who received a warning may appeal to an appellate officer in person rather than in writing.

Blumenthal stated that the administration had no plans to change the process underway any further.

“As of right now we are not waiving the restitution,” Blumenthal said. “It is subject to the outcome of the appeals.”

The administration issued equally distributed fines to identifiable students to cover the damage to Kerr Hall. ACLU attorney Mass stated that this was an aspect of the judicial process to which the ACLU specifically objected.

“You can’t just charge a flat rate without proving that each student was responsible for actually causing damage,” Mass said. “The amount needs to be reasonably related to the conduct that the student partook in.”

The administration has stated that by being present, students were active participants in the action, and as such are responsible for damages done to the building.

“Students have a responsibility to be aware of their surroundings and be aware of when they are participating in an event that violates the judicial code and violates the law,” Blumenthal said. “It is a collective responsibility. If you participate in something illegal, you often bear responsibility for some of the illegal acts whether you specifically created them or not.”

According to the ACLU, presence and responsibility are not synonymous. Mass went on to discuss specifically the student journalist who is also being held responsible for the restitution of $944.

“To hold him responsible for the damages, someone who has not participated in the decisions by the group — he shouldn’t be held responsible,” Mass said. “That is why a hearing is so important.”

The courses that both the ACLU and the administration will take are unclear. When asked what is next for the ACLU, Mass expressed uncertainty.

“It depends,” Mass said. “In this case, I’m still in touch with people [at UC Santa Cruz] and monitoring the situation.”

Regardless of the course that the Kerr Hall saga takes, Lori Kletzer, addressed in the ACLU’s letter, described an inevitable consequence of the ACLU’s involvement.

“In a very straightforward way, there will continue to be public attention to this issue,” Kletzer said. “It will stay visible.”

Hundreds of students rallied on the north steps of the Capitol building in Sacramento on Monday. Chanting could be heard for blocks. Photo by Alex Zamora.

Photo by Alex Zamora.

Photo by Alex Zamora.

Third-year Tiffany Loftin, internal vice chair of the UCSC Student Union Assembly, was one of many speakers who commanded the attention of the large crowd of students gathered in solidarity at the Capitol building. Photo by Alex Zamora.

“Are you fired up?”

Hundreds of demonstrators on the north steps of the Capitol building echoed a response to this galvanizing inquiry: “We’re fired up!”

As the 66th California State Assembly speaker was sworn into office on Monday, student protesters literally made their voices heard in the halls of the state Capitol.

“While we appointed a new assembly speaker we could hear you,” California Labor Federation secretary and treasurer Arch Palaski told City on a Hill Press in reference to the demonstrators. “Your voice is being heard.”

Monday, March 1 was Lobby Day at the Capitol, where chancellors and students advocated for higher education. This day kicked off a week of action in defense of public education, and was a precursor to a statewide strike on Thursday, March 4.

The March for Higher Education on Thursday is a “K through Ph.D.” action that will include University of California students as well as all members of the California education system.

UC President Mark Yudof and UC Santa Cruz Chancellor George Blumenthal accompanied student lobbyists to meetings with members of the legislature throughout the day.

Though Monday’s activities were focused on lobbying, student demonstrators rallied both inside and outside the Capitol. One demonstration, a sit-in at the office of Assemblyman Jim Neilson (R-Yuba City), resulted in the arrest of five UC students.

Second-year Gabi Kirk, one of three UCSC students among the five UC students arrested, described the scene as nonaggressive.

“The coolest thing for me was how beautifully calm and peaceful it was,” Kirk said. “Protests don’t need to be loud and in-your-face — sometimes they can involve students sitting in business suits in an office reading books.”

The five students were arrested for assembling without a permit, and were charged with an extra misdemeanor for disrupting state business, according to Kirk. Because the state Capitol is under the jurisdiction of the California Highway Patrol (CHP), the students arrested were taken by van to CHP headquarters, where they were cited and released.

The demonstration inside began when several students — independent of any organization — gathered outside the offices of Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Assemblyman Nielsen, intending to present them with a letter containing two demands.

According to a narration provided by Kirk, the demands were: first, a commitment of nonapproval for a budget that does not increase funding for higher education; second, guaranteed funding for “student-initiated outreach and academic preparation, yield, and multicultural student development programs.”

“We need to see some real results, now more than ever,” said UCSC second-year Claudia Magana, who was among the five students arrested. “We need to hold our legislatures accountable.”

Steinberg met with a group of students and arranged for a follow-up to discuss their concerns on March 25. Nielsen, however, declined to speak to students.

The sit-in began when 11 students refused to leave Nielson’s office until they were allowed to meet with the assemblyman. After asking them to vacate the office, CHP officers zip-tied the wrists of the five individuals who had decided to stay and escorted them to CHP headquarters.

“These actions were taken by individuals to take it to the next level and push the envelope of prioritizing higher education,” UCSC first-year Natan Tietz said. Tietz was among the group of about 100 students gathered outside the offices in support of the sit-in.

Present at the protest for a short period of time was Dolores Huerta. Huerta is considered by many to be a significant figure in the history of grassroots activism, due in part to her role as co-founder of the National Farm Workers Association with fellow civil rights activist Cesar Chávez. A building at Oakes College is named in her honor.

“[Dolores Huerta] is an amazing figure in terms of activism and support for education,” Magana said. “To have someone who is so historically significant in social activism support your issue is very empowering.”

In the hours preceding the sit-in, students and members of the legislature spoke to the crowd of hundreds of supporters on the north steps of the Capitol. Many students spoke to the importance of rallying for public education.

“From all across the state, we’ve come together to say that education is a right and not a privilege,” said Victor Sanchez, UCSC’s Student Union Assembly (SUA) external vice chair. Sanchez also serves as president of the University of California Student Association (UCSA), whose members organized the day’s events.

On the north steps, over the noise of another speaker, Democratic Assemblyman Warren Furutani explained his reasons for supporting the student mobilization.

“We need to circumvent the legislative process,” he said. “Grassroots is the way to go.”

Furutani went on to discuss the significance of bringing the struggle to the Capitol.

“On my desk I have a green light and a red light,” he said about the process of passing legislation. “Often we forget that we are voting on people’s lives. When people come to Sacramento it puts a face [to that]. It humanizes it and makes it about the people.”

Photo by Devika Agarwal.

Chancellor George Blumenthal spoke with student media about the UC’s financial crisis, where he will be on March 1, and his actions in Sacramento. Despite rampant cuts to campus resources and programs, Blumenthal says he is “cautiously optimistic.”

~~~~~~

City on a Hill Press: At the University of California, senior management is growing more than any other category of employment or enrollment. Any comment on how that’s affecting our campus, or the effects systemwide?

George Blumenthal: I would point out that systemwide, there has been a significant reduction in the size of the Office of the President [UCOP]. They’ve reduced by about 20 percent. Some of that was moving onto the other campuses as well.

On our campus I have seen data on the growth of the SMG and MSPs [senior management group and management and senior professionals, respectively] over time, versus the growth of faculty or the growth of students, and it has been noted that the growth is larger. So this is certainly worth looking at.

If you look at it, however, you need to look at it carefully. In the case of senior management positions on this campus over the last decade … as far as I am aware, there’s only one new senior management position that we’ve created over the last decade. That essentially was the vice provost, now the vice chancellor of IT (Information Technology). That was actually done to centralize IT on campus and was intended to save money rather than spend more money.

In terms of those graphs of SMG plus MSP versus students or versus faculty, the senior management group has not grown except by one over the last decade. All of the rest have been in the MSP positions and that has been due to two effects.

The first is activities unrelated to student growth, for example, the UARC (University Affiliated Research Center) grant in Silicon Valley from NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration). This is the largest contract ever awarded competitively to a university in the country. It’s $330 million over 10 years.

We hired a lot of people to administer that grant who are in the MSP position. That grant has nothing to do with enrollment growth.

The second effect lies within student affairs. There are outreach efforts in student affairs that are very important for furthering the mission of the campus.

We’ve hired MSPs which aren’t related directly to enrollment. It’s related perhaps to enrollment of underrepresented minorities, but not to overall enrollment numbers.

There’s a third effect that goes into this, and that’s reclassifications. Historically, the practice on this campus [is that] certain positions have managers. For example, some departments may be classified at a lower level than MSPs while at other campuses those classifications were higher. So we’ve actually, over the last decade, reclassified a number of positions from a different title to MSP in order to be consistent with the practice across the campuses. All three of those effects have led to the increase in the number of MSPs, but they don’t have anything really to do with enrollment at all.

CHP: What actions will you, UCSC representatives, and other UC representatives be taking in Sacramento to ensure that state funding stays in the budget?

GB: Lots and lots of discussions with legislators and encouraging students to meet with legislators. … Encouraging alumni to write to and meet with legislators. Lobbying to the ‘nth’ degree — we made a really great start on this campus.

About a week and a half ago we held a legislative forum where we invited three legislators. … They heard a somewhat different story at this legislative forum on campus than they normally do, because we actually invited faculty and students to make presentations to them about how the budget cuts have affected … faculty teaching their courses and organizing their courses. Students talked about what it meant to them in terms of their budget, in terms of the kinds of courses they can get into and how difficult it was sometimes for students to actually get the courses that they need.

We’re seeking new ways of interacting with legislators. Last time I was [in Sacramento] I think I met with 10 different state legislators to talk about UC and the effect of the budget cuts on the University of California, and to express my fears about what this disinvestment is meaning right now.

CHP: Do you know as of now what you will be doing on the March 1 and March 4 days of action?

GB: I don’t know what I’m going to be doing right now, that’s still open for negotiation. … It is a student event and I want to respect that, so what I can tell you is that we are supportive of the event. We are going to be supplying buses for students to be able to go to Sacramento, but whether or not I’ll be in Sacramento myself is certainly being negotiated with the leadership [of the UC Student Association]. … On the one hand I’m quite happy to go, on the other hand I don’t want to overstep my own boundaries and nose into somebody else’s event.

CHP: Has the formula for distributing educational fees changed? If so, how?

GB: Well, you’ve hit a nerve. … When I came in as acting chancellor a few years ago, the way that the education fee increases were distributed to the campuses was in my view completely inappropriate.

It was distributed to the campuses in direct proportion to the current budget of the campuses. [UCOP would] put them in a big pot, then distribute them out — proportional not to the number of students, but rather to the budgets of the campuses.

For Santa Cruz, what that meant at the time was that taking out return to aids, in terms of the dollars that actually go to classes and the like, we got back 67 cents on the dollar per increase in ed. fees.

When I learned about this, and that this was a longstanding practice, I began to scream about it. And I’ve screamed quite loud about this, as you might imagine. If the students on this campus are paying ed. fees, they ought to get the benefit of those ed. fees. It shouldn’t be going to other campuses. In this case a lot of it was going to UCSF and UCLA — they are the big winners in this game. So I complained bitterly about this, and I was sufficiently loud in my complaining that they changed the allocation so that instead of getting back 67 cents on the dollar … we’re essentially getting back 80 cents on the dollar [now].

I [still] think it’s inappropriate and it’s unfair to students. The one piece I’ve not succeeded in is getting that number raised anywhere from 80 percent to 100 percent.

I did not want to see the [new] fee increase redistributed to other campuses, but I was not being successful in my arguments. What we did succeed in doing though, and I’m very pleased about this, is that we persuaded the Office of the President to distribute that fee increase on a one-time basis, so that no decision that’s been made with regard to distribution of those fees should be regarded as permanent.

The way that any money is distributed to the campuses, even state money, is not done on a principled fundamental basis. I’ve long believed we need to open up that process, make it more transparent and make it principled. … The UC Commission on the Future has a working group called the Size and Shape working group, and I happen to know the co-chair of the Size and Shape working group quite well — it’s me. We are looking at those issues as well, trying to evaluate the appropriate principles to use for the distribution of funds to the campuses. It’s important that we move from historical approaches to … a principled approach. … We’ve made some progress and we have more progress to make.

TWANAS: Do you feel that the governing positions within the UC, such as the regents, chancellors, maybe some of the executive offices of UCOP, should be democratically elected?

GB: UCOP, the president and the chancellors should not be democratically elected. These are management positions and leadership positions and I think it’s appropriate that we be appointed by the Board of Regents. … It’s a legitimate public policy question to ask. I’m not convinced that the system is broken, and I would have some real concerns about election. My concern about election is that I think the regents sometimes have to make some very hard decisions that may even be very unpopular decisions.

You could argue that as keepers of public policy they should be elected in a democratic society, and I hardly want to give you an anti-democratic answer. On the other hand, I would remind you that our legislature is democratically elected, and it is one of the most dysfunctional bodies I’ve ever seen in my life. If we were in a state in which we had a democratically elected legislature which was functioning, and a politic that was actually functioning in a reasonable way, I myself would be much more open to the idea of potentially having elected regents, or some fraction of the regents being popularly elected.

KZSC: How can you cut language programs if they complement majors? For example, since a Ph.D. program for Latin American and Latino studies has been proposed, how do you expect to have it without offering Portuguese?

GB: That’s a good question. It isn’t just Latin American and Latino studies — anthropology is another department that’s very dependent on language studies.

I think it’s certainly true that when we contemplate budget cuts, we need to be looking not just at academic divisions and where those cuts would take place, but we need to be looking at the effects of any cuts that we have across campus and how they would adversely affect other programs. … It’s very important that we look at that, and in fact that’s what we’re doing. We have established committees within our budget process this year to look at all potential cuts and the campuswide implications of those cuts.

CHP: Why has the UC continued in a pattern of growth, including building UC Merced, if there was evidence that the state would not be a stable financial partner in the future?

GB: You’re right, the disinvestment from public higher education didn’t just start a couple of years ago, it really started a long time before that — the usual figure that I quote is 1990. When you use that as a baseline, we are now getting half as much money from the state per student in real dollars compared to what we got in 1990. … Why did we build Merced or try to increase growth?

There are a couple of reasons. One is demography. The number of students graduating from high school was increasing. We are mandated by the Master Plan to provide access to the top 12.5 percent of high school graduates, so the size of the UC is in many ways tied to the issue of high school graduates.

Secondly, the state — despite the financial difficulties, even though they were decreasing support for students, they were still providing money for new enrollment. And so as recently as 2003, the president of UC at the time negotiated a contract with the governor that said there would be a certain amount of funded enrollment growth every year. … None of us anticipated the depth of the current financial crisis.

Raising their voices, students and faculty members gathered outside Kerr Hall to protest cuts to the language program. Photo by Nita-Rose Evans.

Chancellor George Blumenthal received a lot of valentines this year, but not all were from admirers.

Students and faculty gathered outside Blumenthal’s office at Kerr Hall on Wednesday, Feb. 17. They delivered handmade cards, which both professed their love for UC Santa Cruz language programs and urged the administration not to cut from the languages’ budget.

Several faculty members, including Spanish lecturer María Morris, marched with their classes across campus to the chancellor’s office, where the group of about 50 chanted — in various languages — messages of support for the language programs.

“In the history of this campus, they always hit us,” Morris said. “This is for the administration to know that students support the languages.”

The idea to make valentines urging the administration to stop layoffs and course reductions came out of a general assembly meeting. The students and staff involved hoped to draw attention in a peaceful manner to language studies’ important place in a university education.

Third-year Amu Sidhu said that the cuts would damage any attempt the school might make to be seen as culturally diverse.

“It’s an attack on diversity, cutting off access to other cultures,” Sidhu said.

While students donned heart-shaped stickers identifying the languages they study, lecturers and organizers led chants and spoke about the importance of defending the languages.

Graduate student Sarah Smith addressed the effects the potential cuts may have on teaching assistants. One of the proposed options for accommodating the cuts to the language program and other divisions is to have more classes taught by graduate students.

Smith is affiliated with the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, which represents university teaching assistants. She spoke on behalf of the group, condemning this proposal.

“We are outraged at any suggestions that we are qualified to teach languages that teachers who have been here for decades … are more qualified to teach,” Smith said. “The treatment of professors and lecturers [by the administration] is horrific.”

Participants rallied in response to proposals of cuts to language programs, a measure that was suggested in response to larger UC budget cuts. In addition to hiring grad students to teach in the program, proposals include everything from reducing the number of classes offered to switching French, Portuguese and Spanish to five-quarter sequences.

French lecturer Angela Elsey said the potential cuts would add more problems to the already struggling program.

“Now there are even more students, and they already can’t get into the [language] classes they want,” Elsey said. “The workload for teachers has gone up as well.”

However, administrators in the Division of Humanities stress that cuts to the language program are still hypothetical.

UCSC’s Dean of Humanities Georges Van Den Abbeele says a task force, which convened last fall, continues to assess the potential damages of proposed solutions to the budget cuts.

“We have made no decisions on any of the options proposed and are still actively consulting with campus people and units, including the Academic Senate, and seeking constructive input on how to negotiate reductions that may adversely impact all of our departments and programs, not just languages,” Van Den Abbeele said in an e-mail to UCSC spokesperson Jim Burns, which Burns released to City on a Hill Press.

Though no solution has been officially decided upon, some of the students enrolled in threatened courses see potential cuts as limitations to their education.

“College is supposed to be opening doors,” third-year Anab Mohammed said. “Each day they’re cutting something and closing another door.”

Illustration by Rachel Edelstein.

The University of California (UC) Regents will vote Nov. 18 on whether or not to increase undergraduate educational fees by a total of 32 percent, or approximately $2,500, starting next school year. By raising fees, regents and the University Office of the President (UCOP) plan to make up for a loss of state funds.

For UC Santa Cruz students, this partly means paying more to support other UC institutions.

In a student media press conference held on Nov. 2, UCSC Chancellor George Blumenthal told student representatives that “the last … six fee increases have generally not gone back to the campus where they’ve been collected.”

Educational fees, or base fees, are priced the same across the UC campuses by the UCOP.

Once collected, one-third of all educational fees are set aside for financial aid and the other two-thirds are used to support the operating budgets of each university. In the end, UCSC only gets back 82 percent of the income that it generates.

The remaining 18 percent is allocated to other UC campuses. The decision on where to allocate that money is made by the UCOP is based on actual enrollment levels.

“I don’t like the idea that students at UC Santa Cruz, by paying increased fees, are in fact supporting other institutions,” Blumenthal said.

Before 2007, only 67 percent of educational fees paid by UCSC undergraduates came back to the university.

That 67 percent increased to 82 percent after Blumenthal became an acting chancellor and was able to negotiate with the UC president.

If regents pass the fee hike next week, UCSC students will pay an estimated total of $10,280 annually in education and campus registration fees. After the funds are distributed, UCSC will lose approximately $1,850 per student, as opposed to the $1,400 lost now.

Out of the 10 schools within the UC system, three receive more money than they generate in educational fees. They are UC Davis, UCLA, and UCSF. Davis and UCLA receive approximately 105 percent and 110 percent respectively, while UCSF ends up with a 459 percent return.

UCSF is renowned for its medical facilities. The university’s medical school is ranked fifth in the nation and its hospital is ranked seventh, according to a 2009 US News and World Report publication. UCD and UCLA also have extensive research programs that are said to require the extra money.

One of the issues surrounding the idea of returning 100 percent of educational fees back to the UCs is that UCSF would no longer have the necessary funding to continue their high caliber research and care. President Yudof echoed this in an October press conference.

“On the one hand, grad and professional education is more expensive, so that’s a reason to claim more [fees],” Yudof said.

Chancellor Blumenthal disagrees, and has championed the idea that the UCs should get back all that they put in the pot.

“They can support themselves,” Blumenthal said. “UCSF gets … far more grant money than we do. They have hospitals, larger infrastructure and many of their faculty gets a significant fraction of their salary from clinical income. They have alternatives that we don’t have. We’re kind of wstuck with … state income.”

A budget process overview by UCSF published during the 2008-09 year said that even in these tough economic times it is important to remain a competitive institution with money to spend.

“Fee increases imposed by the UCOP have made it more cost-effective for many UCSF researchers to hire postdocs in lieu of graduate research assistants,” the overview said.

Both Yudof and Blumenthal agree that the model for how campuses are funded needs to be re-examined.

“It would go a lot better if we have more money,” Yudof said, “but we’re going to look at the formulas.”

~~~~~

For corresponding audio, tune into “On What Grounds?” next Thursday from 7:30 to 8 p.m. on KZSC 88.1 FM

Site Notice: The full transcript of the Q&A with Blumenthal is now available in four parts.
Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

Photo by Alex Zamora.

UCSC Chancellor George Blumenthal provided student media with an afternoon to discuss issues facing the University on Nov. 2. City on a Hill Press, along with KZSC, touched on the topics of privatization and UC President Mark Yudof’s handling of the budget crisis. Jim Burns, the director of public information, and student media advisors, were present in the background of the hour-long interview.

Blumenthal: I didn’t prepare a lot to tell you, I more or less was wanting to be available for questions but I did want to comment on three things first in about two weeks the regents will be meeting and one of the things they will be looking at is fee increases for students, a 15% mid-year fee increase and a 15% increase for next year. This is huge, this is gonna make a huge difference in people’s payments to the university. Yes we will be keeping return to aid (?), that we can provide financial aid, yes indeed, the blue and gold program is being expanded, but our fees are starting to be very very significant. I happen to be one of those people who believe in the Master Plan for Higher Education which actual called for higher public education in California to be free so this is not something that I view with great pleasure. On the other hand I will also say to you that if we didn’t have fee increases the loss of services to students would be significant. Students are paying more and getting fewer classes and the situation would be more extreme if we didn’t have some income from fees. So I know there has been a lot of discussion about the privatization of the university and are we privatizing or not. Well whatever we’re doing, this didn’t just start yesterday, this has been going on for a long time. I’d remind you that since 1990, the amount of money we get from the state of California per student has declined by 50%. To me that’s a huge huge change. It all just didn’t happen overnight. The last two years, our support per student from the state has decreased by about $3,000 per student. That’s $3,000 per student. So again that’ hug and we’re struggling with should there be fee increases but if we have any fee increases what that would mean in terms of the classes that we can offer. Those are the kinds of issues that will be discussed at the regents meeting, and I know every student is interested in that and it sounds like everyone has an opinion. And again just to emphasize the real issue to me is the long-term issue. Are we gonna really provide aceess to higher education for the people of California? And are we gonna stay with out concept of providing essentially free higher education? We violated it already, we’ve gotten to a point that is very hard to return from and if we go much further down this road it will be even harder to return. Secondly, I just wanted to acknowledge your role as student media. I was very gratified to see some questions that were asked to President Yudof and others about the uses of student fees. As those of you who have been here before know that one of the bees in my bonnet so to speak is that student fees are not returned back to the campus where they’re collected. So the fee increases over the last three or four or five or six fee increases have generally not gone back to the campus where they’ve been collected. We get most of the money but most is not the same as all, and I don’t like the idea that students at UC Santa Cruz by paying increased fees, they’re in fact supporting other institutions. I think that if you’re paying more money you should have the knowledge you’re supporting your own institution. So I just want to acknowledge the fact that as media you’ve brought that issue to the fore and I want to thank you for that. And the last thing I just want to mention is that, boy I cant get off the budget, is that next week we will be having two budget forums. Dave Kliger and I will be holding two forums on November 10th and they’re certainly open to the public. We will be answering questions about the budget. And so with that, I’d like to open it up to your questions.

Reporter: If the regents approve a 32% student fee increase this fall, will the 20% we’re paying as UCSC students in student fees that’s not coming back to us, will that also proportionately increase?

Blumenthal: I’m not sure I understood your question, I understood the 32% I’m not sure I understand the 20%

Reporter: It’s my understanding that 80% of UCSC student fees stay at UCSC and the other 20% is dispersed throughout the system to cover costs outside our university.

Blumenthal: I’m not sure if it’s exactly 80/20, I think its more like 82/18, but you cant quote me on that. Now that I understand the numbers could you repeat your question?

Reporter: (repeats question).

Blumenthal: If there’s a 32% increase, what will happen is we’ll get back of that increase, under current policy unless they change it, we would get back about 82% of that 32% increase. Does that answer your question?

Reporter: Yes.

Reporter #2: So when we spoke with Yudof, he actually said that when we asked the question the allocation of student funds, or fees, that they really hadn’t actually talked about that since he came into the position. And so you mentioned that they started talking about that?

Blumenthal: They definitely have started talking about that. In fact we’ve discussed it at the council of chancellors meeting. To try to put it into some perspective, when I became the acting chancellor here three years ago, it wasn’t 80 or 82% that we were getting back, it was 67%. I actually regard it as a major plus that they’ve changed it from 67% to 82%. But I don’t think there is any principled reason why it should be anything less than 100%. I think the students on this campus deserve to know that when they write a check for fees that its at least going to go to the campus, where they’re gonna derive some benefit from it.

Reporter #2: Yudof actually agrees with that and says it should be 100% back so what needs to be done for this to be changed ?

Blumenthal: This is a policy for the president and the president’s office to make a decision on. Ultimately that decision lies there. It isn’t typically a regents decision about how money is allocated. Typically that’s delegated to the president and the president’s office. They’re the people that I’ve been talking to all along.

To read Part 2 of this interview, click here.

~~~~~

Jenny Cain, Sarah Naugle, Molly Carter and Thomas Todd contributed to reporting.

Photo Illustration by Alex Zamora & Joe Lai.

What will the University of California system look like 10 years from now? What will its size be? How can the UC ensure that it is within reach of Californians of all backgrounds? And how will it continue to attract world-renowned faculty?

Amid the UC’s economic turmoil, Board of Regents Chairman Russell Gould created the Commission on the Future to answer these questions. The commission will rely on its 24 voting members, which include regents, academic senate members, faculty, student representatives and administrators, to “develop a vision for the future of the University that will reaffirm our role in sustaining California’s economy and cultural life.”

While Gould and UC President Mark Yudof serve as co-chairs of the commission, other members include UC Santa Cruz Chancellor George Blumenthal, various community members, alumni, the chief officer of the California Labor Federation and the president and CEO of the California Chamber of Commerce.

Victor Sanchez, a fourth-year Oakes student and president of the UC Student Association, is the only student — aside from two student regents — to serve on the commission. Sanchez explained why redefining the UC’s identity is problematic.

“My personal goal is to see how we can get back to the Master Plan [of 1960],” Sanchez said. “I think their goal is to redefine the future of the UC — and I think those are two different things and they are conflicting … There’s a need to not necessarily scrap away what we have been promised.”

The California Master Plan (CMP) is an agreement promising to uphold state resources for higher education based on student population growth. Since the early 1990s the CMP has been disregarded, as the state has continually divested higher education funding despite student population growth. The UC is now being forced to find new ways to cover costs of these lost state funds.

Blumenthal, who serves as co-chair of the working group on the size and shape of UC, also spoke of returning to the promise of the Master Plan of 1960, but recognizes that resources are limited.

Blumenthal explained that the new funding model will have a combination of five or six different types of resources. He also said the role of the commission is to identify ways to be more efficient and interdisciplinary — ways the University may not have considered in more advantageous times.

“Two principles we should never let go of are accessibility and quality,” Blumenthal said.

According to Gould, the commission is a way to gather ideas and input from a wide range of sources before determining the best path forward for the University.  It hopes to preserve attributes such as the ability to graduate in four years, state of the art classrooms and labs, low faculty-to-student ratios, ample financial aid, access for all students, competitive faculty salaries and public service outreach.

The commission has five different working groups, addressing size and shape, education and curriculum, access and affordability, funding and research strategies. One member of each working group is currently on a listening tour traveling to all UC campuses to get input from faculty, staff and students.

On Oct. 29, the listening tour held a forum at UCSC. According to the UCSC Web site, the forum was open to “UCSC staff and faculty only.” However, UC spokesman Steve Montiel said the meeting was “open to all and that, as I understand it, the web posting was in error.”

Montiel, who attended the event, was puzzled by the lack of students present; at the two previous forums at UC Merced and UC Santa Barbara, students had times arranged for input and inquiries.

Sanchez expressed doubts about the relevance of the commission if students aren’t involved.

“They have this commission to redefine the future of the University [but] in the end, not even half the people on this campus knew what was happening,” Sanchez said. “They can go ahead and say, ‘We went to this campus. We hosted a public meeting.’ Okay. Well how many students showed up? That’s a different question. How hard did they actually, really try?”

According to Sanchez, the best ways for students to convey their opinions to the commission is by attending their forums and meetings, which are usually public.

Blumenthal, who was pleased with the event, said he is interested in making student comments heard, commenting that “the fact that we didn’t reach out to students before the forum is our fault.”

Blumenthal also emphasized that students should leave comments on the commission’s website at http://ucfuture.universityofcalifornia.edu.

“The more ideas that are out there, the more good ideas are out there … I hope there are a lot of student comments,” Blumenthal said.

The next meeting of the UC Commission on the Future will be on Nov. 12 at the Oakland Marriott from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.

Commumity members come together to discuss the impact the university has on the city and on individuals, focusing on reining in college partying. Photo by Hilary Khteian.

Since the founding of UC Santa Cruz in 1965, the relationship between residents and students has been a tenuous one, to say the least.

To encourage a conversation between the two groups, the Santa Cruz Neighbors, an organization representing a network of local residents, hosted a meeting last Tuesday with UCSC Chancellor George Blumenthal to discuss city residents’ concerns with the university and its students.

“Instead of just rhetoric, this [meeting] shows demonstration by community and university members to have a relationship,” said Barry Shiller, associate vice chancellor for communication and public affairs. “It’s a time for us to talk about everything from parties to water conservation.”

Topics at the annual meeting included budget cuts, university traffic, water conservation and 4/20.

The main point of concern for neighbors, however, involved student living within the community and the problems residents face with loud parties and property maintenance.

“After one of these meetings I became aware of how huge of an issue parties are,” Blumenthal said. “I was really surprised to hear how prevalent they are.”

Over the past five years, Santa Cruz party ordinances have been installed that distribute escalating fines for houses warned multiple times for noise complaints, and the UC has increased funding for police patrol. Despite these actions, however, obtrusive student gatherings still pose problems for university neighbors.

June, a lower Western Drive resident who spoke at the meeting, was the first to bring up the topic of party ordinances at the meeting, saying that either another one needs to be implemented or the existing ones needs to be strengthened.

“I live next to a row of five houses that are occupied by students and things can really get out of hand,” June said.

Given the fact that certain properties routinely receive party-related complaints, a new ordinance is being put forward by the Santa Cruz Neighbors that would make landlords of houses rented by students more responsible for managing their dwellings.  

“It may be coming this summer or fall, but it’s mostly to have the landlords who are not paying attention to their properties to be involved in the consequences of not managing them,” said Deborah Elston, head of Santa Cruz Neighbors. “These houses would have regular inspections and owners would pay a fee using their property as a business.”

Neighbors present at the meeting showed much enthusiasm at this idea and agreed with the notion that the disruptive behavior is not a reflection of all student residents. 

At the meeting were two student interns with the Good Neighbors Initiative (GNI), a program that works with students planning to move off campus, instructing them on how to be responsible community members. 

The program started five years ago with the intent of addressing the issues voiced by neighbors living among students. According to student intern Tyler Pitts, the GNI holds workshops on campus where students are informed about everything from city ordinances to simple neighborly conduct.

“Some students can be really pleasant neighbors, but others can be absolute nightmares,” said one local resident present at the meeting.

At the end of the meeting one attendee brought up a recent City on a Hill Press column written in response to a fraternity party that took place a few weeks ago off Iowa Street.  Referring to the article, neighbors expressed that they feel discussions of how to coexist are as important between fellow student residents as they are between students and locals.

“We’re in this together, so we have to work it out together,” Elston said. “We all have to be at the table together and we have to have that partnership and openness to find solutions.”

Photo by Conner Ross.

Chancellor George Blumenthal offers some insight on campus cuts and the future of the University of California. City on a Hill Press and KZSC sat down with the chancellor on May 4 to feel out the future of our campus. We asked questions about the budget, faculty terminations, political standing and privatization.  

City on a Hill Press: Is there some action that the administration or student body can take to actively cut off the budget cuts before they get down to us?

George Blumenthal: It’s really important that legislators and parents and everyone understand how important higher education is to the state of California. It’s really important that legislatures continue to hear from the students. Students have lots of vote — votes count. We’re trying to raise money in other ways. Private money is key to the future of our campus. But that’s more a long-term goal. We’re in a financial crisis. I’m worried about the long-term trends. During 1990, the UC budget was 7 percent of the state budget, now it’s 3.5 percent. Private fundraising is up by 46 percent — we have a good start but we have a lot further to go.

CHP:  How do you plan to go about privatization without compromising the integrity of the public university?

GB: There’s privatization and there’s privatization. Even at UC, despite all of the fee increases … what students pay in the ed[ucational] fee is still less than what they pay in room and board. Private fundraising opens the possibility, for example, of raising money for students for scholarships and financial aid for students, so that’s a different kind of privatization than the privatization where you have an expectation [that] fees are going to be very high for everybody. If we raise private money and we have only so many people, it’s possible that some of them will give money for one purpose when my priority or your priority may be something else. On the other hand, it’s been my experience that people give money for what they’re passionate about.

KZSC: Who are some of the top private donors?

GB: I’m reluctant to give you a long list because some of them like to remain more anonymous. I’m not sure that we proactively publish those lists for obvious reasons because “University Down the Road” [could] look at our lists.

CHP:  UCSC has developed some new programs over the last couple years and we are continuing to build new programs, like the game design program through the engineering department. If some divisions have enough surplus to create new programs, why isn’t that money instead given to divisions with deficit to prevent cutting like the community studies program?

GB: Each academic division has to make its own priorities within the division. The engineering school has a lot of things that they’re not doing as a result of these programs. [Other divisions] are also not doing things they might otherwise do. No department has complained to me yet that they have too many resources.

CHP: What is your position on the ballot measures for the special election?

GB: The regents have taken a position in support of 1A. Those propositions are important for the funding of the university in the near term and were they not to pass we’d be facing much more severe consequences. On the other hand, Prop. 1A has some future spending caps which could adversely affect the university in the long run, but right now most of us are more concerned about next year or the year after than we are about the long run. At best, those measures are a Band-aid for the state financial situation. But from the university’s perspective, next year’s budget is going to be strongly dependent on their passing. Also, it is really troubling that the budget for the UC and the CSU and K-12 seems to be held up every year and we keep getting cut. Going from year to year not knowing what our budget is, facing very deep cuts. Even if [the budget for] next year or the year after goes up to make up for all these cuts, going down and up, down and up is not a good way to run any education system.

KZSC: Why are Drs. Jonas and Delgado being terminated?

GB: I can’t comment about individuals. I would draw a distinction between someone who’s a ladder-ranked professor and otherwise.

KZSC: How much does student voice weigh in on your decisions?

GB: We certainly hear it. This is your university just like anybody else’s. I can’t guarantee that the student voice will also be heeded. Hearing it is one thing. It’d be very helpful if they could identify realistically other things that could be used instead as cuts.

KZSC:  Where does money from increased fees go?

GB: Some campuses are winners and some campuses are losers. The two big winner campuses are San Francisco and Los Angeles. New money is frequently given out in proportion to the existing budget. On the other hand, students in the UC system are not distributed in the same way that the budget is. I hate to see fee increases but if they don’t pass those fee increases for next year, as bad as it is, it’s going to be far worse.

CHP: There’s been a lack of transparency in the process of the budget cuts. Is the system of communication between students and the administration and faculty working?

GB: The issue of transparency on budget is an important one. Throughout this process we’ve tried to put out campus messages to let people know where we are in the budget process. In terms of things like talking to Dean [of Social Sciences Sheldon] Kaminieki or getting answers to all the questions that Jim [Burns] might get asked, there’s an additional difficulty there and that is not always the decision’s final. I’m not suggesting to you that the process is as transparent as it could possibly be.