Photo by Devika Agarwal.

The University of California’s Commission on the Future released its first recommendations on how to balance the ideals of accessible and affordable education with the current realities of dwindling financial resources.

Victor Sanchez is the UC Student Association President and UCSC Student Union Assembly External Vice Chair. The fourth-year Latin American/Latino Studies and sociology double major is also one of the three students on the Commission on the Future. He sat down with City on a Hill Press to discuss the Commission’s recommendations and how a few in particular might cause a riot.

~~~~~

City on a Hill Press: How will the Commission on the Future influence UC polices?

Victor Sanchez: Chairman [Russell] Gould and President [Mark] Yudof are the co-chairs, so it’s hard to say that there won’t be any kind of big, significant reforms.

CHP: What kind of influence, as a student, do you have on the commission?

VS: When you count me and [the two other student regents] we could be a real thorn in everybody’s side. Ultimately, by myself, I was speaking up a lot about the recommendations and the concerns I had in terms of the dependency and reliance on student fees.

CHP: Did you propose any of the 29 recommendations?

VS: The institutional aid for undocumented students. It is a campaign that has been wanting to be won for years in terms of allowing students who have paid into financial aid for years to get some in return. (*Editor’s note: currently, undocumented students pay in-state tuition but are not eligible for financial aid) This recommendation will allow them to see access to those funds. We [the student regents and I] are going to push really hard on that proposal. That’s the golden chip we are looking to take with us and move forward.

CHP: Which, if any, of the proposals do you disagree with?

VS: There are some very poor ones. Specifically when you look at funding strategies. There are two proposals. One is to allow fees to increase 5 percent each year for five years … basically bringing fees up to around thirteen thousand dollars. The second [proposal] is for fees to rise 15 percent each year for five years, allowing it [tuition and fees] to get upward of around twenty thousand dollars per year.

It was funny because when we started off with the remarks they had one slide [with the] regent’s priorities and I didn’t see [ a priority of having] ‘no student fees,’ so I made a comment, ‘This is great because we keep hearing that you guys are so reluctant to raise our fees yet it fails to show up on a priority list.’

Ultimately, it’s just unfortunate that they can’t come up with any better solutions than to put the burden on [students’] backs.

I told a [commission member] on the side, ‘If you all pass these funding strategies to raise fees for five years … you’re gonna have riots … it’s going to be real bad.’

CHP: Were there any other solutions other than to raise student fees?

VS: The conversation about alternative sources of revenue hasn’t happened [on the commission] and [commission members] do not want them to happen. There is a need for them to expand the conversation and start having it.

CHP: Were there any proposals you did not expect?

VS: One was the differential fees by campus. That to me totally undermines the mission of the UC. It deters people away from the University of California. You would now have all these little private universities and it’s like, what’s the point? That was one of the pretty far out proposals that we saw. They want to cut down majors instead of looking at GE requirements, which is a good way to slim down stuff.

CHP: Which ideas do you support?

VS: Institutional aid is one and the three-year undergraduate degree option. A lot of students already do that anyways. That option would be good to have for a lot of folks who are prepared and ready for college. I don’t think there’s anything else though.

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at Inside Man

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.

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at Sticking to the Plan