As the workers who care for you and your campus, what we do is essential to UC’s ability to provide you with a world-class education.  Our work isn’t glamorous, but we do it to support you – our future – and we take real pride in that. Today, we are engaged in a struggle with the UC administration over issues that affect us deeply: retirement with dignity, wages and jobs that sustain us, and most importantly, the ability to advocate for ourselves and the campus communities we serve.

At age 60, after 20-plus years of hard work, we will retire with permanent injuries, unaffordable healthcare, and an average retirement income of $18,000/year.  The UC administration, however, has proposed changes to these benefits that will leave us impoverished, while their trend toward understaffing leaves us exposed to even greater risk of permanent harm before we make it to retirement.

Increasingly, the work to keep your campus clean and safe is being done by people who work for outside contractors, make poverty wages with no benefits, have no rights at work, and a contingent relationship to you and your campus. This creates unsafe working conditions for us, and poor conditions for your learning.

For this, you are paying higher fees, yet the training and research you do while at UC is the foundation for what is a highly profitable university system.  The UC system is the third largest employer in the state, impacts one out of 46 jobs in the state, and reported an increase of $414 million in net assets last year.

We think that UC can and should do better. For this reason, we are fighting for our dignity, safety, and livelihoods, and to restore the excellence that you deserve and should expect from the University of California.

Sincerely,

Kathryn Lybarger

President, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 3299

www.afscme3299.org

Illustration by Leigh Douglas

Every California student has felt the economic squeeze of increased tuition prices which may continue to rise. With the new bill AB 970, that squeeze may continue, but now students can see it coming.

AB 970 requires California regents and trustees inform the public and students before any increases in tuition fees. It also requires that regents and trustees create annual reports on their spending and provide them to the Legislature. Additionally the bill requires that Regents and Trustees consult with students about any fee increase in order to “justify tuition increases, identify possible alternatives and discuss ways to mitigate the impact on under-resourced families,” according to a press release on AB 970 put out by the University of California Student Association (UCSA), an organization of student governments and UC students.

In an age of open information, AB 970 is a step in the right direction.

Open information is fueling free online education for all, helping researchers solve difficult problems.

Students deserve to know what burdens will be coming and what their money will be spent on. To students who are increasingly suffering under the weight of tuition, AB 970 will hopefully lead to more affordable higher education. The bill will give students time to prepare for the new financial increases, and a chance to respond.

“Students simply want to have the opportunity to defend their education and themselves in the process,” said Raquel S. Morales, a member on the UCSA board and a student at UC San Diego, in a press release put out by UCSA.

Even still, AB 970 is just a part of the answer. More information about fee increases is welcome, but the problem is not a lack of information, but the fees themselves. Students and their families will still feel the pressure of tuition even if they know it’s coming. AB 970 can only be effective if it is coupled by a change in tuition fees; a change that can be supported by students and the public, but that has to come from the regents and the state.

For years the state of California has decreased its investment in higher education, leaving the universities and its students to shoulder the costs. Since 1990 per-student state funding of UC’s has dropped by 40% according to “Best Laid Plans: The Unified Promise of Public Higher Education in California,” a report put out by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA). And that number looks to grow as the nation continues to wade through the economic recession, and especially as the state needs money to pay for the costs of the aging baby-boomer generation.

So, while AB 970 may give hope to many, as it arguably should, it is not a cause for student celebration. The state, the regents, and the students still have a long road ahead of them to lower the $13,000 in state tuition.

Students need solutions to their increasing debt and tuition problems, and the solution will require action by the state, UC system, and the students themselves. AB 970 isn’t that solution, but by forcing transparency, it is an important tool in reaching it.

Data released by UCOP on April 17 reported that an unprecedented 160,939 students applied for the fall 2012 quarter UC-system wide, with 80,289 admitted. Out of those students admitted, 10,309 were from out of state.

UC Santa Cruz admissions adviser Robert Szemeredi said in a brief interview that UC admissions officers “don’t really care whether students are from California or not … we offer admission based on whether or not [students] meet and exceed UC requirements.”

UC Santa Cruz received 40,622 total applicants. Out of the 19,936 freshman undergraduates who were admitted, 1,082 were out-of state-students and 589 were international students. UCSC admitted 514 more non-California resident students than last year. Non-resident students currently pay $23,000 more than California residents in annual student tuition fees.

The website for the University of California budget shows that the 2011-2012 budget was the first time in UC history that student fees and tuition contributed more to “core operating funds” than did the California state general funds.

California state spending on education has decreased by $6 billion over the last year, according to a study conducted by the Center for the Study of Education Policy at Illinois State University.

Campus provost Alison Galloway said in an on-campus budget forum Feb. 27 that the UC faces a potential $200 million budget reduction. This loss in state funding would create holes in the budget that would need to be accounted for.

Galloway said under “optimistic” conditions, the cuts in the overall UC budget could “trigger” up to a $4.5 million funding reduction for 2012-13.

While admission of out-of-state students has increased, numbers show that California residents aren’t necessarily being pushed out of the system. Admissions have been cut back on the whole due to a lack of resources. At UCSC, 18,265 California high school seniors were admitted for the fall 2012 quarter, up from 17,917 last year. However, admission offers to UCSC for all applicants have decreased from 68.1 percent in 2011 to 60.5 percent in 2012, indicating increased competition among UC admissions.

Szemeredi said non-resident students make up less than 2 percent of the student body, a fact that is “dissuasive” to potential applicants who feel that UC Santa Cruz is dominated by Californians.

“We’re really desiring diversity,” Szemeredi said.

UC Santa Cruz, which enrolled a class of around 3,500 students in 2011, admitted 100 by exception, according to a UC Office of the President (UCOP) press release.

“To the extent which we admit students by exception — and we admit very few that way — it is almost always because of some technical shortcomings in their application,” said UCSC campus spokesperson Jim Burns.

Recent reports indicate admission by exception rates in the UC climbed recently, with a total of around 780 students admitted throughout the ten-campus system in 2011.

“Any student we admit by exception still exhibits the potential to be a successful UCSC student,” said Michael McCawley, UCSC director of student admissions. “Admission by exception provides a way for the UC to consider students who did not meet requirements but still looked like successful students.”

UC admission guidelines state applicants must complete a minimum of 15 college preparatory classes by the end of high school, earn a 3.0 grade point average (3.4 for out-of-state students) and take the SAT or ACT by no later than December of their senior year.

Admission by exception has been a part of UC policy for decades, and current university procedure allows the enrollment of 6 percent of incoming students through the process.

“We would never make exceptions in English or math — those two areas are sacred to faculty,” McCawley said.

Prior to 2011, UCSC employed an admissions process that relied on a fixed-points scale, where 14 separate criteria were weighted with point scores. UCSC has since adopted a holistic process in which applications are examined by humans rather than computers.

“We want to look at both academic and home environment, and look at the students and their peers and see what kind of high school they went to,” McCawley said. “This way, it is more of a contextualized review — there are no fixed weights or points that rate the student.’’

International students are also considered for admission by exception, as they often do not adhere to important UC exam deadlines.

“International students are not as savvy about when to take exams, and if they are done after high school, then they do not technically meet UC requirements,” McCawley said.

According to the statistics released by UCOP, almost 90 percent of students admitted to UCSC in 2011 were California residents.

Home-schooled students, who do not meet all of the technical UC requirements, are also considered by admission by exception.

“The only way we can consider them is by admission by exception, and some are top-notch students,” McCawley said.

Factors like low family income, geographical location, learning disabilities, and student responsibility during high school are taken into account in the decision-making process, McCawley said.

“Many students from [certain] socioeconomic backgrounds or from low-performing high schools are looked at,” he said. “We try to make sure that they are on par with other students, but in a technical sense, it is a way of evening the playing field.”

For students who exhibit academic readiness but attend schools with limited resources or college preparatory courses, admission by exception can provide an educational opportunity that would otherwise be unavailable.

“If we want to admit a student who comes from a school district that doesn’t provide him or her with every single course that UC requires, we have to admit this student by exception,” UCSC spokesperson Jim Burns said. “The bottom line is, we want to admit students who deserve a chance to succeed here.”

Illustration by Christine Hipp

Between the 32 percent fee hike in 2009 and the annual ritual of slashing curricula, there’s been plenty for UC students to be upset about. What does it mean when every UC Board of Regents meeting for the last decade has been met with the hoarse cries of an ignored student body?

The Occupy movement that swept the the nation last fall was a similar catalyst for mobilization. An uproarious — and more importantly, awakened — student body discovered just how far the UC administration was willing to go to keep its status quo in check. Helping hands were cuffed, defiant faces were pepper-sprayed, and a number of students were hospitalized. The administration’s message was clear: Where there’s a will, there won’t be any way but theirs.

But the attempts of the UC to regulate students who would defy them are patently inane. We cannot be rounded up and pushed along like rats in a maze.

The most recent effort to suppress student voice manifested itself at the UC Riverside campus in December. In response to student protests, the dean of UCR handed down guidelines for demonstration. This slap to the collective student face was met with outrage.  Overlooking clear violations of First Amendment rights, the protocol was demeaning to students, and treated them like children.

To be in compliance with those guidelines, UCR student demonstrators would need faculty chaperones, they could not carry stick-borne signs, and designated protesting areas were strictly enforced. While the UCR dean was swift in removing these guidelines in response to public outcry, the post in its original form is still available for view on a Say No to UCR Protest Guidelines online petition.

The dean’s response has been to form a task force on assembly guidelines. Yet the task force, composed mostly of administration officials, has proven to be a less-than-welcome response. In their first meeting, task force member Stephen Lee’s comments belittled student protesters.

“In a sense, administrators closely resemble the role of parents while students closely resemble the role of children,” Lee said.

UCR is not alone. UCLA, UC Berkeley and other UC campuses have similar policies in place barring students from disrupting the day-to-day affairs of their respective campuses. While one UC Davis fact sheet on protests refers to such activity as “the lifeblood of a successful university community,” the strict enforcement of UC policies has made it clear that business-as-usual comes first.

UC students are not children. They are old enough to choose to bury themselves in student loan debt, and they are old enough to express their opinions without hand-holding guidelines. In fact, there is one childhood lesson administrators themselves could stand to learn: Treat others as you wish to be treated. In the future, administrators should show students the same respect they demand of us.

UC President Mark Yudof recently announced the UC’s plan to ban the use of tobacco products on all 10 UC campuses over the next two years, and although we recognize the obvious benefits of such a decision, it is ultimately neither feasible nor fair.

The second part of Yudof’s plan — to also ban the sale and advertisement of tobacco products on campus — deserves praise and should be enacted. UC Santa Cruz already implements this policy, as do several other UC campuses, and it makes sense that the university actively discourages students from smoking. But trying to prevent legal adults from using legal substances is going too far.

It would be a wonderful thing if everyone chose not to smoke on campus. The Santa Cruz air would be even more crisp, health risks would go down, and cigarette butts wouldn’t litter the forest and sidewalks. But we don’t live in an ideal world, and the fact is that for the foreseeable future, some portion of the student body and faculty are going to smoke cigarettes. To assume that they will not smoke on campus — where they’re not only attending classes, but also socializing, working out, eating and often living — is a bit too hopeful. Making this a reality would be especially difficult in Santa Cruz, where the terrain makes it impossible to simply step off campus for a quick smoke in between classes.

To gauge the potential efficacy of a smoking ban on campus, just take a moment to consider how often people engage in using other illicit substances on campus and aren’t caught. Would banning cigarettes really make people stop using them — or would it only cause them to light up inside a dorm room or bathroom, where it would be more hazardous?

A better strategy the university could use would be to better mark and regulate smoking and no-smoking zones on campus. They exist now, but few consequences meet those who bend the rules beyond being told to put out the cigarette. Since TAPS has recently beefed up its parking surveillance, perhaps tickets could also be given for those who don’t comply with smoking rules. Under Assembly Bill 795, signed by by Gov. Brown in November 2011, the UC has the right to to enforce state, local and system-wide smoking and tobacco laws, regulations and policies by issuing fines. Enforcing regulations would achieve the same goal of cutting down the risk of secondhand smoke, but in a more cooperative way.

College students are notorious for two things — experimenting and bending the rules. As the Los Angeles Times pointed out, binge drinking is still a huge problem on college campuses. Only 8 percent of UC students smoke cigarettes, but some studies cite as many as half of all college students as binge drinkers. Keeping that in mind, perhaps it would be best for Yudof to more wisely pick his battles.

Illustration by Louise Leong.

The largest representative of UC Santa Cruz employees announced the ratification of a new labor contract on Oct. 11 after successful negotiations with the university.

The labor representative, American Federation of County, State, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 3299, represents dining hall employees, patient care providers, maintenance staff and custodians.

AFSCME service workers and patient care members supported the ratification of the new labor contract overwhelmingly, with some reports indicating a voter approval rating of 98 percent in the two regional union units.

Julian Posadas, AFSCME executive vice president, was happy with the ratification of the new union contract, which secured an increase that was left on the negotiating table in 2008.

“The union is reasonable and not demanding exaggerated increases,” Posadas said. “We are certainly only asking for wages that will keep workers out of poverty.”

The ratification of this contract will provide union members with retroactive pay raises and greater retirement benefits.

The new contract resolves the running dispute between AFSCME and the UC. The breakdown of discussion last year contributed to a series of university-wide protests by employees.

With the passage of the new contract, future peaceful labor negotiation between the UC and campus unions such as AFSCME appears feasible. In recent months numerous contract negotiations have reached amicable conclusions.

Ernesto Encinas, a chef at Merrill College Dining Hall, has been a member of AFSCME since 2003, and was pleased by the recent union victory.

“The pressure worked,” he said. “The UC got smart and finally said, ‘Let’s make a deal.’”

Encinas, who works to support his teenage daughter and cares for his aging mother, praised the recent union victory.

The new contract will provide care workers with a 3 percent pay increase retroactive to Jan. 1, 2011, and another 3 percent over 2012. Similarly, employees working in the service sector will receive a 3 percent increase retroactive to Oct. 1, 2011 and another 3 percent in 2012.

“Since I became involved with AFSCME Local 3299 in 2003, the quality of my life and family’s life has improved,” Encinas said.

Bill Pool, a campus maintenance worker and AFSCME union member, felt the negotiations between the UC and the union could have been handled in a more transparent manner.

“They just kind of popped it on us, saying, ‘This is what you’re going to get,’” said Pool in regard to the 3 percent pay increase. Pool went on to say the raise was better than nothing.

“The university is having a hard time and everyone knows that,” he said.

Encinas attributed part of the victory to pressure put on the UC by union locals, state legislatures and the strong voice of both workers and students.

“At first they didn’t want to give us anything — they were playing hardball,” Encinas said in regard to previous negotiations between AFSCME and the UC.

The patient care workers’ contract will expire in September 2012, followed by the expiration of the service workers’ labor contract in 2013. AFSCME executive vice president Posadas is confident future contract negotiations will run more smoothly as the UC now not only has to contend with overwhelming member support, but also the political power dynamic the union successfully established in Sacramento.

The ratification of the new contract has many feeling optimistic about the capacity of AFSCME.

“We have always moved forward since I joined,” Encinas said.

Illustration by Louise Leong.

Updated 5/19/2011 at 1:25am

Gov. Jerry Brown unveiled his latest budget proposal on Monday. Lawmakers have until June 15 to approve a budget.

Brown’s May revision includes a $500 million cut to the UC ­— the same amount that was slated in his January budget.

“There is value to come out of predictability,” said UC Santa Cruz executive vice chancellor Alison Galloway in a budget conversation with students held on Wednesday on Brown’s effort to balance the state budget. “If this change brings some predictability, that would be an immense load off our minds.”

Brown proposed a budget of $88.8 billion. In addition, a surprise $6.6 billion in revenue is expected to come in over the next year. Increased revenue and already-enacted spending cuts have also reduced the projected size of the state deficit to $9.6 billion.

His new plan still calls for an extension of taxes — projected to raise $9.3 billion — which are set to expire in July, and couples this extension with a $2.6 billion cut in spending. The taxes themselves are sales taxes and vehicle license taxes that would get a five-year extension. Additionally, a four-year extension on personal income taxes would go into effect in 2012 if Brown’s proposal goes through.

For the tax extensions to pass, they must first be approved by the state legislature, and then passed by state voters.

An all-cuts budget may still occur, which Brown warns, will hit public education especially hard — his plan asserts cuts in state funding to the UC in this case would be doubled to $1 billion.

Based on the governor’s May revise, UCSC is planning to cope with the $500 million cut. Vice chancellor of planning and budget Peggy Delaney said during the conversation with Galloway and students that absorbing this magnitude will be “deep and devastating to every aspect of this institution.”

Galloway said coping with a $1 billion cut would be unsustainable for the university.

UC president Mark Yudof’s statement released Monday in response to Brown’s plan echoed this sentiment. He said an all-cuts budget would be “unconscionable — to the university, its students and families, and to the state that it has served for nearly a century and a half.”

Yudof and Galloway have acknowledged that reductions in state funding from an all-cuts budget would likely result in further tuition hikes.

Contrary to what some expected, Brown’s proposed budget is a mix of extended taxes and some cuts — not nearly as draconian as some feared. The current proposed budget adds $3 billion to what Brown originally proposed spending on education, though this is still $4 billion below 2007–2008 levels.

In an April Q&A, Chancellor George Blumenthal and executive vice chancellor Alison Galloway commented on what they feel certain cuts would do to the UC system, and UCSC in particular.

“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,” said Blumenthal of the possibility of the UC system suffering a $1 billion hit.

Galloway also made it clear that the administration was taking the possibility of massive cuts seriously.

“Just right now, we have policies in all the principal offices with what they think they’re going to cut,” Galloway said, “and what we’re doing right now is cross-reading those, so that no unit finds that a service upon which it depended is gone, or that they have been landed with expenses that they didn’t anticipate.”

A statement made by Brown on April 5 of this year, that “the university is an engine of wealth creation,” mirrors Blumenthal’s opinion of the role of the UC system, but Blumenthal has his doubts about the foresight of California legislators.

“I believe it’s true that for every dollar invested in UC, in the long run [it] repays that investment many times over,” he said. “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 shortsighted.”

Governor Brown’s revised proposal can be read in its entirety at http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/

For UC President Mark Yudof’s full statement on the proposed budget, go to http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/25564

Updated 5/18/2011 at 11:34pm

Nestled on the outskirts of Seattle in the middle of an industrial center, along an unimpressive stretch of road, sits a cedar longhouse. If you didn’t know about it and if you don’t notice the panels of wood that peek through the trees, you may not even see it. It’s out of place among the yards of metal and lumber, but behind a set of double doors, a culture relegated to the “unidentifiable” thrives.

Rumbling inside this simple structure, traditions persist in defiance of a tumultuous history. Feet patter against wooden floors as the sounds of drums and throaty voices ricochet off the walls of the large, windowless ceremonial hall. Some afternoons, the smell of cooking oil and dough comes from a nearby kitchen, laughter and rowdy conversation flooding in along with it.

Leading into a main room, black and white photographs hang on white walls and hand-woven baskets and traditional jewelry sit on display — available for purchase, of course. But the proceeds will not be going to line some tribal chair’s pockets. Instead, the money will go to the legal fees the tribe must pay in order to apply for federal recognition.

Federal recognition fosters a “government-to-government relationship” between American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and the U.S. federal government. Currently, there are 565 federally recognized tribes throughout the United States and approximately 1.9 million registered tribal members, according to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Less than half of self-identified American Indians are registered with a federally recognized tribe, according to the BIA’s 2005 American Indian Population and Labor report.

As of now there are only three ways a tribe can receive federal recognition: by an act of Congress, by a decision of the federal court system, or by proving a tribe can meet the requirements of the Federal Acknowledgment Process regulations 25 CFR Part 83.

The 25 CFR Part 83 regulation has seven specific details a tribe must meet in order to gain federal recognition — most pointedly, proof of continuity in existence and continued “political influence or authority over its members.”

A notoriously expensive legal procedure, raising funds to cover the costs of lawyers, researchers and academics working on a tribe’s recognition case is half the battle. And it’s a battle the Duwamish tribe has been fighting since 2001 after federal recognition was rescinded by the BIA when it was decided that the tribe had not shown historical continuity — a point of contention for those involved. Currently, the Duwamish tribe is working to appeal the previous decision.

In their defense, the Duwamish look to the Point Elliott Treaty of 1855, which details the rights and reservation the tribe was entitled to in exchange for land the city of Seattle now sits on. The treaty was never fulfilled by the government.

But the story of the Duwamish is nothing new. Tribes throughout the country have struggled to maintain and prove their existence — and continued survival — in order to obtain federal recognition.

There is one anomaly in the case of the Duwamish: They have a central meeting place, a cultural center where they can carry out endangered traditions. The Duwamish tribe raised funds and purchased land in order to build the longhouse that has become central to the community.

But recognition issues are more than casinos and land, bigger than flashing lights and rolls of cash. Federally unrecognized tribes do not have access to the same economic or educational benefits federally recognized tribes do, they do not have the same authority over their cultural artifacts or land, nor do they hold the same political weight.

They are tiny fish among small fish in an even smaller pond.

Arguing Against Academics

In December of last year, President Barack Obama backed the United Nations’ Declaration on Indigenous Rights and spoke on his support of Native Americans at the Tribal Conference held in Washington, D.C. The Declaration was an official recognition of Indigenous sovereignty, and prior to December 2010 the U.S. government had not officially supported it, according to a Reuters article.

But while the president’s willingness to open up a constructive dialogue with Native people is a step in the right direction, American Indians are still faced with high rates of poverty, crime, illness and suicide.

“They made a big show of it and that was beautiful, and yes, there were a hundred tribes there meeting at the White House but not one of them was a federally unrecognized tribe,” Valentin “Val” Lopez, the Amah Mutsun tribal chair, said. “And the unrecognized tribe has never been reached out to by the government.”

In Santa Cruz, the Amah Mutsun — a sub-group of the band of Ohlone people native to the region — are federally unrecognized. Less than an hour away, in San Jose, the Muwekma Ohlone tribe — like its sister tribe, Amah Mutsun, and Duwamish in Washington State — is embroiled in a struggle to receive federal recognition. The Muwekma Ohlone and the Amah Mutsun are subgroups of the Costanoan band of Indians. The Costanoan is a collection of tribes within the cenral coast.

Lopez explained the tribal history that led up to the Amah Mutsun’s current situation and their fight for federal recognition.

The relationship that existed between Catholic missionaries and the Amah Mutsun was misrepresented in a survey of California Native Americans carried out in the early 20th century, Lopez said. The Amah Mutsun were considered absolved as a separate group and absorbed into the growing Latino population. Lopez asserts that historical documents from the Catholic Church as well as previous government censuses challenge the survey.

“It’s a goddamn lie,” Lopez said, his voice quivering with rising frustration. “Our people have suffered greatly because of that.”

What stands between the Amah Mutsun and federal recognition now is a lack of money and tribal politics that pit recognized and unrecognized tribes against one another.

“We’re just second-class Natives,” Lopez said. “There’s that psychological impact: You’re not Indian, because you’re not recognized, and that’s how many communities look at us.”

UC Santa Cruz associate professor of American studies Renya Ramirez said that unrecognized tribes may be faced with individuals who do not believe they truly are American Indians.

“Unfortunately, within Native communities, there is an idea of a ‘real Indian,”’ Ramirez said. “It’s ironic that being recognized by the federal government affects the way people see Natives.”

Lopez said that it was “unfortunate” that the government separated recognized and unrecognized tribes, and that this categorization is detrimental to all Native communities.

Due to their lack of recognition, tribes are denied programs that federally recognized tribes would benefit from. This includes money for higher education, healthcare services, childcare services and cultural restoration and continuance. In addition, tribes like the Amah Mutsun do not have cultural centers or meeting places where tribal members can gather as a community.

Lopez said that without access to resources it becomes difficult to keep Native communities together as a result of financial instability and a lack of opportunity.

Federally recognized tribes have access to job training, social services, natural resources management and housing projects, among other social, educational and economic development programs. Tribes without federal recognition do not, and must provide for their communities without assistance.

“We had a guarantee from the government of tribal sovereignty regarding our religious practices, regarding the way we live,” Lopez said. “Without federal recognition, we have none of that. And that to us is a total injustice.”

Illustration by Rachel Edelstein.

But what is in place now — and the tribes that are left chronicling their histories and proving their legitimacy — is the result of past government and academic practices.

Alan Leventhal, an anthropologist from San Jose State University, explains that Alfred L. Kroeber’s “Handbook of the Indians of California,” published in 1925, determined that the Ohlone people, “for all practical purposes, were extinct.” Kroeber was a father of modern anthropology and reputed professor at UC Berkeley, and his work, Leventhal said, has contributed to the misrepresentation of Ohlone people and their history.

When Leventhal was introduced to Rosemary Cambra 30 years ago, the tribal chairwoman of the Muwekma Ohlone, he said he was unfamiliar with California Indians and sought out Kroeber’s text.

“[Rosemary and I] went to the library and I pulled out Kroeber’s book and said, ‘The Costanoan group is extinct for all practical purposes. You must be from some other tribe.’ And she looked at me and said she begged to differ with me and Dr. Kroeber,” Leventhal said. “I was at an impasse. I could have said, ‘I don’t have time for this. Kroeber said you were extinct.’ Or I could apply my research techniques and try and obtain a database that would help the tribe.”

In his research and as he met members of the Ohlone tribe, Leventhal said he began to see the overlap in the stories of the Native community and documents gathered by linguists and anthropologists. The stories of the Muwekma were corroborated with the work of past academics.

Kroeber later retracted his claim that the Costanoan band of Indians was extinct, Leventhal said.

Leventhal further explains that in addition to Kroeber’s errors, Lafayette Dorrington, a Sacramento Superintendent, in 1927 argued against tribal nations’ need for land and, ultimately, federal recognition and assistance.

“Dorrington terminated 135 tribes with a strike of a pen,” Leventhal said. “Some of these things don’t show up in the history books.”

Leventhal said that there is a disconnect between popular perception of Natives and interest in indigenous affairs.

“If Indians do not talk about walking in harmony with Mother Earth, then dominant society decides they don’t want to recognize these people,” Leventhal said. “If they don’t make necklaces, if they don’t wear feathers, if they don’t dance, then [it’s perceived] that they’re not real Indians

Amy Lonetree, associate professor of American studies at UCSC, said that present-day American Indian issues are the residual effects of a history of intolerance.

“For many of these communities, why they are not recognized is because of ongoing colonialism,” Lonetree said. “The great irony is that Native Americans were told there was no place for them as indigenous people, yet everything about who they were as tribal people was being taken from them by scholars and budding anthropologists and hoarded.”

Lonetree describes the Pacific Northwestern Tribal Canoe Journey — in which federally unrecognized tribes like Duwamish, Snohomish and Chinook Nations participate — as an example of reclamation of identity and a way for Native communities to band together in spite of political factions.

“The U.S. government may have their criteria for who is Native, but we know who our native relatives are,” Lonetree said. “And they are indigenous and we recognize that, and we honor that.”

Michael Evans, the Snohomish tribal chair and a proponent of cultural education, has worked with youth from the Duwamish and Snohomish tribes promoting canoe culture as a way to overlook tribal lines.

“The canoe culture … brings people together and starts to unify the community, and that’s what’s really needed,” Evans said. “There are lot of little tribes, but they’re so fractured that they haven’t banded together enough to push some big legislation.”

For people like Lonetree and Evans, the continuation of Native culture in defiance of whether a tribe is recognized or unrecognized is a sign of resilience.

“I feel strongly that culture and self-identity need to be perpetuated, and even though we are not federally recognized, we can still be Natives and First People,” Evans said. “And that needs to be preserved. There is a lot of cultural heritage, self-pride.”

Anthropologist Jon Daehnke has worked extensively with the Chinook nation and is familiar with the difficulties that tribes face when they no longer have a political voice.

Daehnke said he has heard from members of the Chinook nation that they are faced with an internal, emotional conflict.

“We were told we shouldn’t be Indian, but now the government is telling us we aren’t Indian,” Daehnke recalls being told by one member of the Chinook nation.

“This isn’t just about casinos, it isn’t about funding, it’s about identity,” Daehnke continued. “All of these legacies of colonialism don’t stop. It’s not settled. These legacies are still there, and they have real effects on people’s everyday lives.”

Lopez has seen the emotional effects a lack of federal recognition has had on his own family, and the issue is much deeper than money or land rights.

“One of my goals was to get us recognized before [my mother] passed. I failed to do that. She was born a recognized Indian and died an unrecognized Indian, and that right there is really painful,” Lopez said. “There’s a hell of a lot of historic trauma when you cannot have self-esteem, honor and respect for being an Indian.”

The Politics of Ownership

Illustration by Rachel Edelstein.

The fight for recognition comes hand in hand with a fight for claim over ancestral remains and funerary objects.

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), passed in 1990, requires that all institutions that receive federal funding — including museums and universities — catalogue the human remains and specified cultural objects that have been excavated and collected. The institution housing the remains is required to consult with Native American tribes, and if the tribe files a request for the return of the remains and cultural artifacts, the institution must comply.

For federally unrecognized tribes, however, NAGPRA falls short. Under the law, publicly funded institutions are not required legally to return any remains or artifacts to a federally unrecognized tribe.

Federally unrecognized tribes are left relying on the goodwill of universities and museums that can voluntarily return objects and consult Native tribes. While the UC system currently consults Native American tribes on NAGPRA compliance issues, the relationship between the UC and federally unrecognized tribes is ambiguous.

Archaeologist and UCSC professor Judith Habicht-Mauche serves on behalf of UCSC as an advisor on NAGPRA to the UC Office of the President (UCOP), but refused to speak specifically on work the board handles. Only UCs in possession of artifacts that fall under NAGPRA law serve on the board.

“For security reasons, I don’t want to speak about the physical remains we possess,” Habicht-Mauche said.

Habicht-Mauche did confirm that UCSC was in possession of ancestral remains and artifacts. She did not detail where they were stored, what they specifically were, or how many remains the university was in possession of. However, under NAGPRA, the inventories documenting the artifacts in question are published.

As far as Habicht-Mauche knows from her work with the NAGPRA advisory group, a federally unrecognized tribe has not received remains or artifacts from the UC. However, with recent changes to NAGPRA, federally unrecognized tribes may stand a better chance at obtaining ancestral remains and funerary objects.

“The new rules have loosened requirements to some degree, but even under the new law, NAGPRA does not favor federally unrecognized tribes,” Habicht-Mauche said.

Even though the university refuses to speak in detail on items falling under NAGPRA, that does not satisfy tribes that do not have the right to rebury the remains of their ancestors now relegated to museum and university research facilities.

“The problem that the Amah Mutsun has is with any destructive testing done to the bodies, because it’s against our religious beliefs,” Lopez said. “We still have our strong religious beliefs and the spirit can only pass to the other side when it is whole and complete. Whenever you do destructive testing … that means in the end that spirit can never be at peace.”

Lopez also said that the university was “not as open and transparent” as it could be.

Daehnke explains that when contextualizing the issue of repatriation, the moral dilemma becomes apparent.

“The ability of cultures to make decisions about their deceased ancestors, that’s a pretty basic human right,” Daehnke said. “There’s roughly 80 percent of the known sets of human remains are still on museum shelves.”

Education as an Antidote

Tribal issues and the topics pertinent to indigenous communities do not often make the headlines. Recognition issues and repatriation concerns are not necessarily high-profile, and often fall under the radar of those unaffiliated with Native groups.

But amongst American Indian students, organizations and faculty at UCSC, there is a hunger for awareness. It is a swirling torrent, picking up speed and growing in size, that not only wants to see diversity in education, but also the inclusion of an American Indian and indigenous studies program.

Rebeca Figueroa, a participant in the UC Inner-campus Visitor Program, is a second-year anthropology and Native American studies major from UC Davis. Her last two quarters at UCSC have brought her to the American Indian Resource Center (AIRC), where she has collaborated with director Carolyn Dunn to bring a Native American studies program to the school.

“Even though I identify as a Chicana, a lot of the issues we discuss within [Native American studies] relate to me,” Figueroa said. “We understand the issues that Native people are still fighting today, so I felt really close to that. Everyone has a different story, but there is always common ground.”

Currently, Figueroa is seeking outside funding for an American Indian studies program, and hopes to model the program’s evolution after the Jewish studies program. She argues that the importance of Native American studies is because of the bridge between past and present, and how it has shaped indigenous communities today.

“We have to know that these people are still here, that it’s nothing of the past,” Figueroa said. “You go to a reservation and they still don’t have running water, and then you come here and all these people have the luxury that they’re lacking. Why are we here enjoying ourselves when there are people who were here before us that don’t have those rights?”

Figueroa also addressed the issue of federally unrecognized tribes and understanding the status of Native Americans as a topic in need of discussion.

“No one should have the power to say you’re not indigenous enough,” Figueroa said.

Dunn, the director of the AIRC, said that indigenous studies would be the first step to addressing issues relevant to American Indian individuals, but it would also initiate cross-disciplinary conversations.

“With environmental studies, there is indigenous knowledge that has direct scientific exploration or explanation that we could be looking at,” Dunn said. “Looking at indigenous studies or American Indian studies, it’s a very holistic way, and it can cross boundaries into other academic disciplines.”

Indigenous studies is, for students like Figueroa, the next step in addressing the need for greater conversation on American Indian concerns, as well as increasing the presence of Native culture and knowledge on the campus.

“I find it interesting how [UCSC] claims to be very diverse, but it’s not very diverse at all,” Figueroa said. “The conference rooms are named after [indigenous people], and it’s funny that we can name things after people but you don’t see them here.”

But even while indigenous studies may be the first step to changing the perception and situation of American Indians, for now, federally unrecognized communities exist in political limbo.

“It’s recognition that your ancestors went through these struggles and in spite of that they’re still here, we’re still here,” said Mike Evans, tribal chair of the Snohomish and a cultural mentor to many Duwamish youth. “It’s about your history and having others recognize your history, your culture. It’s something you hold dearly, and I’d hate to see that go away.”

Illustration by Muriel Gordon.

Native Americans have a long history of oppression in this country. Their land was taken, their people murdered and their sacred sites corrupted, all for the sake of building the United States. A new form of this old oppression is still happening, and the University of California is playing a role.

In this issue’s feature story, “Forgotten but not Gone,” it is confirmed that the University of California, and UC Santa Cruz in particular, is in possession of Native American artifacts and burial remains. The question of where and what those remains are is left unanswered.

Keeping Native American remains is problematic for a number of reasons. It means that graves were disrupted to obtain these remains, which is disrespectful to any culture. And to make matters worse, many Native American tribes believe that disruption of burial sites can cause spiritual trouble.

Awful as this may be, it is technically legal. According to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the government and institutions that receive government funding cannot be in possession of Native American cultural items. However, this legislation only applies to federally recognized tribes — and not all tribes have government recognition.

Tribes that aren’t federally recognized generally are on the smaller side and more difficult to document. But this shouldn’t mean that they don’t receive the same rights and respect as federally recognized tribes. For the UC, or any other institution, to hold onto these remains just because of a legal loophole is tasteless and inconsiderate.

The fact that information about what exactly we are in possession of is difficult to find makes this even more abhorrent, as people have a right to know what cultural crimes the UC is a part of. Schools have to release information about what they have under NAGPRA, but UCSC’s information is extremely difficult for the public to find. Even UC Berkeley’s Phoebe A. Hearst Museum has a sidebar on its website with links to the NAGPRA inventory database; UCSC only has a compliance statement on their Office of Research website.

There’s no doubt that some would argue that the Native American remains are being used for research purposes and thus are needed. But no research is worth inflicting even more pain on a group of people who have already suffered at the hands of the U.S. government so much.

And what’s more, retaining these remains actually interferes with the UC’s main goal. It is supposed to serve as a way to educate all California students who meet certain academic standards, but it is doubtful that Native American students would feel completely comfortable supporting an institution that exploits their people. There is constant talk of the UC needing to become more diverse, but this is one negative example of actions speaking louder than words.

Stanford University gave back Native American remains, including some from federally unrecognized tribes, in the 1980s. It’s time the University of California did the same.

It may be legal for the UC to hold on to federally unrecognized Native American tribes’ remains, but it certainly is not just. They should be given back to their rightful owners, and the cloud of mystery surrounding what exactly the UC has should be dispersed.

Illustration by Rachel Edelstein.

“Double tuition.”

This looming threat, though a speculative comment made by Gov. Jerry Brown in a speech last week, becomes more and more of a potential reality for UC students and Californians with each day that passes and an all-cuts budget remains the likely option for Brown to sign off on.

Brown just traveled to Riverside to rally Californians into pressuring four state legislature Republicans to allow tax extensions to be on a June ballot, and thus allow Californians to vote on the matter. If the extensions do not make it on the ballot, or if Californians do not vote for them, the extensions will expire and the UC will likely face a $1 billion cut to its operating budget.

Such a cut, Brown speculated, would mean that students in the UC may see a twofold rise in their tuition. Brown also mentioned campus closures as a potential way of coping, if the tax extensions are not enacted.

The behavior of the Republicans in the legislature is abhorrent. They are not doing their job, which is to let the people of California vote.

The fact that doubled tuition is even a possibility for the UC system is absurd. Such a move would have devastating impacts. It is understandable that cuts need to be made to every facet of the state — and as hard as it is to face, even to the UC system — but to make this kind of cut would be detrimental and extremely shortsighted. Cutting $1 billion from the UC would not be just a cut. It would be the elimination of the public institution.

For students in the UC system and families supporting their children in the system, this would not be an issue of needing to save more, work more or taking out more loans — it would force many students to drop out. If enacted, students in the UC system would be trapped into paying private school tuition, despite the fact that they enrolled at a public institution.

Brown’s statement that closing some campuses would be another possible solution is also shortsighted, for a number of reasons. Closing down any UC campus would make entrance into the UC system that much more difficult, flooding more students into state universities and community colleges — schools that are also receiving immense cuts. This would not be a solution to anything.­­­ It would be deflection, moving the problem to another part of the state’s budget.

Furthermore, any closure of a UC campus would mean thousands of employees without jobs. A closure to universities of that size would overwhelm the state with more unemployment.

Either move — closure of some UC campuses or doubling tuition — violates the objectives that this beautiful system was founded on: affordability, accessibility and the advancement of knowledge. While each of these facets of the UC have been jeopardized in the past few years as dramatic raises in student fees and tuition, increases in class sizes, and the reduction in number of teaching assistants have been implemented, these two moves would be a complete affront to the more than century-old system.

There has been a disillusionment with placing blame for the absurd climbs in student fees, for the forced furloughs, for the laying off of numerous employees, for the increased class sizes and the decreased accessibility, but blaming will not be a means for saving the UC. We all need to rally the state into providing more funding for higher education and to push the Republicans to let Californians vote. After all, it is our system.

We cannot keep blaming just Yudof, UCOP and the chancellors and looking within the UC for a solution — the fact remains that the state has all but stopped investing in higher education. The solution cannot be found in parading to chancellors’ and vice chancellors’ homes and blaming just the higher-ups in the UC system. The solution must be found in all of us: in our parents, our neighbors, our family friends, in Californians. The disillusionment must end. Everyone contributes to this system, and if we want to save it, we all must take part in that. We must join forces rather than splinter.

If this system is going to be saved, all Californians need to rekindle their sense of ownership and pride for the system that once had international prestige — the UC is all of ours, and Californians need to remember that.

Like one editor’s grandmother said to her husband when she first saw the library at UCSC, “This is ours, we support this, and can you believe that?”

That is the attitude that will save the UC.

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.

The event was organized by Rajesh Srinivasan, editor-in-chief of UC Berkeley’s newspaper and Farzad Mashhood, editor in chief of UCLA’s newspaper.

“In light of the $500 million reduction [proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown], it’s an especially good time to talk with Yudof,” Srinivasan said.

Srinivasan plans to ask Yudof about his housing.

Lawrence Pitts, interim provost and executive vice president for academic affairs of the UC system, and Nathan Brostrom, UC executive vice president for business operation, will also be interviewed.

After the latest UC fee hike in November, Srinivasan and Mashhood asked Yudof for an interview.

Yudof suggested the date, Srinivasan said.

“It was his idea that this would be a good time to flesh out the issue,” Srinivasan said.

Reporters from participating UC newspapers will have a chance to lead the discussion. Srinivasan said he looks forward to this opportunity.

“Any time you can get a chance to interview three of the top officials in the university, it’s a great opportunity for student newspapers,” Srinivasan said.

Photo courtesy of Tom Pazo.

Story updated 3/3/2011 at 7:30pm

Fourth-year Tom Pazo recently received a public records document he requested of the university about seven months ago. The returned request consists of two pages: an invoice and official record of purchase that detail $6,000 spent by UCSC to contract private investigator Scott H. Newby to photo and video document a student demonstration on May 18 and 19 last year.

According to the invoice, UCSC contracted Newby for 24 hours at $100 per hour. His services included post-production and transportation fees from San Jose to Santa Cruz. The “demonstration” on May 18 and 19 to which the invoice refers was a UCSC Strike Committee-led event entitled “Walk Out to Your Education.”

The Strike Committee is an open collective of undergraduates, graduate students, workers and professors who volunteer and organize in the defense of public education. The event was organized as an alternative way to educate the campus about the unstable budget situation.

“It was basically a really mellow, just student-teaching demonstration, attended in total throughout the day by about no more than 150 students at any given time,” said Pazo, who attended the event last May. “It was met by heavy, heavy police presence … A complete police barricade, a line of officers blocking the road, sheriffs on ATVs, trucks, four-wheelers, all sorts of things. And they were also photographing students.”

At the May 18 and 19 event, Pazo noticed an unidentifiable man with a telescopic lens camera snapping photographs of event participants from behind car doors and trees. When Pazo and Spanish lecturer Maria Morris, who was also present at the event, walked up to the unidentified photographer, he was reluctant to tell them why he was there and who he worked for, Pazo said. The only information Pazo received was the man’s name, Scott Newby. Pazo had a hunch that UCSC had contracted the man, so he decided to request a public record of the transaction.

Newby did not respond to phone calls and e-mails requesting an interview.

Pazo also noticed police vans from UC Santa Barbara and UC Berkeley present at the event.

His public record request inquired about UCSC’s authorization of out-of-department police from other campuses on May 18 and 19.

A portion of Pazo’s public records request, including the invoice and receipt of purchase of Newby’s services, was returned Feb. 15. The rest of his request has not yet been unfulfilled.

The heavy police presence was expected on May 18, as it coincided with the Amgen Tour de California bicycle race, but organizers and faculty say the continued police presence on May 19, and the presence of an outsourced photographer, was unwarranted.

Photo courtesy of Tom Pazo.

Safety vs. Profiling

Students and faculty expressed concerns that photographs taken at organized events such as May 18 and 19 walk-out and teach-out would be used to profile and possibly reprimand students.

Morris, a Spanish language lecturer, has taught at UCSC since 1989. Morris held class at the May 18 and 19 event to express her solidarity, and spoke with Scott Newby at the event alongside Pazo about his presence and purpose in photographing students present.

“I was real upset that [Newby] was hiding behind a tree across the street taking pictures of my class,” Morris said. “I was pissed … because I wouldn’t expose students to any danger. I’m there to support them … Some of them were quite upset [that their picture was being taken].”

Director of university relations Jim Burns said in an e-mail that photographs such as the ones taken by Newby are not used to profile students.

“Rather, they are taken in the event that there is activity that violates university policies or regulations and/or the law,” Burns said in the e-mail.

Leo Ritz-Barr is an undergraduate at UCSC and organizer with the Strike Committee. Last year he was cited with seven violations and assigned 40 hours of community service following the November 2009 occupation of the Kerr Hall administrative building. At the Kerr Hall protest, many students, including Ritz-Barr, were retrospectively identified and cited with violations based on photographs taken at the event.

Ever since the Kerr Hall occupation drew attention to Ritz-Barr, campus police officers greet him by first name whenever they see him on campus, Ritz-Barr said.

“The cops call me Leonard,” Ritz-Barr said. “Nobody calls me Leonard. My parents don’t call me Leonard, no teachers call me Leonard. Only administrators who don’t know who I am, or only know me through cameras and pictures of my photo ID, call me Leonard … It’s scary as fuck.”

Pazo said that on May 18 he experienced a similar example of what he called UCSC “police intimidation tactics.”

He said Augie Zigon, police captain of the UCSC Police Department, approached him at the event.

“He asked me, ‘Are you Tom Pazo?’ and I was kind of taken aback, like, ‘Who wants to know?’” Pazo said. “He was asking if I was an organizer, asking what was going to happen during the day.”

Pazo attended the event as a participant, but was not an organizer.

The UCSC Police Department did not respond to interview requests.

Ritz-Barr said it was fiscally irresponsible of the administration to hire Newby to photograph students.

He said Adam Snook, coordinator for the Colleges and University Housing Service’s Community Safety Program and the Emergency Preparedness Program, could have provided the same services.

Snook worked for 15 years, “in the private sector as a private investigator and corporate safety and security professional,” according to his profile on the UCSC website.

“Snook already stalks protesters at all events, and takes photos of us,” Ritz-Barr said. “[So does] Augie Zigon, the head of UCPD up here. Why couldn’t Snook have pulled out one of his nice little cameras from when he was a private investigator? Did we really need to outsource labor that we could have done in house?”

Snook declined to comment. He said in an e-mail that he would be on vacation for several days and that the matter was “outside of [his] realm of expertise.”

Zigon did not respond to an e-mail request for an interview.

Jim Burns, director of university relations at UCSC, said the UCSC Police Department hired Newby as part of planning for what was originally billed as a “three-day shutdown” of the campus.

“[Newby] was hired as a videographer/photographer,” Burns said in the e-mail. “He was not hired as a private investigator. This decision was based on legitimate law-enforcement concerns.”

Organizers of the May 18 and 19 event said they informed the administration ahead of time of their plans for the event.

“The administration was made aware with several e-mails that May 18 and 19 was not planned as a hard strike,” Pazo said.

Burns said photographs taken at events like May 18 and 19 are attached to a case file documenting an event.

“In the absence of the suspicion of criminal activity, the photos are purged after one year,” Burns said in the e-mail.

Allocation of Funds

Because of California’s budget crisis, in the past couple of years the UC system has seen fee hikes, faculty and staff layoffs, and educational cuts to programs including entire majors. Gov. Jerry Brown proposed in January a $500 million reduction of UC funds.

Literature graduate student and teaching assistant Brian Malone compared the university’s spending of $6,000 to what it could pay for at UCSC.

“Six thousand dollars — that’s more than members of my unit, the [teaching assistant] union, get paid to TA for a quarter,” Malone said.

Six thousand dollars is the amount necessary to fund most UCSC lecture courses for one quarter.

Burns said the university’s spending on a photographer for this event was necessary.

“It made sense to contract for such services for several reasons,” Burns said in an e-mail. “The university police department does not have the expertise to provide such services. Using a police officer to provide such services prevents the officer from fulfilling his or her law-enforcement duties, and if such documentation ultimately was needed, it made sense to contract with someone who had professional experience in that area.”

Malone said the photographer’s presence was a show of force to intimidate students.

“The issue wasn’t just this photographer, this outsider — although he was belligerent — but it was also the huge UC police presence,” Malone said. “It’s one thing to talk about $6,000 spent on this outside photographer — they must have spent tens of thousands of dollars on importing UC police from other campuses and putting them all out there.”

Pazo said the public records he received demonstrate a larger issue regarding UCSC’s attitude towards and allocation of funds.

“What this says is it’s a complete joke and lie to say that there’s not enough money or funding,” Pazo said.

Public Record Release

In a recent study, the group Californians Aware evaluated all UCs and CSUs for their compliance with public records requests. With 40 points out of 100, UCSC received a failing grade.

Pazo made his original public records request last year on July 28. Seven months later, he received the main portion of the documents he requested.

An agency must determine within 10 days whether to comply with the request and must inform the requester of its decision at that time, according to the California Public Records Act.

“If possible, records deemed subject to disclosure should be provided at the time the determination is made,” according to the attorney general’s official summary of the Public Records Act. “If immediate disclosure is not possible, the agency must provide the records within a reasonable period of time, along with an estimate of the date that the records will be available.”

The request was formally acknowledged on August 6, in compliance with the law, Jim Burns said in an e-mail.

Pazo said the seven-month response time is unacceptable for a public institution.

“It’s still a very slow response,” Pazo said. “That calls into question [the administration’s] prioritizing of public records request. I think it took longer than it should, whether or not it was in compliance with the law.”

Pazo did not receive responses for up to two weeks in between each e-mail.

“I did follow the proper procedure,” Pazo said. “[Specificity] is sometimes maybe a problem for some public records requests, but I asked for very specific things. I asked for receipt of purchase, purchase order regarding the hiring of a private investigator by the name of Scott Newby on May 18 and 19, 2010. Very specific. These things do take time, but there’s really no excuse … And this is just a drop in the bucket of all [UCSC’s] lack of accountability.”

Demanding Accountability

A portion of Pazo’s public records request is still not fulfilled.

The unsatisfied portion asks for a “record for the authorization of out of department police from other UC campuses on May 18 and 19, 2010,” as Pazo and others noted members of the UC Berkeley and UC Santa Barbara police present. Pazo received an e-mail from Denise Dolezal, information practices and policy analyst for the Chancellor’s Office, on Feb. 15. Dolezal said the administration continues to search for this record.

Lt. Alex Yao of the UC Berkeley Police Department said he did not remember the May 18 and 19 event, but that it is not uncommon for the UCSC Police Department to be assisted by UC Berkeley Police Department, which is one of the largest UC police departments.

The UC police department chief of one campus sends a request for more police officers from other campuses, said Sgt. Matt Bowman of UC Santa Barbara Police Department, who could not recall the event either. Whoever has personnel to assist responds.

Malone and several others said the amount of police attention on May 19 was unwarranted.

“Part of it was a pure waste of resources on the part of the administration, and a waste of money, presumably tens of thousands of dollars in overtime and travel for other UC police to come [to UCSC],” Malone said.

UC campus police departments have different contracts between each other regarding which campus funds, transportation and fees to bring in backup police forces.

“It’s more common for the requesting school to pay for the other police department’s transportation,” Bowman said. “It does cost money so it’s not to be taken lightly.”

Malone said the police presence was an unnecessary provocation that was incongruous with the peaceful atmosphere of the event.

“By what stretch of the imagination do you need 18 uniformed police for a poetry reading?” Malone said.

One of the things students and staff have demanded all along is transparency from the UC, he said.

“To an extent the [administration’s] message is, ‘Shut up and write us a check,’” Malone said. “There’s nothing we can do, there’s nothing you can do, so just keep your head down, keep going to classes, keep writing us the checks for your tuition. And we don’t know the extent to which what they did has made students think twice about doing anything out of the ordinary on this campus, even if it’s just attending a poetry reading at the base of campus.”

Courtesy of Noah Miska.

“Education isn’t free right now,” second-year Noah Miska, an environmental studies and art major, said through a bullhorn.

Five hundred students lay on the East Field Tuesday afternoon to spell “FREE EDUCATION” with their bodies.

Thirty minutes past noon, a plane flew over the field to take pictures of the arrangement of bodies advocating free education in protest with the University of California budget cuts.

Chris Woolling, a fourth-year psychology major, participated in the formation of “FREE EDUCATION.” Woolling said he would have “wished it was in Sacramento,” but the non-violent atmosphere was his motivation to participate.

“It’s also an inspiration, especially after the recent successful protests around the world,” Woolling said.

The unofficial organizing group, Open University Together (OUT), fundraised throughout the quarter to make Free Education possible. The group fundraised $1,600 in grants from various UCSC colleges to pay for the event’s food, art supplies and facilities.

Forty butcher paper signs were posted on the tennis court and pool’s fences — each banner with a question or statement. Students were able to pose responses on questions like “What is an individual?” and “What is your major and why is it important to you?”

Robert Gutierrez, fifth-year psychology and Latin American and Latino studies major, said that he liked the new creative way to protest. As an advocate for higher education, Gutierrez said that it is unjust that as budget cuts increase, diversity on campus decreases.

“It’s sad that a lot of students who want to go into higher education are telling me that as much as they want to do it, they can’t afford it,” Gutierrez said. “I find it hard to advocate to high school or transfer students and telling them that it’s a good investment, when I feel cheated of my education.”

Miska was the student who came up with the idea and organized the non-violent demonstration to protest budget cuts. He wanted to make sure that students felt they were in a peaceful and safe environment. Miska said he dialogued with executive vice chancellor Alison Galloway to help in not having police officers be too visible.

The only sign of police involvement was one police officer on a motor cycle stationed on the outskirts of the field. No use of force or any violent acts occurred during the event.

After the plane picture was taken, some students stayed on the field to engage in dialogue around various discussion groups. Topics ranged from Immigration Policy to current events in Egypt — all dialogue in connection to the complexities of issues caused by budget cuts.

Free Education gathered media coverage from NBC and Univision, and Miska said he was content with the overall turnout.

“[It went] amazingly,” Miska said. “People felt comfortable enough to get naked and there are thoughtful responses [to the questions posed] on banners. I think everything happened as it should have.”

March 2, the National Day of Action, will follow Tuesday’s ideas for a free education during a noon rally at the Quarry Plaza.

Illustration by Rachel Edelstein.

Deadline for CLASS Survey Extended

Organizers of the University of California Class and Lecture Availability Student Survey (CLASS) are recruiting UC students to take a survey that assesses the availability of classes in the UC system by Feb. 20.

The need for the survey comes in wake of recent budget cuts.

The current goal for CLASS is to have a response rate of 20 percent across the UC so they can present it to the University of California Education Policy committee and the UC Office of the President.  They hope to have the results impact UC administrative decisions in the coming years.

CLASS was developed by the office of the Commissioner of Academic Affairs based on a survey conducted last year at UCSC.  It has been available since Feb. 1, and students have until this Sunday to complete it.

Lizzie Bernard, a Stevenson College second-year, has actively participated in the promotion of the survey on her Facebook. Bernard said the survey is important because her own personal experience with enrollment has been difficult. After being unable to get classes for her major multiple times, Bernard decided to take the quarter off and is unsure if she will ever return to the UC.

“I don’t think that the money that I’m spending on this education is worth it,” Bernard said. “They don’t really deserve my money if I can’t get my class.”

Problems like those of Bernard are what second-year Stevenson College SUA representative Jessica Greenstreet, one of the organizers of CLASS, hopes the survey will work to solve.

Greenstreet also hopes that the survey will become institutionalized and distributed in future years as well.

“It’s not something that’s going to make change in a year,” she said. “But as we get data from years and years, [the] administration can’t ignore it.”

UC system fails public records request audit

UC Santa Cruz received an “F” for its compliance with public records request in a report released by the nonprofit group Californians Aware (CalAware).

The report ranked both UC and CSU schools. The average score for the CSU schools was an 86 out of 100, while the UC average was a 46, with UC Santa Cruz getting a 40.

To compile the report, CalAware asked each school for five documents and written guidelines for the accessibility of records. After an original request made Nov. 29, CalAware was redirected to the UC Office of the President for some of the documents. They were also told that one of the requests wouldn’t be available until Feb. 28.

UCSC graduate Dana Burd has been waiting on several document requests since Oct. 2009.

“I find it hard to believe that they are so backlogged that requests from 2009 would still be [pending],” Burd said. “They see this more as an inconvenience than an obligation.”

According to the report posted on the CalAware website, “UC … [requires] requesters to chase down documents from different offices within their institution.”

Jim Burns, UCSC’s director of public information, told the Santa Cruz Sentinel that backlog was a source of the delay, noting that there is one person who deals with over 300 requests in the Chancellor’s office each year.

The group is offering free training for public information officers to the audited agencies, including UCSC. The report concludes that overall, the CSU system’s information accessibility is superior to that of the UC.

“The fact that almost half the CSU campuses achieved an A-plus perfect score is convincing evidence that full compliance with public records access law is not an unreasonable burden but a readily and frequently satisfied expectation,” according to the report. “The fact that most UC campuses scored an F is, accordingly, a sorry outcome indeed.”

Photo by Arianna Puopolo.

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

Illustration by Kenny Srivijittakar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plan’s Unwritten Commitments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Current Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Legacy Going Forward

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

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

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

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