Protesters from various schools and organizations march in the streets of San Francisco’s financial district on their way to the Bank of America on California Street, the former location of the bank’s headquarters. Photo by Hilli Ciavarello.

Photo by Hilli Ciavarello.

The UC Office of the President (UCOP) sent out an email on the afternoon of Nov. 14 informing the public that the regents meeting was to be postponed, based on information gathered by the UCPD that “significant violence and vandalism” was likely to occur at the event. The email said UCPD recommended “in the strongest of terms” the meeting be canceled, and after consultation within UCOP, they decided to heed UCPD’s warning.

UAW 2865 had chartered several buses to take protesters to the meeting in San Francisco, where a protest organized by the group ReFund California (an anti–Wall Street statewide coalition comprised of “homeowners, community members, faith leaders and students,” according to the group’s website) was due to take place.

Despite the cancellation of the meeting, the buses transporting over 1,500 protesters (including students from UC Santa Cruz, UC Davis, San Francisco State and K-12 teachers) still went to San Francisco as planned. The protest took place in the Financial District of San Francisco, and included a march and rally that lasted the majority of the day.

“Wall Street and the regents can’t hide from us,” said Josh Brahinsky, UAW affiliate and graduate student at UC Santa Cruz in an email to politics graduate students outlining the change in protest plans. “We’ll be marching through San Francisco’s Financial District, where many of [the regents] have offices … we’ll invite them to join us.”

Student and union representatives have been largely critical of the regents’ decision to postpone the meeting based on the possibility of violent action. UC student regent and student regent-designate, Alfredo Mireles, Jr. and Jonathan Stein respectively, said the regents’ decision was a poor one.

“We understand that UCSF law enforcement authorities recommended the meeting be postponed in the interest of public safety,” they said in a Nov. 14 press release. “However, students have a right to protest peacefully and make their voices heard forcefully; this action eliminates their opportunity to do that.”

Sindy Ramirez, a UCSC SUA representative, said the cancellation robbed students of their voice.

“I think it’s unfortunate students from the UC system are not given this space for solidarity, and to express how we are suffering from these fee increases,” Ramirez said. “However, we must not let these concerns from the regents hinder students from taking action.”

Claudia Magaña, president of the University of California Student Association, said UC students are “strongly opposed to this decision.”

“We do understand the concerns about public safety, yet the regents have a responsibility to the students and people of California to hold open meetings that allow for public access and participation,” Magaña said in a Nov. 14 press release. “By canceling this meeting, the UC regents have done a great disservice to students, and our ability to participate in the governance of our university system.”

Others feel the cancellation of the meeting itself speaks to the effectiveness of the planned protests.

“I think it’s fantastic [that the meeting was canceled]” UCSC grad student Brahinsky said. “If you build a big enough movement, just its presence is an incredible force. We don’t even need civil disobedience — we just need to be there.”

The protest on Wednesday follows hot on the heels of police action that took place on the UC Berkeley campus Nov. 9, where students were arrested and beaten by UC police officers as they assembled in Berkeley’s Sproul Plaza. Antipathy from students towards the UCPD remain high.

“It seems that given the way regents meetings have gone in the past, the only credible threat I can imagine would be coming from UCPD,” said a UAW-affiliated TA who wished to remain anonymous. “This just shows how out of touch the regents are with the student movement.”

Mireles condemns the university response to the Berkeley actions as well, and thinks the UC system needs to differentiate between violent and non-violent protest.

“The police violence at UC Berkeley on Nov. 9 was reprehensible and ought to be condemned, not defended, by campus and systemwide administration,” said Mireles in an open letter to students. “The student regent and student regent-designate support the actions of students who call attention to the privatization of public education through courageous and peaceful protest.”

In a press release from the University of California Office of the President yesterday, board Chair Sherry Lansing, board vice chair Bruce Varner and UC President Mark Yudof announced the cancellation, citing concerns raised by information presented by UC law enforcement officials. The Nov. 16 meeting will be rescheduled “for another time and, possibly, an alternate venue,” according to the release.

Student Regent Alfredo Mireles (above) and Student Regent-Designate Jonathan Stein released public statements yesterday opposing the UC Board of Regents' decision to cancel their Nov. 16 meeting due to concerns for public safety. Photo by Prescott Watson.

In a press release and an open letter to students, Mireles and Stein said they understand the need to take cautionary measures to ensure public safety, but canceling the meeting was unfair to students.

“Students have a right to protest peacefully and make their voices heard forcefully; this action eliminates their opportunity to do that. We would support finding a way for student attendees to exercise their constitutional and moral right to protest while excluding non-student elements that raise the specter of violence and vandalism,” reads the press release.

Mireles and Stein urge students who had to planned to attend the meeting to instead travel to Sacramento “and make student frustrations known to the state’s ultimate decision-makers.”

Read the full text of the press release and open letter below:

Press Release:

NOVEMBER REGENTS MEETING CANCELED

November 14, 2011

San Francisco, CA and Berkeley, CA: Alfredo Mireles, Jr. and Jonathan Stein, the Student Regent and Student Regent-Designate respectively, oppose the decision to cancel this week’s Regents meeting. We understand that UCSF law enforcement authorities recommended the meeting be postponed in the interest of public safety. However, students have a right to protest peacefully and make their voices heard forcefully; this action eliminates their opportunity to do that. We would support finding a way for student attendees to exercise their constitutional and moral right to protest while excluding non-student elements that raise the specter of violence and vandalism. We urge students who had made plans to travel to San Francisco for the Regents meeting to travel to Sacramento instead, and make student frustrations known to the state’s ultimate decision-makers.

An Open Letter to Students, Administrators, Faculty, and the Regents:

The leadership of the Board of Regents has chosen to cancel this week’s Regents meeting. This letter addresses that decision, the recent protests on UC campuses, the continued defunding of public higher education by the State of California, and recent police brutality at UC Berkeley.

The State of California’s unprecedented and short-sighted divestment from public higher education is a disastrous moral and economic choice. In the short term, it hurts students. In the long term, it will hurt all Californians.

The University of California is a nationwide leader in educating students who are the first in their families to go to college, students who come from underserved communities, and first-generation students who are the children of immigrants. Collectively and through sacrifice, the State of California has built an institution that excels at providing a world-class education to students who have faced the greatest challenges to access it.

And yet the State is choosing to tear that institution down. The State of California cut the UC by $650 million in the past year, with a $100 million trigger cut likely on the way. These latest cuts come on the heels of decades of declining funding. The cost is felt first and foremost by students, who face nothing but bad choices: work multiple jobs to make ends meet, take out enormous loans that will be paid back in a terrible job market, or drop out and pursue an education somewhere cheaper or not at all. Generations of Californians attended an excellent UC at low or no cost; today, those same Californians are forcing the next generation of students to attend a  university under threat, and at a high and rising cost. It is privatization of our greatest public good, and a morally bankrupt choice on the part of our citizens and our state government.

It is also a short-sighted economic choice. For decades, the University of California has fueled this state’s economic success, by driving innovation and entrepreneurship and graduating thousands of highly skilled workers into the California economy. Defunding this institution may ease our budget problems today, but doing so will bear bitter fruit for decades to come, as we become a less attractive destination for businesses and entrepreneurs. Cutting the UC hurts every Californian’s opportunity to get a well-paying job, decreases our future tax revenues, and delays or prevents entirely the research breakthroughs that advance our society and our economy.

The Student Regent and Student Regent-Designate support the actions of students who call attention to the privatization of public education through courageous and peaceful protest. The police violence at UC Berkeley on November 9 was reprehensible and ought to be condemned, not defended, by campus and systemwide administration. We have additional concerns about freedom of speech – on the day of the protests, a Berkeley Law student was stopped by police officers while far from the events at Sproul Plaza simply for carrying a megaphone. When she was unable to produce a student ID, she was handcuffed, placed in a squad car, and cited for a misdemeanor. Free speech and providing equitable access to education have been hallmarks of the UC and particularly UC Berkeley — by suppressing speech that advocates for education access, we do violence to two of our most cherished principles.

The Student Regent and Student Regent-Designate oppose the decision to cancel this week’s Regents meeting. We understand that local law enforcement authorities recommended the meeting be postponed in the interest of public safety. However, students have a right to protest peacefully and make their voices heard forcefully; this action eliminates their opportunity to do that. We would support finding a way for student attendees to exercise their constitutional and moral right to protest while excluding non-student elements that raise the specter of violence and vandalism. We urge students who had made plans to travel to San Francisco for the Regents meeting to travel to Sacramento instead, and make student frustrations known to the state’s ultimate decision-makers.

To fund the University of California, the State needs revenues. The Student Regent and Student Regent-Designate support ending Proposition 13’s treatment of corporate property taxes and ending the two-thirds supermajority requirement for raising new revenues in the state legislature. The Student Regent and Student Regent-Designate also support increasing taxes on the wealthiest Californians. Those at the top of California society have benefited the most from the fact that California is a vibrant, innovative, and diverse place; in times of struggle, they should give back to make sure that other Californians have the same opportunities to succeed that they did.

We hope that our fellow Regents and the administration of the UC will be forceful advocates for new revenues for state government. To not do so leaves us with only a single, cynical choice every year: submit a funding request to the State and lobby for it despite knowing Sacramento is unlikely to meet it; search internally for savings after yet another budget cut that we knew was coming; and fill the balance of our budget deficit on the backs of students, pushing those in the middle class further to the margins.

We have a responsibility to fight for an alternative. Students are leading the way. We hope that the University of California and its leadership can join students in the fight to preserve truly public higher education for all our citizens. As the Student Regent and Student Regent-Designate, we have a responsibility to be the students who partner with the Regents and the University’s top decisions-makers. We will continue to advocate from within the system for the principles and beliefs driving student energy and passion.

Alfredo Mireles
Student Regent

Jonathan Stein
Student Regent-Designate

The UC Board of Regents has postponed their Nov. 16 meeting, citing fears for public safety. President of the University of California Mark Yudof talks with former board chair and current regent Russel Gould at a March regents meeting. Photo by Prescott Watson

UC Office of the President (UCOP) announced the cancellation of this week’s regents meeting, due to “credible intelligence” collected by University of California law enforcement officials last week of threats of violence. The cancellation comes just two days before the Nov. 16 UC Board of Regents meeting was to be held in San Francisco at the UCSF Mission Bay campus.

University of California Police Department officials said there was a “real danger of significant violence and vandalism,” and advised the regents to cancel or postpone the meeting. In a Nov. 14 UCOP press release from Sherry Lansing, chair of the board of regents, Vice Chair Bruce Varner and President Mark G. Yudof, Lansing cited as the reason for cancellation information received by the board from the UCPD warning those present at the meeting could be subjected to violence.

“(UCPD) have advised us further that this violence could place at risk members of the public, students lawfully gathered to voice concerns over tuition levels and any other issues, the UCSF community,” Lansing said in the release. “After further consultation with these law enforcement officers, we have decided that, in fact, the most prudent course for us would be to postpone this meeting and reschedule it for another time and, possibly, an alternate venue.”

In a Nov. 14 release the University of California Student Association (UCSA) said UC students “are strongly opposed to this decision.”

“The decision to cancel this week’s regents meeting came abruptly and without any consultation with students or other stakeholders. We do understand the concerns about public safety, yet the regents also have a responsibility to the students and people of California to hold open meetings that allow for public access and participation,” said UCSA President Claudia Magana in the release. “It is concerning that the UC regents and UCPD were not properly prepared for this meeting, given the ‘credible intelligence’ that was gathered. UCPD deals with student demonstrations on a regular basis, and their top priority should be ensuring student’s ability to demonstrate safely. By cancelling this meeting, the UC regents have done a great disservice to students, and our ability to participate in the governance of our University system.”

A TA from UAW local 2865 — the union representing UC teaching assistants that chartered seven buses to take representatives from UC Santa Cruz to the meeting — questioned which body would be inflicting violence and how this reflects on the regents’ reaction.

“It seems that given the way regents meetings have gone in the past, the only credible threat I can imagine, would be coming from UCPD,” said a TA from UAW who is an active coordinator of bus transportation to UCSF and who wished to remain anonymous. “This just shows how out of touch the regents are with the student movement.”

Despite the abrupt cancellation, UAW’s current consensus is to push ahead with an “alternative action” rather than abandoning student action for that day.

UAW’s plans, however, are contingent on the general assembly meeting tonight, where a different course of action could be decided upon. The general assembly meeting will be held tonight at 7 p.m. in UCSC’s Kresge College.

Lansing’s statement goes on to emphasize that tuition hikes were not on the meeting’s agenda, and a new schedule for the meeting will be provided as soon as possible.

“The UC regents need to stand with us, not run away,” said Magana in the UCSA release. “In order to fully fund education, the state needs new revenue, and our UC regents should support this goal. This is all that students wanted to hear this week from the UC regents.”

Illustration by Christine Hipp.

At a meeting this past October, UC Santa Cruz Chancellor George Blumenthal told student media that UCSC was more of a “state-augmented” school, as UC students are now paying as much for their UC education as the state is.

Some take issue with the UC’s tuition hike strategy; an “Occupy Education” march is planned for Nov. 16 at UCSF to protest further fee hikes. At the heart of this debate is a question over what the UC really is — can it still call itself a public university with students footing so much of the bill?

Regardless of how one feels about education in California, the UC system is slowly losing the state support that brought about its inception. The UC Board of Regents — Richard Blum, specifically — said at a planning session in September that negotiating with Sacramento for more support is “a waste of our time.” In the 2009-10 academic year, the UC received 13 percent of its operating budget from the state and 12 percent from student fees. The latter is rising to be on par with state expenditure.

With this in mind, those involved in the day-to-day administration of the UC system are looking for benefactors outside of the governor’s office in Sacramento. At the September planning session, Blum said he thinks the UC system should be negotiating with those “who actually can write a check — Chevron, Apple, Cisco and Google — all those companies sitting on money they don’t know what to do with.”

Some students at UCSC feel apprehensive about the regents’ decision to petition the private sector.

“While I think it is good the regents are finally looking at alternate forms of revenue and finally doing something to address the lack of funding from Sacramento, I think we need to take a closer, critical look at what exactly they intend to do,” said SUA external vice chair Nelson Cortez. “Privatization of the university is not acceptable and won’t be tolerated by students. This is why students must be involved with the process and this is why the regents must be transparent with their actions.”

With California hobbled by the financial crisis crippling the nation as a whole, the UC regents have made it clear to the public that they feel other options like private sector funding have to be explored if the UC system is to survive and retain its essential character as an accessible institution.

“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,” Blumenthal said. “We have to do better, or we have to find alternatives.”

Looking at the UC now, the system already receives sizable amounts of private funding. The question arises, then: If the UC receives private aid already, and students are paying record highs for tuition — just over $12,000 a year currently — where can the UC system turn to solve its budget issues?

Private Investment in the UC

The UC system as a whole received $1.35 billion from the private sector for the 2009-10 fiscal year. For some perspective, the operating costs for the UC system tend to be around $20 billion per year, with state funding, student tuition and a variety of other sources filling in the rest of that funding gap.

With the exception of the 2007-08 fiscal year, in which the UC received over $1.6 billion, the amount donated to the university by the private sector remains fairly constant. Most philanthropic endeavors tend to be targeted at specific UCs.

“When it comes to private philanthropy, most of that funding is given to the UC [in question] directly,” said Dianne Klein, media specialist for the University of California Office of the President. “Right now, though, we’re placing a greater emphasis on giving to the university [system] as a whole.”

A large amount of private sector funding goes to the UCs that have medical centers, like UCLA. For those UCs, donations to their medical centers can account for almost half of all private sector aid they receive.

Personal connections to the UC have some impact on where donations go, according to Klein.

“If somebody was treated at one of our medical centers and they feel really grateful, then they’d donate specifically to that medical center,” Klein said.

Still, private funding for the UC system goes to a variety of departments, from arts endowments to engineering research funds and faculty positions. The fields this money is allocated to are still restricted, however. Only about 2 percent of private funds given to UC are allowed to be spent at the university’s discretion.

“We’re hoping to raise more for scholarships,” said Klein, unknowingly echoing Chancellor Blumenthal’s sentiment that he would “prefer undesignated [funds], but from a student perspective, having lots of money in scholarships is a good thing.”

Illustration by Christine Hipp.

Private Aid at UCSC

At UC Santa Cruz, private investment has made its presence felt in numerous ways. Jack Baskin Engineering itself is a cornerstone of philanthropic support at UCSC.

“Jack Baskin is a large supporter of the university, but he’s not an alum,” said Shayna Kent, alumni outreach coordinator at UCSC. “He met the chancellor and they had a connection. Some people just have general passions.”

Baskin, who has donated about $7 million to the engineering school at UCSC since 1983, helped launch the computer engineering program. Of that $7 million, $5 million was donated in 1997 to found the Jack Baskin School of Engineering.

Internships represent another convergence of private sector interests and public education.

“Internships provide students an opportunity to learn on-the-job skills while providing employers the opportunity to get to know a potential employee,” said Barbara Silverthorne, director of the Career Center at UCSC. “I welcome collaboration with the private sector with the goal of placing students in professional internships and jobs in their field of interest.”

Silverthorne said engaging employers with the UC system is increasingly important to fostering increased cooperation between the private sector and the UC.

“Due to the competitive job market, the Career Center is working harder than ever to engage a variety of private and public sector employers with on-campus recruitment activities,” Silverthorne said. “The Chancellor’s Undergraduate Internship Program (CUIP) is an example of an internship program which is made possible through matching funds provided through non-state and non-tuition sources.”

More recently, programs and focuses like Jewish studies and Sikh and Punjabi studies have been made possible and expanded by the work of philanthropic groups and foundations.

“Because of private investment and donations, Jewish studies has been able to add courses to the curriculum that would have otherwise not been offered through the normal course of the year,” said Stephanie Sawyer, an undergraduate program coordinator in the history department at UCSC, citing the addition of a course on modern Jewish history in Latin America, taught by Paula Daccarett.

Though hardly unique in the type of aid it receives, the Jewish studies program at UCSC is notable for how much it has expanded with the aid of private investment.

The Jewish studies program at UC Santa Cruz has been assisted by a variety of private sources, including the establishment of the Helen Diller Family Endowment and the Neufeld-Levin Holocaust Endowed Chair, as well as grants from private foundations and gifts from individual donors, according to Nathaniel Deutsch, co-director of the Center for Jewish Studies at UCSC.

“Without this support, our program would be smaller and we would not be able to meet the large student demand for our courses,” Deutsch said.

Sikh and Punjabi studies consists of an endowed faculty position and is paid for by the Sarbjit Singh Aurora fund, an external source of aid.

“It’s a good fit here,” said William Ladusaw, dean of humanities at UCSC. “Universities have always depended upon private philanthropy to enhance their programs and undertake new initiatives.”

Ladusaw remains less optimistic about the possibility of private aid supplanting state support, but hopes the plight of the UC system has raised awareness of the need for such aid.

“In my experience, relatively few people are motivated to make donations simply to replace lost state funds,” Ladusaw said. “But the financial crisis for state universities has certainly raised the visibility of the need  for scholarships and fellowships that can help address concerns about access and affordability.”

Outreach

The case of Sikh and Punjabi studies notwithstanding, the UC system isn’t always approached with windfall offers of financial assistance. Some outreach to potential investors is often needed.

“The UC system as a whole regularly promotes the value of the 10-campus system to the state of California,” said Lynne Stoops, executive director of strategic philanthropy and foundation relations at UCSC. “This is intended to help tell the UC story to state legislators, whose support the university badly needs. But it also has the effect of helping tell the UC story to the general public.”

Stoops said the failure of the state to provide adequately for the UC system increases the need for these outreach efforts.

“Given the state’s declining commitment to California’s highly regarded system of public higher education, those communication efforts are increasingly vital,” Stoops said. “In these difficult times, their generosity is critical to maintaining student access to UCSC. Support from individuals and foundations is absolutely essential if we are going to maintain the quality of the campus and student access to that quality.”

Ultimately, the goal of outreach programs at the UC is to prove long-term value to the private sector.

“In contributing to the campus they are also making a contribution to the long-term social and economic health of this state by providing educational opportunities to its citizens,” Stoops said.

Alumni outreach coordinator Shayna Kent also believes it’s important to educate people on the value of higher education.

“It’s not just fundraising — you have to educate people on why it’s important to give back,” she said. “It’s about educating people about the impact of philanthropy.”

Illustration by Christine Hipp.

Looking Forward

Statistically, it’s difficult to say whether the UC system counts as a private institution. Though state aid has declined sharply, it still exists and funds large aspects of the UC. Still, it might be time for students to have a look at where the private sector has had a hand in shaping their university experience. The UC is a constantly changing system, and more changes are surely on the way.

“Students here are really philanthropic,” Kent said. “[Philanthropy efforts are] going to Haiti, to Second Harvest. But there’s no one out there selling cupcakes for scholarships.”

Some say cupcakes are unlikely to save the UC, even with the best intentions behind them. SUA representative Nelson Cortez said counting on the private sector, whether in the form of a bake sale or a corporate endowment, is not a solution.

“The private sector can play a pivotal role in the UC, and has in the past,” Cortez said. “But relying solely on the private sector to fund the UC is unrealistic and will only lead to a private UC.”

The educational and professional fate of untold numbers of UC students may be decided beginning Nov. 16. UC regents will meet then to begin discussion of an 8–16 percent tuition increase every year for the next four years, contingent on state aid. If Sacramento fails to deliver to the UC, student tuition could reach over $22,000 by 2016. As a result, whether the private sector should, or even can, save the UC is a question that might need answering sooner rather than later.

Illustration by Jamie Morton.

Nov. 15-17 the UC Board of Regents will hold a meeting to discuss the financial future of the UC system. The Occupy Education event will be held on Nov. 16 at UCSF Mission Bay, the same location as the regents’ meeting.

Protests at regents’ meetings have become common-place. Over the years, as multiple fee increases have been approved, it has become difficult for UC students to feel heard and not despair that they are members of a dying system. Just last year, the regents voted on an 8 percent increase in student fees, and this coming meeting will likely see even higher fees.

But this time around, we are presented with an opportunity. We are presented with the support of Occupy entities of local Bay Area colleges, Occupy Education and the Occupy movement as a whole. And their numbers are large.

We are presented with the opportunity to turn out in droves and bring the kind of state and national media coverage this issue deserves. With increased media coverage comes increased attention from California state voters who, at the end of the day, have massive amounts of control over the UC budget based on what legislators they vote for.

We should look to UC Berkeley, where protesters plan to hold a two-day event on Nov. 9–10. The protest will raise awareness of potential fee hikes, which will be determined during the regents’ November meeting.

According to the Occupy Education website: “We call on all the 99 percent, on all the Occupy general assemblies and camps throughout Northern California, on all student, labor, and community organizations, to come together in a massive display of non-violent civil disobedience to prevent the UC regents meeting from taking place, to send the strongest message that we will not accept any fee hikes, cuts, or concessions in any level of public education.”

By virtue of being UC students, we are 100 percent part of the 99 percent, and we should be mobilizing 100 percent for the change we need to take place.

Third and fourth-year students who sigh under their breath, “Thank god I’m getting out” and look the other way, this applies to you. You may be getting out of the UC system, but you are only getting into the poor job market.

First-year students, do not be defeated into thinking this is the way it must be — just because you don’t know anything else does not mean you cannot demand better.

We need to be our own advocates. We need to show up and speak up, and this is a grand opportunity.

So carpool, public transit, Zipcar — San Francisco isn’t that far away. On Nov. 16, meet up at 7 a.m. at the UCSF Mission Bay campus, 1675 Owens St., San Francisco, Calif. and Occupy the future of the UC.

The Student Union Assembly (SUA) will be announcing plans to accommodate students who wish to attend the Nov. 16 UC regents meeting. A bus will not be provided due to budget issues that have led to cuts in funding for travel and conferences.

Alternative methods of transportation, such as a rental van or carpool system, are being looked in to, according to SUA external vice chair Nelson Cortez. Transportation arrangements will be announced once they have been finalized. Students who wish to partake in transportation accommodations are encouraged to sign up through the SUA website, studentunionassembly.org.

“Student attendance at the UC regents meeting is always important,” Cortez said in an email.  “A lot of times regents forget who they are supposed to serve, and whoever they see at the meeting is usually the only student they will come across.”

Cortez also noted the University of California Students Association (UCSA) is currently accepting applications for students who wish to be StARs (Student Advocates to the Regents). Students who participate in the program receive privileged access to regents meetings, as well as the opportunity to speak directly with regents regarding student issues. Applications can be found at www.ucsa.org, and are due Friday, Nov. 4, at 5 p.m.

According to another organizer, the UAW are expected to be organizing seven buses to accommodate students and others who wish to attend the meeting in San Francisco. The buses will be leaving shortly before 8 a.m. on the Nov 16. from an eastside UCSC location yet to be determined.

The UC Board of Regents voted today to approve a 9.6 percent increase in systemwide fees, bringing  annual undergraduate tuition to $11,220. This increase follows the 8 percent fee hike passed by the board in November, and is the second such increase in less than a year.

The UC Board of Regents convening at UC San Francisco's Mission Bay Conference Center. The Board raised tuition by 9.6% in Thursday's vote, bringing it to roughly double the amount in fall 2005. Photo by Prescott Watson.

The fee hike will affect undergraduate and graduate students, beginning fall 2011.

Raised tuition comes in response to the $650 million state cut funding for UC last month, reducing total state support for the university by more than $880 million, and leaving the UC with a $1 billion budget shortfall, according to Nathan Brostrom, the UC system’s executive vice president for business operations.

The board voted 14-4 for the increase. Regents Eddie Island, Student Regent Alfredo Mireles Jr., George Marcus and Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom were opposed. Newsom urged the regents to send a message to lawmakers by refusing to raise tuition.

Claudia Magaña, a UCSC third-year and president of the UC Students Association, addresses the Board of Regents on Wednesday. In her address she urged the regents to absorb the state budget cuts through means other than tuition increases. Photo by Prescott Watson.

Regent Bonnie Reiss said she would vote for the hike “with sadness and disgust.”

Some members of the UC community publicly opposed the proposal in the days before the vote. In a July 11 press release from the University of California Student Association (UCSA), Claudia Magaña, UCSA president and UC Santa Cruz third-year, said the regents and the University of California Office of the President (UCOP) should “make every effort to absorb the additional $150 million cut,” rather than placing further financial burden on students.

“Students reject the approach taken by the UC Regents, which has presented an increase to student fees as the only available option to address the entire additional cut from the state …. The regents cannot simply pass this burden onto students and their families through endless fee increases,” Magaña said in the release.

The UCSA strongly opposed the increase, which they said in the press release “will have a devastating impact on access and affordability.”

A portion of the revenue from the increased tuition will go to the UC’s Blue and Gold Opportunity Plan. The plan covers tuition for students from families with annual incomes of $80,000 or less who qualify for federal, state or UC financial aid. For students from financial aid-eligible families with annual incomes up to $120,000, the tuition increase will be waived for the 2011-12 year.

One-third of revenue from tuition increases will go to financial aid, according to a July 13 release from UCOP.

University of California President Mark Yudof was not in attendance at the July 14 meeting of the Board of Regents.

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,” Blumenthal said. Photo by Prescott Watson.

The UC Board of Regents convened on March 16 in San Francisco to discuss how the University of California will address a $500 million drop in state funding from Governor Jerry Brown’s proposed budget. On March 24 Gov. Brown signed the bill that would slash this funding, and on Tuesday he announced that negotiations to extend taxes through a special June election ballot have failed.

UC vice president for budget Patrick Lenz said campuses could face more severe reductions if Gov. Brown’s proposed tax extensions aren’t enacted. If the proposed tax extensions fail, the state will need to find other areas to reduce spending. UC officials expect that the UC system will see a $1 billion cut to state funding.

Three UC campus chancellors from Berkeley, Irvine and Santa Cruz spoke at the meeting and addressed how additional cuts would have drastic impacts on their campuses.

“We have no model to accommodate that $1 billion,” said UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau. “It would devastate our staff and faculty.”

UC Santa Cruz Chancellor George Blumenthal presented direct effects from previous cuts. Like Birgeneau, Blumenthal said he does not have a plan to accommodate further cuts.

“I’m not sure what we’ll have to do if the tax extensions don’t go through,” Blumenthal said. “It’s going to be a much more noticeable change.”

Blumenthal said the cuts made UCSC vulnerable in many ways, and the campus “can’t even exempt public safety operations — fire, police, and environmental health and safety.”

Regarding future budgetary concerns, Blumenthal asked the regents to consider changing how the reduced budget is spent on individual campuses. Currently, all campuses generate funds and send them to UCOP to redistribute, which results in some campuses receiving more than they generated, and vice versa. UCSC had historically received less than 100 percent of the funding generated by its own campus community. A restructuring of the funding structure proposed by Yudof would change all of this.

“We’ve never had a coherent philosophy and we need one,” UC president Mark Yudof said regarding funding distribution across the UC campuses.

The proposal would ensure that each campus keeps the funding it generates, with UCOP assessing a tax and thus leaving the president with much less influence in funding matters.

Not all campuses are enthusiastic about this restructuring. Large campuses with medical facilities will receive less money than usual under the new plan, as they will then be limited by what their campus communities can generate.

“The smaller campuses will benefit from this,” said Nathan Brostrom, executive 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.”

Brostrom said this restructured funding model would allow administrators to reduce UCOP’s budget by $50 million.

Protesters outside the meeting held signs calling for the resignation of UC student regent Jesse Cheng. Cheng was not present at the meeting, and was quoted saying he would not attend in hopes of preventing such protests. The UCI undergraduate was found guilty of sexual battery against an ex-girlfriend by the UC Irvine Office of Student Conduct.

Additional reporting by Arianna Puopolo

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.

Half of the shortfall in the budget can be attributed to projected reduced state funding, salaries, higher energy costs and pensions.

Discussion included cost-saving measure, including fewer offered courses at UC, more layoffs and cuts to financial aid. Yudof said the university plans to enroll more out-of-state students who pay higher tuition, reducing admission for in-state students. This would be a significant break from the state’s Master Plan for Higher Education.

“The moment is fast approaching when the university will no longer be able to guarantee admission to all California applicants who meet the eligibility criteria,” Yudof said to the board, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle.

About 20,000 to 30,000 qualified students would be turned away under the new “holistic review” policy that was endorsed on Wednesday by the UC Regents’ committee on educational policy. Admissions at UC Los Angeles, UC Berkeley and other top-tier colleges and universities currently practice this holistic review, in which a reviewer examines a range of academic and nonacademic achievements and then assigns a score to each applicant. This move from the current point-based formula would require extensive training for application readers, and it would reportedly be more costly than the system already in place.

“I have no doubt that this expansion of holistic review puts in place an admissions method that fully comprehends the complex challenges many of our applicants face and evaluates these students equitably,” Yudof said, as reported by the UC Office of the President UC Newsroom.

Yudof will make specific budgetary recommendations in March.

Illustration by Rachel Edelstein.

After all the rallying and demanding that the state reinvest in higher education, yet another proposed fee increase is on the table to be voted on at the regents meeting next Thursday.

The proposal, an 8 percent fee increase for the 2011–2012 fiscal year, which equates to an $822 raise in yearly payment, is disconcerting on many levels. It reduces what little faith we as students have in the UC governing system even further. It makes an education that is supposed to be public even less accessible and depicts a obscenely clear image of the bleak future structure of the UC system.

After voting for the 32 percent fee increase last November, UC president Mark Yudof and the regents told us to go to the state legislatures, not to Yudof and the regents, and to demand that the state reinvest in higher education. They said, “March on the capitol: Rally, and we will rally with you.”

We did. Thousands of us did. We did just as they suggested, and came from all 10 UCs and demanded on the steps of the capitol for the state to reinvest in us. The state did. And yet, our fees are still going up.

The state reinvested 12 percent more in higher education than in the previous year, granting $2.9 billion to the UC system in this year’s budget — nearly half of the UC’s budgeted educational expenditures. The other half is paid for almost entirely by student fees. Around $371 million of the $2.9 billion was granted to cushion the cuts that the UC has sustained in the past three years.

Our rallying and demands worked — at the state level. And it’s still not enough.

Yudof and the regents told us that they were not the problem. They said it was out of their control, their hands were tied. So we rallied. Our demands of the state were acknowledged, and yet we saw the same end result — another fee increase. The deflection has come full circle.

Already, students pay roughly 40 percent of their education, and it must stop there. We, as a state, are embarking on a repudiation of the system that has set California apart for over a century: a public secondary education system. The increases are indicative of a trend: privatization.

We must demand that Yudof and the regents stop deflecting. Yes, the state should give more to higher education, but the regents are not powerless. It is time for them to take responsibility — they must vote “no” on yet another fee increase. They must come up with alternatives that are not in violation of the intrinsic ideals of the University of California system.

Education for the public, by the public is something to be cherished. We are losing out on the beauty of that philosophy because no one wants to pay for it. We are rapidly approaching an ideal more attuned to “education for some of the public, by the public who can afford it.”

If this fee increase passes — and let’s be real, the chances that regents will not vote in favor of yet another fee increase are about as good as Yudof offering to make less than the president of the United States — our fees will have gone up 40 percent in one year.

This number is nothing short of absolutely ridiculous. Though our outrage was heard in Sacramento last year, it is imperative that we keep our presence at the forefront of state legislation and also make our outrage heard in San Francisco.

As students in this system, we must be informed about the proposals on the table and be present at these meetings. At these gatherings, decisions are made about our education and, when the student presence is dismal, it reflects poorly on the student body and gives us less clout in the decision-making process — and when proposals such as this are on the table, student presence is even more necessary.

We must put faces behind the dollar bills. Otherwise, we are just figures on a failing business model.

UC Berkeley grad students don homemade military uniforms in protest of proposals for expanding the availabilty of online courses. Grad students are also waiting for the pending health care program to take effect. Photo by Julie Eng.

The pessimism of members of the UC community during the public comment period was juxtaposed by UC President Mark Yudof’s promise of a brighter future for the UC in the opening remarks at the latest regents meeting.

Yudof call the cuts that the UC system endured this year “unsustainable,” indicating a more promising budget for this 2010-2011.

“Even in tough times, the state needs to have a priority,” Yudof said. “We’ve been in crisis mode for the last couple of years, and some desperate and temporary measures were taken, almost none of which, in my heart of hearts, I feel good about … now we’re at the point where we must look over the horizon for longer-term, sustainable ways of operating.”

Yudof said that these more sustainable methods of operation will include ending furloughs this summer, providing further support for graduate students, and reducing UC Office of the President (UCOP) expenditures.

Cuts to the UCOP included the elimination of 400 office printers for a savings of $300,000 a year.

Reinvesting these administrative savings into academics was mentioned frequently throughout the meeting by several regents. Yudof briefly outlined the benefits of redirecting these funds over the next few years.

“Over the next five years, we can redirect hundreds of millions of dollars annually from administrative costs for the academic and research missions of the university,” he said. “And that’s only a piece of the puzzle.”

The seats in the public seating area were nearly all occupied. The meeting opened with a public comment period. Individuals — representing a number of different facets of the university — addressed the regents, including graduate students, post doc students, a UC parent, and union members from the Association of Federal, State, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

After the public comment period concluded, Yudof began his opening remarks, but members of the unions halted proceedings as they exited the room, chanting and clapping in protest of current UC policy regarding campus workers.

Also critical of the proceedings were several graduate students dressed in G.I. garb. The students’ satirized a comment made by UC Berkeley Law School Dean Christopher Edley that “squadrons of GSIs” will “frontline online contact.” Edley’s remark was made in support of UC Berkeley’s plan to move to increased online courses.

“We didn’t join the military — we dressed like this to show how ridiculous the comments were,” said Jessica Tall, a fifth-year Ph.D. candidate at UCB. “We don’t think that a cyber-campus is the way to go.”

Graduate students were a hot topic at the meeting, as issues of adequate stipends and health care were raised by regents and student representatives. Graduate students at all campuses excluding UC San Francisco will now receive vision and dental benefits in their health care plans. All campuses’ health care programs will be centralized as a UC-wide plan, saving over $1 million.

Student Regent Jesse Bernal is optimistic about the efficacy of this new program.

“In the end, some campuses may be losing some autonomy that they had, but, overall, it will be benefiting the entire system,” he said.

The two-day meeting on May 19 and 20 was Bernal’s final meeting as student regent. Student Regent Designate Jesse Cheng will replace Bernal as a voting member in July. The candidate for student regent designate to succeed Cheng was selected May 18. His identity had not been revealed as of press time.

Although Cheng could not disclose the new student regent designate’s name, he is looking forward to working with him.

“He represents a very specific, really different part of the student population that other student regents have not brought in the past and I know that I don’t have,” Cheng said of his future colleague.

While it was Bernal’s last, Wednesday’s meeting was the first for newly appointed Lieutenant Governor Abel Maldonado and Regent George Kieffer. Also present was Regent Sherry Lansing, who was recently reappointed for her second 12-year term.

Lansing said her reappointment came at a critical time for the UC. She said that her return will enable her to continue her work on the issues that the UC currently faces.

“There are so many things we are in the process of doing that I care very much about,” she said. “It’s such a difficult time in the fiscal nature that one has to come up with alternative ways of creating revenue that don’t involve student fees. There are just so many things left undone.”

~~~~~~

Additional reporting by Arianna Puopolo

One hundred empty chairs filled the board room of the regents meeting on Jan 20. Photo by Kathryn Power.

The UC Board of Regents, the 26-member governing body of the UC system, met yesterday to discuss issues of the newly proposed budget. The regents, who meet six times each year at different campuses, specifically addressed the state’s possible increase in higher education funding. Student presence was markedly low compared to the last regents’ meeting, but UCSC’s Student Union Assembly external vice chair has high hopes for attendance at a March 1 rally in Sacramento.

Budget Woes Continue, Despite Partial Funding Restoration

Despite Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s recent commitment to higher education, the University of California’s budget woes still lingered in discussions at the Jan. 20 Board of Regents meeting at UCSF Mission Bay. Regents and those in attendance questioned whether the promised funds would make a serious dent in their UC cash-strapped balance books.

Comparing the governor’s recent proposal to last year’s, student regent Jesse Bernal said, “I wouldn’t say that I’m optimistic, but I’m less disappointed than last year.”

On Jan. 8 the governor gave a surprising jolt to the UC in his proposed 2010-11 budget. The UC received a $224.5 million increase from last year, a restoration of $370 million from previous cuts and $51.3 million for enrollment growth. Last year, the State of California removed $813 million in funds for the UC.

Patrick Lenz, UC vice president of the budget, applauded the new focus on higher education in a presentation to the regents.

“We really welcome the investment in the state dedication to higher education,” Lenz said, while pointing out that higher education’s boost in funds was an anomaly in the governor’s prospective budget of “fairly Draconian proposals.”

The proposed increase in state funding, along with the recent fee increases, still leaves the University of California in a $237 million fiscal shortfall.

The regents expressed appreciation for the governor’s recognition of higher education, but skepticism of his policy recommendations.

“[This is] a budget you can’t believe in,” Regent Richard Blum said. “I don’t think half of this stuff is going to come true.”

UCSC’s Student Union Assembly (SUA) external vice chair (EVC) Victor Sanchez said in a speech to the Regents that the SUA will lobby to prioritize higher education in the state’s budget. He spelled out five issues they would push: a $1 billion increase for higher education in 2010-11 budget; support for Assembly Bill 656 (oil severance tax for oil companies); the maintenance of the core of the UC Master Plan; keeping Cal Grants intact; and supporting higher education by reducing prison spending.

He announced that the University of California Student Association (UCSA) calls for the month of March to be the “March for Higher Education,” and is planning to rally at the state capital in Sacramento to kick off the month.

“I ask that the board truly consider joining us in some way, shape or form March 1 as we begin to shine accountability toward Sacramento,” Sanchez said. “Collaboration is a must if we are to be successful.”

Student Presence Lacking, but Unions Make an Appearance

Student presence was stark at the regents’ meeting yesterday. Only two students were in the audience, both of whom were “whiteliners,” funded to attend the meeting through advocacy group the UC Student Association. Whiteliners are granted access to the separate seating area and the regents throughout the day. The 100-seat section for public observation sat vacant except for a couple of security guards throughout the day.

“It is disappointing … to go from the last meeting, where we were so represented, to this. It is depressing,” said Malerie Michael, third-year UC Irvine student and whiteliner. “We are not continuing our voice and are just present when something is going to directly affect us.”

No vote was held during the meeting, but Board of Regents chairman Russell Gould said student presence is always important.

“Students are a legitimate voice,” Gould said. “[Students] are there as a consumer, and we are seeing if our product is fulfilling your needs.”

The low student turnout could be attributed to the bad weather, but might also have to do with the inconvenient location and UCSF’s status as a university of only graduate students.

“It is very isolated and slightly underdeveloped, there are also no undergraduate students, and this makes rallying and protesting a lot harder to mobilize,” said Calvin Sung, chair of the UCSA Council on Student Fees, and another UCI white lighter.

This is significant because the majority of meetings are scheduled at UCSF.

A number of individuals from various unions, most predominantly American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), made their appearance during the the public comment section of the agenda in the morning.

They protested briefly and as they left, union members inflated balloons embossed with the message ‘Keep California’s promises and UC for everyone.’

The protesters left milk cartons with labels advertising “missing” regents, playing on the practice of placing missing children on the side of milk cartons. The missing regents were those who according to AFSCME do not adequately make themselves available for public discussion. They had to leave the milk cartons in the hallway for fear that the objects could be used as projectiles.

UC police officers had only positive things to say about the protesters.

“Today was peaceful, and they were cooperative,” said UCSF Police Sergeant Jim Lunnen. “They acted very professionally.”

While action at the meeting yesterday was minimal, SUA EVC Sanchez describes the trend of actions since the beginning of the year.

“If you look at September up to now, you see an escalation of mobilization,” Sanchez said.

Such actions have grabbed the regents’ attention.

“What has happened with recent student actions has made student activism part of the equation,” student regent Jesse Cheng said. “Regents are now saying ‘we recognize your force, and want to be part of it.’”

As of press time, the anticipated pinnacle of student action will be the march on the Capitol, to take place March 1. Across all 10 UC campuses, various student organizations are mobilizing to gather in protest of current trends and in hope of more funding for higher education.

Sanchez said he expects to see thousands in attendance, but is doubtful that the regents will make an appearance.

One regent is unsure of whether he will march with the students, but nevertheless asserts the necessity of such action.

“I don’t know,” said Gould, regarding whether he will be in attendance on March 1. “[Students and regents] have a lot of common ground, and we need to wake up Sacramento.”

Chancellor George Blumenthal echoes the sentiment and expresses his support of the planned march on the Capitol:

“I think it’s fantastic that students are going to Sacramento to make a case for funding for higher education.”

UC president Mark Yudof speaks to reporters after the Finance Committee voted to increase student fees. Photo by Nita Rose-Evans.

A student is escorted out of the Regents meeting at UCLA on Wednesday. Photo by Nita Rose-Evans.

The UC Board of Regents’ Committee of Finance passed two undergraduate educational fee increases — a 15 percent mid-year increase which will take effect in January, coupled with another 15 percent increase for the 2010-2011 school year.

Student Regent Jesse Bernal, a UC Santa Barbara graduate student, was the only committee member to oppose the measure.

“Fairness seems to be highly unbalanced,” Bernal said. “In principal I oppose and will not support the fee increases.”

The proposal will go before the entire Board of Regents on Thursday, Nov. 19.

“It’s probable, but it’s not over ‘til it’s over,” said UC President Mark Yudof on the chances of the measures being passed by the entire board.

The meeting, which was held at UCLA’s Covel Commons, was temporarily adjourned three times due to singing and screaming by students inside. Expletives and screams of “vote no” and “we shall overcome” permeated throughout the meeting, which was open to the public.

Twelve students were arrested at two different points prior to the committee vote and eventually all spectators were cleared out of the room by UC police officers after numerous disruptions. The fee item was passed without any students present.

The first of the fees would begin next quarter and would consist of a system-wide fee of $585 and the second increase would begin in the 2010-11 school year, increasing student fees by $1,344. Overall, student fees will be raised to a yearly total of $10,302, or a 32.5 percent increase in current fees.

UCSC fourth-year and President of the UC Student Association Victor Sanchez spoke to the regents before the vote took place.

“I implore this committee to vote no,” Sanchez said. “If you vote yes, not only will the public perception continue to yield negativity for the UC, but the prospect of working together in a year where thousands have expressed discontent will be lost and severely damaged.”

Before the vote, some members of the finance committee stressed the need for the fee hikes.

“We will make a departure from our core values. Fee increases take us in the wrong direction, but they are necessary,” said regent and committee member Eddie Island. “There must be a limit to student fee increases … [but] I will vote yes. It is reluctant and it will be my first time. I hoped to never do so.”

The regents emphasized that most students, especially those with lower incomes, would not be affected by this fee increase, emphasizing that 33 percent of the revenue from the hikes will go to financial aid.

“We want [high school] graduates in need to know that fees are not a barrier to a UC education,” said Marsha Kelman, UC associate vice-president of policy and analysis. “[The regents] estimated 81 percent of students this year are covered by financial aid, 74 percent of students will be covered by financial aid due to the mid-year fee hikes and 53 percent of students will be covered in the 2010-11 school year.”

In a separate press briefing during lunch recess, President Yudof commented that “If you’re a family making under $70,000, you don’t have a problem, we are taking care of your fees.”

The Finance Committee also approved an expansion of the Blue and Gold Opportunity plan. Under this new plan all undergraduates whose parents make $70,000 a year or less will have their fees covered by the University. The previous threshold for the plan was $60,000.

“What’s happened this year, after a steady erosion over the past 20 years, is this year we hit the negative jackpot,” Yudof said about California’s contributions to the UC.

“The result of budget cuts [from the state] is that we are recommending a mid-year fee increase,” said Patrick Lenz, UC’s vice-president for budget, in a presentation to the regents.

The State of California, currently experiencing it’s worst fiscal crisis in years, subtracted $637.1 million in allocations to the UC in Spring 2009 — leaving the UC with only $2.6 billion in state funding for the 2009-10 fiscal year.

“I think we are doing it in a way that makes sense … [student fee revenue] will end the furlough plan and extend library hours,” Yudof said in a speech addressed to the regents.

Without revenue from fee increases, the UC would have faced a $792 million dollar budget deficit.

Along with hiking fees, the regents approved a budget that will request $913 million from the California State Legislature for the next fiscal year. This money will be requested to alleviate the financial issues that have arisen from the one-time cut of $305 million the legislature made last year. The regents also hope the money will shrink the gap between the number of students currently supported by state funds and the actual number of students attending UCs.

Even if the $913 million is granted, however, the UC will still face a $144 million gap next year.

“We have to fix this,” said John Plotts, the UC assistant vice-president of finance, about the budget deficits, “or we have no future.”

Students from all 10 UC campuses flocked to UCLA to show that they do not support increased student fees. University union leaders who represent teachers, custodial and hospital workers, technical employees and graduate students were present along with workers themselves to voice their views

Chants of “They say cut backs, we say fight back” rocked the crowd as protesters raised signs in unison. Above the crowd messages such as “Last generation college student” and “Debt: My Grad Present” were seen on signs.

Cindy Amobi, a third year Journalism major from UC Irvine, traveled to UCLA to oppose the student fees.

“Even though they pretty much already decided on the vote, it’s important to still come and show our displeasure and solidarity with all students,” she said.

Students began amassing with the commencement of the regent’s meeting at 8:30 a.m. By 10 a.m., students were being escorted out of the public comments section of the meeting for disruptive behavior. Approximately 14 students were arrested for disorderly conduct.

Following a group of students’ attempt to enter the meeting by force, UC police began arriving on the scene armed with batons, pepper spray and other weapons that they aimed at the protesters.

At 12 p.m. police announced that the protest had become in violation of California law. They demanded that the protesters disassemble and informed the crowd that those who did not leave would be arrested, however no further arrests were made.

Despite the police’s actions, UC President Yudof said he could identify with the protesters.

“I feel complete empathy with them. Years ago I might have been out there with them,” Yudof said.

UC Students Association president Victor Sanchez, a fourth-year student at UC Santa Cruz who addressed the Regents on behalf of UC students, felt that the police officer’s actions were unacceptable.

“I think it’s ridiculous. I don’t think it’s warranted. It’s disrespectful to students,” Sanchez said.

Updated 9:29pm Nov 18, 2009

The proposal goes to a  final vote before the entire Board of Regents tomorrow.

“It’s probable, but it’s not over til its over,” said UC President Mark Yudof, on the chances of the fee increases passing tomorrow.

The fee item was passed without any students present. All spectators in the open session were forced to leave by UC police officers after numerous disruptions during the 20 minute public comment period and during the committee on finance’s deliberation. Fourteen students were arrested on two different occasions in the meeting preceding the committee vote.

The first fee increase, a system wide fee of $585 dollars for every undergraduate student,  will begin next quarter.  The second increase kicks in during the 2010-11 school year and will increase student fees $1,344 dollars per undergraduate. When all is said and done, student fees will be raised to $10,302 dollars, a 32.5 percent increase from current fees.

According to the regents, 33 percent of the revenue generated by both fee increases will go to financial aid.

“The result of budget cuts [from the state of California] is that we are recommending a mid-year fee increase,” said Patrick Lenz Vice President for budget, in a presentation to the regents.

The State of California, experiencing its worst fiscal crisis in years, ­­cut $637.1 million in allocations to the UC, leaving it with $2.6 billion for the 2009-10 fiscal year, twenty percent less of what it used to receive in state funding.

In a speech addressed to a regent, UC President Yudof said, “ I think we are doing it in a way that makes sense… it will end the furlough plan and extend library hours.”

Without the fee increases the UC will fall short $792 million dollars in its budget.

Along with the fee increase, the regents will request that the California state legislature provide UC with $913 million dollars for the next fiscal year. Even if the  state legislature responds positively to this request UC, will still face a $144 million dollar gap.

“We have to fix this,” said John Plotts, the Assistant Vice President of Finance. “Or we have no future.”

Sheryl Vacca (left), University of California Senior Vice President and Chief Compliance and Audit Officer, talks to Regent Gould at the recent Regents meeting. Photo by Arianna Puopolo.

Regents Richard Blum, Leslie Schilling and Russell Gould sat under the fluorescent lights of the UC San Francisco community center at Mission Bay, conducting side conversations while the regents’ senior vice president and chief of compliance and audit directed the May 7 meeting. 

The office of the regents cited  swine flu as the cause for reorganizing the event, which was adapted from a three-day conference in San Diego to a six-hour teleconference.

Thanks to the change of plans, and despite the fact that a potential student fee increase was the topic of discussion, there were none of the protests that usually mark each of the six regent meetings held every year. 

One or two students at each of the dozen participating satellite sites took turns speaking during the public comment period. Although, in some cases, these students were separated by hundreds of miles, they were joined in solidarity against the proposed fee hikes. But even after listening to 35 minutes of students crying, begging and pleading, only four of the 26 regents voted against the increase. Beginning fall 2009, student fees will go up by 9.3 percent. 

Adam Brown, a second-year engineering major at UCLA, resented the likelihood that he would see many tangible benefits from the hikes.

“If we’re not going to see any return on [the fee hikes], it’s unfair,” he said. “We’re being taken advantage of.”

Lisa Chen, a fourth-year at UC San Diego, was aggravated by the regents’ lack of accessibility.

“I’ve never felt so silenced and so marginalized as I do right now,” she said through the teleconference speakers. 

Many of the students who participated in the public comment period condemned the “high-fee, high-aid” model that the regents seem to be subscribing to. In this model, they said, middle-income and undocumented students suffer the most.  

UC President Mark Yudof dismissed these claims, saying that the UC is far from a high-fee, high-aid model. He said the fiscal implications are intended to be minimal for students.

“You are exaggerating the impact,” Yudof said to those listening in from the other teleconference sites. “Everybody has a compelling case.  We just don’t have a lot of money.”

Andrea San Miguel is a fifth-year community studies major affiliated with College Ten. She joined the Coalition to Save Community Studies and was approved by SUA to attend the conference call in San Francisco as a whiteliner, someone who has permission from the office of the regents to have the same access privileges as a member of the press.

San Miguel approached Yudof after the meeting went into private session. She wanted to discuss program cuts at UC Santa Cruz, but said Yudof was unreceptive.

“I tried to speak with [Yudof] after the meeting, asking if he minded if I got a few more seconds with him, and he said yes, he did mind, [and] that our conversation was over,” she said. 

Lucero Chavez, UC Student Association (UCSA) president and second-year UC Berkeley Boalt Hall Law student, commiserated with the student body and promised the regents retaliation if the fee hike trend continues.

“I have a very high threshold on pain,” Chavez said. “But we’re reaching a breaking point.  As students, we’ve been really quiet this year and we don’t have to be.”

Chairman Blum responded to Chavez by saying, “Please just don’t come here and complain.”

Many of the regents extended their sympathy and regret to the students anticipating financial crises due to the fee hike and blamed the legislature, denying that there might be any other solution to the budget crisis.  

Retired attorney Eddie Island was one of four regents who voted against raising fees. 

“The continuous increase of student fees changes the fundamental principle of the university creating access and affordability,” Island said. “Every time the legislature says they’ve got other priorities, the regents respond by raising student fees. It’s time for us to turn to … a model that will guarantee the funding and security of the university.”

Island said that treating this year’s fee hike like an isolated incident is inaccurate and deceitful because similar hikes have happened in seven of the last eight years. The exception, he noted, was an election year.

Lt. Gov. John Garamendi serves on the Board of Regents. He was one of the four to oppose the fee hike. Garamendi explained that his opposition reflects the respect with which he regards public education and what it can contribute to California.

“If we stay on the course we’re on with ever-higher fees, we will have lost one of the most important economic systems that can benefit this state,” Garamendi said. 

“The result of the vote to raise students’ fees will have a bigger impact on students than some of the regents and President Yudof are willing to admit to themselves,” UCSC student San Miguel said.  “Increasing financial aid does not necessarily neutralize the effect of higher fees, and it does have an impact on who applies and how hard high-school students attempt to get into four-year schools, as UCSA said in their presentation at the meeting.”

Illustration by Joe Lai.

The recent outbreak of swine flu has our Board of Regents scared. 

In these times of fear we see people act irrationally. From airplanes landing prematurely to the UC Board of Regents canceling their annual meeting, the H1N1 virus has many on edge.

This year, pressing budget issues facing the entire UC system would’ve been the main priority of the Regents’ three-day meeting. In Santa Cruz alone, community studies, American studies, Latin American studies, feminist studies, and men and women’s water polo are but a few of the programs in danger of being cut back or cut completely.

Another vitally important topic that was to be discussed is the raising of annual tuition for students. In the past decade, fees have more than doubled, with the state now paying half of what it was 20 years ago. The proposed fee hike for the 2009-2010 year is 9.3 percent.

The issues and solutions that the Regents decide upon affect every single UC student. By turning what would be an extensive three-day meeting into a one-day conference call, the Regents have effectively denied public comment and press access to the meeting while belittling issues that are extremely important to the very students they should have been serving.

Amid all this foolishness, the UC Regents have not only found an excuse to skirt some of their most important duties, but by treating San Diego, where the meeting was to be held, like a plague-ridden city, they’ve shown that they care about themselves more than their students.

The flu, or influenza, has been a common illness among humans for decades. Every year, people flock to medical centers to receive flu shots before the season begins. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the flu hits about 5 to 20 percent of our population and kills around 36,000 people annually. 

Conversely, the H1N1 virus, caused by a mutated influenza virus that infects pigs, had 1,516 confirmed hospitalizations as of Wednesday afternoon, and it has caused approximately 160 total deaths to date. 

Yet during all the frenzied media coverage of World Health Organization security alerts, we as students have carried on with our everyday responsibilities. We continue to juggle our school and work responsibilities; there’s no time for some pig flu scare in our hectic lives.

The UC Regents’ cowardly avoidance of San Diego and their duties is inexcusable. If H1N1 is such a problem that they cannot risk going down to San Diego themselves, it is difficult to understand why they are allowing UC San Diego, with approximately 28,000 total enrolled students, to stay open. 

As servants of a public institution that faces major budget cuts, educates thousands of students from all over the world and is considering raising tuition by nearly 10 percent, the Regents do not have the time or luxury to cancel a meeting as important as this bi-monthly, three-day Regents gathering. 

In light of such strenuous financial times, the actions of the Regents are ill-advised, cowardly and selfish. Their position of privilege does not put them above doing their jobs. This meeting was too important to shy away from, and yet they decided to regardless.