Search News


Browse Archives

News

California Beating

Defining Moment

July 17, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Solidarity is about to go up on trial.

In the coming days, a disparate group of California State University faculty will take a vote that could come to define the union representing them. It could also alter the future of the 23-campus California State system, which is facing a budget crisis unlike any other in recent memory.

The California Faculty Association, which represents 23,000 faculty members, from part-time lecturers to tenured professors, will finish voting Monday on whether to take as many as 24 unpaid furlough days to help fill the university’s $584 million or 20 percent state budget gap. A “no” vote is sure to spell significant layoffs, but faculty complain there’s no guarantee the furloughs will preserve all jobs, either.

The vote presents a particular quandary for full professors, who must decide whether to reduce their own compensation by about 10 percent, largely in the interest of saving other people’s jobs. While not immune from layoffs themselves, tenure and tenure-track faculty are considerably less vulnerable than the lecturers who comprise about half the faculty in the union. On the other hand, professors’ lives and workloads may change considerably if lecturers are laid off en masse. The use of lecturers, while often criticized in higher education, helps reduce class sizes, increases section offerings and – in some cases – reduces the number of general education courses full professors have to teach.

“It makes any decision you have to make agonizing. Everybody is being harmed,” said Lillian Taiz, president of the union and a professor at the Los Angeles campus.

The union, which is affiliated with the National Education Association and the American Association of University Professors, has taken no official position on how members should vote. Asked which way the wind might be blowing, Taiz said she couldn't speculate.

While the furloughs would not differ based on salary levels, as the University of California has done, full-time employees working 10 months would take 20 days, compared with 24 days for those on 12-month appointments.

The union’s vote has become a flashpoint in a larger discussion about how best to maintain quality, accessibility and jobs at California State, an institution that serves 450,000 students. Charles B. Reed, the system’s chancellor, says the furloughs will save 6,000 jobs and 22,000 classes. He has not been able or willing, however, to provide union leaders what they want: A guarantee that furloughs will totally prevent layoffs. That’s in part because Reed plans to reduce systemwide enrollment by 32,000 students over the course of the next year, a cost-reduction plan that is tied to having fewer faculty and staff on the payroll.

“They want some assurance that going forward that there won’t be any layoffs. I can’t give that assurance,” Reed said in a Tuesday interview with Inside Higher Ed.

“We will need fewer faculty and staff in 2010-11, so what a furlough does is a one-time only savings,” he added. “It’s not a permanent continuation savings, and we’re going to have to get to where we are downsizing enough to permanently [address] huge cuts that we’re experiencing.”

While the furloughs are a source of immediate debate and concern, the permanent solutions to which Reed alludes are causing equal heartburn across the system. The furloughs are only expected to generate $275 million, less than half of what’s needed just to cover the current deficit. Reductions of enrollment and class offerings, increased student fees and expanded class sizes are all expected as well.

Audrey Silvestre, a senior at the Long Beach campus, says she’s already seen directed independent study offerings in her women’s studies major scaled back.

“That’s really a shame because a lot of students gain experience through these directed study courses, and they’re not being offered,” she said. “I feel like we’re losing out in terms of being prepared for graduate school or the workplace in terms of gaining work experience.”

The university’s Fresno campus announced a dramatic 20 percent reduction in class offerings for the fall, even though the campus expects about 1,300 more students to attend that semester than did a year ago.

These cuts in class sections come on top of what some students describe as already-sparse academic offerings on many campuses. Ruben Vazquez, who is entering his second year at the California Polytechnic Pomona campus, describes something of a semesterly tradition, where students literally run from one class to another, fighting their way into any available seat.

“With the budget cuts and all that, they’ve been decreasing class sections since I entered school,” says Vazquez, member of a group called Students for Quality Education.

And students attending California State next year can expect to pay more for less. Reed plans to ask the regents to approve a 20 percent increase in fees – known as tuition in other states. The proposed increase would come on top of a 10 percent hike approved in May, bringing the average annual undergraduate tuition to $4,026 – an increase of $672.

“I think that’s a good bargain, especially if you compare the CSU to all the other public colleges and universities in this country,” Reed said at a press conference Thursday.

Of the tuition revenues generated, one-third would go toward financial aid, Reed said.

Access Denied

California State has long prided itself on giving access to a diverse population of students, many of whom come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. While many of the University of California’s campuses have become ultra-competitive in admissions and place an ever-greater focus on research, California State has accommodated far more undergraduates than the University of California System can handle. California State has also sought to produce the state’s teachers and nurses, fulfilling a vital need across the state. Many wonder, however, how the mission and demographics of California State may be altered by reducing access and increasing price.

“We’re going to have to take all of our efforts to ensure this system doesn’t become something we don’t want it to become,” said Taiz, the union president.

As chancellor, Reed says one of his greatest worries is that this crisis will push out the very students California State has sought to serve. Given recent increases in federal Pell Grants, as well as currently available – albeit threatened – state aid, Reed says students from families making $75,000 or less will not see fee increases. The system has also said it will defer fee payments for students whose Cal Grants -- need-based grants provided by the state -- are delayed.

Despite efforts to help low-income students, however, Reed acknowledges that preserving the current socioeconomic demographics of the university will take a conscious effort. The university’s admissions process will have to be restructured to reflect a greater emphasis on recruiting low-income students, and in so doing help maintain campus diversity, Reed said.

“Let’s face it, students of color from the underserved communities [also] come from the lower economic income, so we’ve got to pay attention to that in our admissions process,” he said.

There is concern, however, that a significant number of low-income students will be thwarted in their efforts to transfer from nearby community colleges. By closing off spring admission in 2010, as it plans to do, the system will leave some community college students with nowhere to go. Allison Jones, the university’s assistant vice chancellor for student support, said eligible transfer students who aren’t admitted in the spring will move to the front of the line next fall.

“If there is a student who is fully eligible at the point of the spring, we simply don’t have the space for them, and they will have to stay at the community college,” Jones said at a Thursday press conference.

Loucine Huckabay, director of nursing at the Long Beach campus, is already feeling the impact of the university’s admissions slowdown. The program was not able to accept transfer students for the fall, even though transfers typically make up half the class. The university has sought to preserve enrollment in the high-demand nursing programs, however, by letting Huckabay admit more pre-nursing students who are already enrolled.

Even without fee increases, nursing degrees will be more expensive for new graduate students next year. The program accepted 84 master’s degree students on “self support,” meaning they pay for the full cost of their instruction without state subsidies. Even without the expected 20 percent fee increase, those new students will pay $350 per unit, instead of about $180.

The union’s furlough vote looms large for nursing departments because they have less flexibility in altering class sizes than some other disciplines. Accreditation regulations prevent the programs from increasing class sizes above a 12:1 student/faculty ratio in clinical classes. If there are layoffs or furloughs, Huckabay expects to have to double the size of some of her theory classes because she can’t enlarge clinical sections.

Despite the challenges, Huckabay remains optimistic.

“We have wonderful faculty,” she said. “They are concerned, but they also know that I will do my very best to protect instruction, to protect students and to protect their jobs.”

'Stealing, Borrowing, [and] Cooking the Books'

Facing a $26.3 billion shortfall, the state of California is thought to have few good options. That has not tempered the anger, however, of students and faculty who see cuts to higher education as yet another shortsighted maneuver by a state government that has specialized in shortcuts and band-aid solutions.

Compared to the University of California, which draws about 20 percent of its total budget from the state, California State is much more dependent on Sacramento dollars. Including tuition revenue, California State has a total budget of about $4.52 billion -- not including any federal stimulus funds expected this year. About 66 percent of that $4.52 billion budget comes from the state.

While highly state dependent, California State officials argue there is no more important investment for the state at this juncture. The oft-cited evidence for that position is contained in a 2008 report from the Public Policy Institute of California, which says the state will not produce enough people with bachelor’s degrees to fill its workforce by 2025. In part driven by the lower educational attainment of the state’s burgeoning Latino population, California expects just 33 percent of its working adults to hold college degrees by 2020, even though it will need 41 percent to have such degrees by 2025, the report states.

“What we’re really talking about here is not preparing the people we need for the 21st century to do this kind of work,” said Elizabeth Hoffman, the California Faculty Association’s vice president of lecturers. “We have to really think seriously about what we’re doing as far as producing the human capital that’s needed.”

And yet, it seems the die is cast. Reed says there is “almost a zero chance” the cuts won’t be as severe as projected.

“I’m an old guy, OK. I’ve been a chancellor for more than 25 years … I have never seen a mega meltdown in any budget economy like what is going on,” Reed said. “It’s enormous what has happened here in California. And I think part of it is [because] for the last 15-20 years California has lived on the edge by stealing, borrowing, [and] cooking the books. And it all has come together at the same time with the recession, with unemployment, with the anti-tax mood. All that is like a perfect storm, and that’s why I am just amazed. It has come together at one time.”

An article earlier this week explored the impact of the budget cuts at the University of California, and a piece next week will focus on community colleges.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Defining Moment

  • Priorities
  • Posted by bevo on July 17, 2009 at 7:45am EDT
  • The author asserts that the California State system faces an acute budget crises. To solve the crisis, the California State system wants faculty to give up a percentage of their salary, and has reduced the number of course offerings despite an increase in overall enrollment.

    Yet, no where in this article or any article about the budget problem facing California's higher education states that the member schools are eliminating athletics, which represents a tremendous drain on school's finance.

    Administrators must find it easer to ask the philosophy professor to give up 10% of her salary than to tell the women's golf and football programs that the school lacks the necessary funds to continue offering the sport.

    Good to know California and California State systems have their priorities in line: athletics over academics.

  • Posted by Interesting on July 17, 2009 at 8:45am EDT
  • A quote from an article that is presented below the one describing California's budget complaints;

    "Importantly, he writes, "there is no evident relationship at the state level between resources and performance: higher levels of resources do not result in more credentials awarded per student." Some of the best performing states, including Colorado, Utah, Florida, Oklahoma, and Washington, receive comparatively little in state and student resources, while some of the least productive states are those with some of the highest levels of resources."

  • Posted by Penny on July 17, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • This article misrepresents the basis for the vote. The Chancellor would not guarantee that even one job would be saved by voting for furloughs. Faculty did not insist that all job losses be prevented by furloughs. They asked for some assurance that a furlough would save any jobs. The Chancellor refused to guarantee that even one job would be spared. In discussions before the voting by faculty, there was no split between lecturers and tenure track faculty. There was a recognition by many CFA members that many more lecturers will be gone no matter how the vote goes on furloughs. Further, there was no offer to reduce workload in any way to offset lost pay. Thus, this is not a "furlough" at all but a reduction in pay. This was clearly explained in CFA FAQs which I assume were also available to the author of this report. Why then are the facts of the matter incorrectly stated?

  • Posted by adjunct on July 17, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • Are administrators also sharing this burden of unpaid leaves? Or is their work so very essential that they can't be spared for a single day? Just the philosophy professors and the adjuncts, I suppose. We all definitely need every associate assistant to the vice-provost's administrative officer.

  • Priorities, Indeed
  • Posted by Justa Prof on July 17, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • Bevo,

    Don't get me started on athletics at the university! At our university, the administration has embarked on a multi-million dollar building extravaganza, primarily of a new sports arena. It is supposed to be financed 50% student fees (by a tuition increase), 25% by a contribution from the city (presumably by tax levies) and 25% from the sports fans (via contributions). At a time when student enrollment continues on a downward, death spiral, the winning sports teams are supposed to attract new students and funding. Guess what? They won't. NEWS FLASH: (1) Winning sports teams only rarely attract good students. Most often, they attract more athletes. (2) Sports programs may attract more funding, but it's usually designated for sports, not academics.

    All this should be apparent to the admins, but they continue on this spending spree instead of making critical repairs to the academic infrastructure (such as much-needed building repairs, improvement of course offerings, infusion of funds into the graduate student and research assistant pools).

  • Incensed
  • Posted on July 17, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • I sent Chancellor Reed a letter challenging him to resign before any faculty/staff are laid off in the face of accusations that he facilitated cronyism and nepotism in hiring, especially at the Los Angeles campus. He never responded to my letter. I think that we should start a campaign to oust him from his position.

  • rare opportunity
  • Posted by 3D on July 17, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • there's a silver lining on every cloud. this budget crisis is a rare opportunity to rebalance curricula. and low priority doesn't necessarily mean smaller or non-existent departments, especially if a program is low cost per ftes. some colleges (e.g., health related disciplines) at cal state (and other) university campuses figured this out a long time ago - cohorting part time as well as full time programs, setting size of student population target based on a broad environmental scan, limiting the number of boutique electives, focusing on "access out" (courses for upper division students) as well as "access in" (admit as many as possible to meet target), etc.. but, it is the exception rather than the rule and it costs cal state many millions of dollars.
    at the bottom line, what is needed is managed enrollment vs enrollment management (where "prime time" demand for classes by both students and faculty is the major factor in scheduling).

  • re: several corrections
  • Posted by Peter C. Herman , Professor, Department of English & Comparative Literature at San Diego State University on July 17, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
  • First, faculty are not voting to accept or reject the Chancellor's furlough offer. Rather, they are voting to grant CFA authority to negotiate a memorandum of understanding with the CSU Administration over the conditions of a furlough. It is not clear if the CFA's membership will then vote on whether to accept the results of those negotiations. I also want to make clear that the misunderstanding is not the author's fault, as nearly everybody on my campus (at least) was under the impression that we were voting on the furlough itself. CFA has not explained or apologized for this miscommunication.

    Second, a furlough is not a pay-cut. Under a furlough, we are not paid for a certain amount of days, but our base pay remains the same, and so do our benefit contributions.

    Third, the CSU's administrators will be furloughed, and because they are not unionized, they have no say in this matter. Their perks, however, remain in place.

     

  • What's really going on
  • Posted by Long Beach Prof at CSU Long Beach on July 17, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • A good article. What it doesn't capture, though, is Chancellor Reed's longstanding antifaculty stance. The latest manifestation of this is his open determination to fire large numbers of faculty as well as deny hundreds of thousands of students (over the next five years, based on 32,000 reduction for 2010-11 alone) admission: downsizing the system - and this in the face of a demographic boom. He is very clear about this goal in the article, as he has been elsewhere, _even though he recognizes that this will greatly harm the state's future_. Two points:

    1. Chancellor Reed declined even to _request_ better funding from the state legislature this spring, saying instead he wouldn't 'waste their time' in such a request. In other words, he didn't lift a finger to fight for less-bad funding for his own system (state funding has also declined for many years relative to student population during his tenure here). All he asked for of the legislature was a 'free hand' to deal with the situation. One must assume that there was a reason for this bizarre refusal to advocate for his own system's viability. Some out here remember that Reed established the last new campus in the Florida system with a system of 5-year contracts for faculty, i.e. without tenure. And few if any contracts were renewed, either: a corporate-managerial approach to simply reducing labor costs - of which he speaks in this article also. The corporate-dominated CSU Board of Trustees, which follows Reed almost slavishly, never mentioned (much less supported) the state assembly bill AB656 to institute an oil severance tax to fund higher education, such as Texas has. The CSU's fabulously well-paid upper bureaucracy is legendarily topheavy, and some of the various campus foundations have operated highly questionably (if not illegally), far from public scrutiny. The CSU has recently, moreover, found the money to spend millions on public and private lobbyists, including to fight another legislative bill calling for openness on the CSU's expenditures!

    2. Whatever California's economic problems, this downsizing approach - elaborated in secret, without discussion among interested parties - is a purely authoritarian, not to say dictatorial stance. Far beyond refusing any assurances to the Faculty Association, the CSU under Charles Reed has simply shut out any open discussion of the situation whatsoever before announcing decisions, and has even ordered campus administrators to 'dampen' discussion on the various campuses. This is in total contrast with the UC system, which has engaged faculty and other parties in sustained and open discussions.

    3. This combination of failure to advocate _for_ the system along with refusal to discuss the issues openly with interested parties leads to the conclusion that Reed's intentions are also twofold: (a) destroy faculty's historical position of some degree of power relative to the system's administration, and also (b) tell the public: "You don't want to fund my system? Fine, I'll shut out your kids, and damn the consequences for the future."

  • More facts
  • Posted by Thomas landefeld , Professor/Biology at CSUDominguez Hills on July 17, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • It is important that readers (and the public) be aware of some other facts concerning the situation in the CSU. These are: 1) the Chancellor refused to accept other reasonable proposals by CFA members for furloughs; 2) it is unclear still how the furloughs will be implemented; 3) some of the budget deficit and much of the tuition increases (over the past 5-6 years) have been due to raises for the Chancellor, his administrators and campus presidents, at a time when faculty received no raises and, in fact, it took a "strike" vote by faculty for a contract to be agreed upon following almost two years of failed negotiations; 4) the Chancellor's statement that "tuition is still a good bargain" should be considered relative to the demographics of the CSU campuses, especially considering that many of the students are from underserved, underprivileged and disadvantaged areas, such as CSUDH which is located in South LA . Penny, in her posting, addresses some of these other "facts" ; however the posting from Incensed perhaps best "hits the nail on the head", i.e. Reed and the CSU administration needs to take the major responsibility (rather than blaming "California living on the edge by stealing, borrowing and cooking the books, leading to the perfect storm", as quoted by Reed) for this current situation. Moreover, by addressing it in the manner described, CSU is denying further access to education for a large number of students, estimated to be 32,000 (!) for this year, just as the tuition increases over the past 5 years have done. As a result, the future of this country is truly threatened.

  • Send a Message
  • Posted by Doug on July 17, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • Think what a strong message it would send if California universities agreed to suspend their inter-university athletic programs, and spend all available monies on academic education and research until such time as sufficient money becomes available again. That would state very clearly where their priorities are, and it would mark California as a state that has finally got its priorities straight, which would attract more fee paying international students and the best and brightest domestic students. Instead they seem to be pursuing options that will inevitably lead to a slow decline in the quality of education received.

  • Sorry. Not impressed.
  • Posted by Alan Collinge , Founder at Studentloanjustice.org on July 17, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • Not even one college leader has offered to give up more than a token amount of compensation to my knowledge. Nor has any obscenely overpaid administrator. Not one. To incite panic in the public, stick it to the students and the debt they will leave school with, layoff lower level staff, cajole faculty into taking a hit, all while sucking up an obscenely massive amount of wealth without a second thought- makes me question the honor character, and leadership qualifications of every college leader in the nation.

    ...Starting with Harvard, who put 275 members of the community out on the streets- a one hundred percent paycut- and for what? To make up less than one-half-of-one-percent of the losses in their endowment??

    When times get tough, the captain has to be willing to step up and lead by example. Until that happens, I see this as fear mongering/ posturing for more federal aid as reprehensible as the insurance/finance stunt pulled on the country last fall. To people who have truly been crushed by the cost of college and the predatory debt it resulted in, there is nothing quite as offensive, pathetic, and shameful as a rich man with his hand out, crying poor.

  • The real problem
  • Posted by Forrester , Professor/Elem Ed at San Jose State University on July 17, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • According to a story in yesterday's New York Times, workers at the Caterpillar plant in Grenoble France who were threatened with layoffs, held the companies executives hostage for twenty four hours. Leaving aside the mere thought of twenty four hours with the chancellor of the CSU, I note that CA state workers in general have been remarkably docile about furloughs. If this were Europe, there would have been a general strike by now.

    The problem was not caused by state workers, and cutting their pay one day at a time isn't solving anything. Even self-support units that actually make money for the state, are being furloughed. All that's happening here is the enactment of a long standing Republican agenda to eviscerate state government.

    The situation at the CSU is deplorable. The chancellor's disrespect for faculty is stunning. The administration's insensitivity to low paid staff (unlike the UC, which is enacting sliding scale furloughs) is remarkable. Even claims that executive salary will be cut are cynical at best. Executives receive extensive compensation beyond salary, including housing and car allowances, and some campus executives even receive salary "enhancements" through university foundations, funds which will undoubtedly not be the subject of cuts.

    The public ought to wake up and stop believing hype about overpaid and under worked state workers. Wait until they figure out that state workers put out forest fires, teach our children, maintain records that ensure our safety on the roads, process our claims for workmen's compensation. Cuts to the university may be the last thing the public will notice but the impacts are long term and ultimately devastating. Denying access to students to an inexpensive and excellent college education throws away the future of our state, and given our size and our importance, the future of the rest of the country as well.

  • Rats jumping...
  • Posted by Exploring Options , Assistant Prof at A CSU campus on July 17, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT
  • Another side effect that has been little discussed in coverage of the CSU situation is the effect on retention of quality faculty. Not to be too egotistical about it, but I would consider myself a highly qualified new faculty member, recently hired at a CSU campus. Given the current situation, I am ready to jump ship as soon as possible. I love my colleagues, my students are a crazy but fun bunch, and I'm thrilled to have any tenure-track job in the current economic and higher ed environment - but with the seemingly intractable financial problems of the CSU system, I want out, even if it's for a lesser (but more stable) job in academic or industry. Pay cuts, dramatically increasing workload, lack of research/travel funding and a constant sense of insecurity are not what I hoped for in an academic job. If other faculty feel the same way and get out while they can - and new hires are not made due to the hiring freeze - who's going to be left to teach for the CSU?

  • Interesting
  • Posted by Michael on July 17, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • Interesting, here is another crucial paragraph in the article you cite:

    Using publicly available data (in hopes of making it easy for policy makers to replicate), the report starts with the total funding for each state's public colleges, combining state and local appropriations and tuition and fee revenues, which account for the vast majority of operating funds for state institutions over all. The analysis then weights the numbers of degrees and certificates that a state's colleges award (by level) by the median earnings associated with them in the state's employment market. Higher degree levels are weighted more heavily, as are credentials and science and technology fields.

    You will note that the study doesn't actually say anything about how well people learn and that it devalues certain fields--it is only rating what it thinks will translate into a specific job. Colleges and Universities are supposed to teach a great many other things about the wider culture and society. These studies only make sense if you are evaluating whether or not a graduate would make a good beginning employee.

  • Management will also share in the cuts
  • Posted by matthew black , Bargaining Unit 9 Representative at CSU Long Beach on July 17, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • On my campus, our president announced that he will be implementing provisions of Title V. Beginning this August, MPP (managers) will be subject to the same 2-day furloughs that faculty and staff are being asked to accept.

  • Already severely weakened
  • Posted by Betsy , Assoc Prof at CSULB on July 17, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • Conditions were bad even before this round of cuts and furloughs. Some of the heaviest teaching and service loads in the country. Xerox budgets that run out a month before the end of the semester. No funding for up-to-date software. Students waiting several semester to enroll in classes required for graduation. Tuition goes up exponentially, while the quality of the learning environment drops precipitously. When will California families demand better? You've been told that you are getting a "quality" education. That hasn't been generally true for a while now.

  • On the other hand...
  • Posted by Bob, a CSU prof on July 17, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • A few points, laid out in a more-or-less random fashion:

    (1) First, this is the first I've heard of the 6,000 figure. That's good to know. Note that when CSU profs say that a furlough is not guaranteed to save even one job, what I take it they mean is that we haven't received any exact figures about how many jobs will be saved. But it's absurd to think that if we agree to a furlough then Reed will enact just as many job cuts as if we hadn't agreed to a furlough. If we agree to a furlough, some jobs that would have otherwise been cut this year won't be.

    (2) To say that Reed or the CSU administration bears the lion's share of responsibility for our problems is very much overstated. The problems are caused by numerous institutional flaws in the California governmental system, most problematic of which are: (a) the California proposition system, which dramatically reduces governmental flexibility in making cuts and which allows voters to vote for one bond-funded scheme after another (just paying off interest on those bond schemes amounts to $5 billion a year; moreover, paying off interest on the state budget deficit amounts to $4.2 billion a year); (b) the 2/3 majority needed to pass any budget; (c) proposition 13, which makes the state dependent on volatile sales and income taxes for its revenue, rather than raising property taxes (though it should be noted that CA ranks near the US state average in paying property taxes, and it's not at all clear to me that if the state could raise property taxes it wouldn't just scare more people into leaving the state; moreover, the government might have funded even more crazy mandates if they had had more revenue to do so).

    (3) About CSU retention: I don't know that this crisis is going to cause too many CSU faculty to jump ship. The fact is, it's just not very easy to get a job in this academic market. It's true, though, that when this crisis settles down faculty might look outside the CSU system--but by then we'll have a better financial situation than we do now.

  • Why I left
  • Posted by Professor G on July 17, 2009 at 2:00pm EDT
  • My Cal State students were the best I've ever taught -- eager, smart, down-to-earth, funny, and fully cognizant of the difference that education can make in the lives of not only an individual but his/her family & community. It was a privilege to teach and learn from them, and I knew I would miss them terribly. But I left several years ago because I saw the writing on the wall -- even before this latest recession, the CSU system was vastly underfunded. No raises of any kind in my 3 years there. Little to nothing (depending on the year) in the way of startup $ or any kind of course release for junior faculty. A staff system that rendered workers virtually un-fireable, regardless of their behavior, and made our abusive, unqualified, unstable secretary untouchable. The 9-course workload increased the general sense of frustration, particularly given the fact that my starting salary was less than one tenth of the median housing price in the area. Reed was openly and virulently anti-faculty, as was his board, and there were no indications that things would improve. I got out. My former students and colleagues are in my thoughts as they deal with the fallout from all of this.

  • Read Reed
  • Posted by LB , Associate Professor at CSUN on July 17, 2009 at 2:45pm EDT
  • Read Charlie Reed's comments carefully and you'll see the disconnect. Reed says explicitly that furloughs are not a solution; they are a one-time finger in a dam that is about to burst.

    Reed has already outlined an extensive plan to dramatically reduce enrollment over the next two years. As the author points out, class sizes are rising at the same time. Put those two together and you have dramatically fewer class sections going forward. Fewer sections means fewer faculty. Massive layoffs are coming with or without a furlough as lower enrollment drives lower employment of faculty. A furlough simply saves a small (though indeterminate) number of jobs for one year. In the meantime, EVERYONE gets paid 10% less.

    Reed makes the same point a different way. He says furloughs will provide a savings of $275 million over the next year. But the furlough ends after one year and the CSU will not be receiving money in 2010-2011 to make up the difference. So Reed will still have to find that money at the end of this academic year. Where will he find it? He'll lay off employees including faculty.

    Many faculty are unfortunately supporting a furlough under the mistaken impression that it will save jobs. It will not. It will temporarily employ a few more people and everyone will receive a significant paycut to pay for it.

    For their part, the statewide CFA leadership made a critical error in judgment in calling for a vote of the faculty when they did. For many weeks, CFA President Lillian Taiz declared that CFA would not bring a furlough proposal to the faculty without specifics on how many jobs would be saved or a specific plan for how workload would be reduced under a furlough. Predictably, Reed offered no specifics. But what is amazing is that the statewide CFA leadership absolutely caved, reversed their position, and brought the matter to a vote anyway.

    In effect, poor leadership from the statewide CFA leadership allowed Reed to split the union (this has been his plan for many years now) in predictable ways.

    Because CFA's leaders did not read Reed (and quite frankly, it wasn't hard to do), the union is about to cede the tiny amount of leverage it once had - unity. Reed is to blame for most of our problems. But that was predictable. It is the self-inflicted wounds that anger this faculty member the most.

  • Professor G is the only honest commenter here.
  • Posted by DFS on July 17, 2009 at 3:30pm EDT
  • Quit dancing around the issue! California has spent more than it takes in. Don't come to me with your idiocy. I'm trying to see my own family through. To hell with all of your California 'fruits and nuts' issues. Why don't you just try to operate within your own means, for a first time? We in fly-over country are just tired of your crap.

  • Priorities
  • Posted by Glsgwgrl at CSULB on July 17, 2009 at 3:30pm EDT
  • An important thing to remember is that is it likely that next year the budget will be as bad or possibly worse, as it is this year. While I believe that most tenure/tenure track faculty on my campus see the furlough option as the most viable option at present, Penny's comments about layoffs anyway reflect the unsupportable attitude of many that don't have to worry about losing their jobs, even if they have to be furloughed. I'm an adjunct and teach lower division G.E. courses. Which tenure/tenure track faculty members will be teaching classes that up until now were taught exclusively by lecturers when adjunct faculty are laid off this year or next?

  • Re Management will also share in the cuts
  • Posted by Forrester , Professor/Elem Ed at SJSU on July 17, 2009 at 3:30pm EDT
  • Puh-leeze. As per my previous post, management may share in the SALARY cuts, but furloughs are not likely to affect their total compensation packages. Presidents, in particular, have all kinds of deals that enhance their take home pay. Also, "sharing" is an interesting term. Top execs have housing and car allowances, which according to the chancellor, are not on the table for cutting costs. So it's all about salary. Do the numbers -- a person who takes a ten percent cut on take-home pay of $250K is in a better position than a person taking the same cut on $40K. We have staff members and junior faculty who are not going to be able to pay their mortgages (note that the worker bees don't get housing allowances). At least the UC has noticed the potential inequity and responded with sliding scale reductions.

    And bigger classes with stressed students are less of a problem for people who have executive assistants and secretaries to protect their time and return their calls, clerical assistants to prepare their materials and parking permits that eliminate the need to drive give up hours each week to the hunt for a space.

    There is an argument that says that administrators make the big bucks because they have to solve the big problems. Sorry, but so far, I'm unimpressed with their abilities on that score.

  • Abandon Ship
  • Posted by whatamess at a smoldering CSU campus on July 17, 2009 at 7:45pm EDT
  • Despite the budget mess and possible furloughs, CSU campus are still posting job openings. Anyone looking for an academic job would be out of their mind to work for the CSU. Those who do work for the CSU should leave...run, don't walk! As other commentators have noted, it's going to get worse next year. The CSU is in full meltdown mode, and by the time the California economy recovers and/or the state's dysfunctional political structure is fixed, it will be far too late. California has no value for education, and it's time for educators to go somewhere that does.

  • Yes, a pay cut...
  • Posted by Adam Reed , Professor of Information Systems at Cal State LA on July 17, 2009 at 11:45pm EDT
  • "Second, a furlough is not a pay-cut. Under a furlough, we are not paid for a certain amount of days (etc...)" Sorry, this is, ahem, counterfactual. The other unions get a proportional reduction in workload: when they have "furlough" days, they don't work. Faculty get a fake "furlough" without a reduction in workload. Even if a faculty member were punctilious in observing the "furlough," and refrained from doing any course preparation work on designated "furlough" days, she would still need - when the teaching load remains unchanged - to do the same, unchanged amount of work, just at some other time. Being paid less for the same amount of work is a pay cut.

    In context, its worse. Faculty whose previously assigned courses were cut must now prepare to teach several new-to-them courses for the first time, and that takes more work, not less. So we are getting less pay for more work.

    The least that the Chancellor must offer to faculty members, whose pay is being cut without any reduction in workload, is some kind of symbolic benefit - for example, an offer to exchange those unusable fake "furlough" days for additional carry-over sick days, or for personal days off. Faculty are not, and should not be treated as, a bunch of Kigmees.

    As for across-the-board reductions, that's just stoopid. Recession and all, Google and Oracle and Apple and Tweeter and Facebook and other California IS employers are as hungry for IS graduates as ever. Some of our former students move into six-figure incomes within 5 years after getting their BSIS and MSIS degrees, and within 10 years pay back more in state taxes than the entire cost of their education, from kindergarten through graduate school - and that does not even count increased income from their companies, their companies' customers and so on. The great State of California is performing a self-inflicted lobotomy, and the Chancellor of the CSU System is acting like an enthusiastic member of the operating team.

  • Less Pay/Less Work and Golden Handshakes
  • Posted by Lawrence Baron , Professor, History at San Diego State University on July 18, 2009 at 7:15am EDT
  • The article implies tenured and tenure track faculty are willing to throw their lecturer colleagues under the bus. One of the proposals Chancellor Reed turned down was an early retirement program. In the last major crisis, golden handshakes helped stave off large-scale layoffs (and at San Diego the abolition of 12 deparments). I am a senior faculty member who would be more than willing to accept early retirement to spare junior faculty and lecturers.

    At the faculty meeting with our president, I urged that faculty adhere to the terms of the furlough. 9.5 per cent furlough and pay reduction means you meet your classes proportionately less time and have assignments that reflect this reduction. It is important that students realize that they are getting less and paying more if we are to build an effective coalition to oppose the kind of tax phobia that has characterized this state since the passage of Proposition 13 and the evisceration of public eduction in its wake.

  • Yep. It's a fake furlough.
  • Posted by Concerned Professor , Assistant Professor at CSULB on July 18, 2009 at 7:15am EDT
  • Thank you, Adam Reed and others. It is a fake furlough! But worse.

    The union has diminished its leverage power by calling a vote without getting answers to simple questions about length of furloughs, layoffs, and other details regarding budget cuts.

    Things are about to get really bad. Oh, no. Wait. They already are.

  • "It's the politics"
  • Posted by Victor M Rodriguez at CSULB on July 18, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • At a time when the CSU needed our leadership to express and demand support to its mission from the Sacramento machine, Chancellor Reed was missing in action.

    CSU will not be able to fulfill its mission (we might as well paper the walls of the overcrowded classrooms with the statements) and it will get worse before it gets better. Our two thirds legislative requirement for increasing taxes places the extreme anti-everything Republican minority in the driver's seat. As the Rockefeller Institute said:

    "The blow to state coffers, which the report said appeared to worsen in the second quarter of the year, reflects the gravity of the recession and suggests the extent to which many states will probably have to resort to more spending cuts or tax increases to balance their budgets."

    Our state has their hands tied and the educational system will pay the price.

  • Posted by Adjunct George on July 18, 2009 at 6:00pm EDT
  • I am an adjunct at a CSU campus. I am not a union member so I do not get to vote on furloughs. I support the furloughs because it will maintain the adjunct base that is drawn from industry as well as academia. I do not need to teach because I will get more from my social security and retirement pay that I earn on a part time basis.

    The california university systems have broken their compact with the taxpayers that is over 50 years old. The compact stated that all community college graduates who sucessfully complete the courses will be admitted to a CSU or UC system school. They have ignored their word. In the CSU system, over 50% of the equivalent teaching hours (FTS) are done by adjuncts. We teach the large 100+ introductory class. You are right that there will be a revolution if tenured faculty have to teach these large classes instead of getting release time to do "research." Effective class teaching will drop like a rock. From my perspective, the CSU system has be fiscally irresponsible. The tenured faculty keep yelling more - more research time, more salary, more graduate students, and more free time. The gravy train has become derailled and they don't like it.

    Our first responsibility is to the students. The facilities are in place. The number of teachers are in place. What is the problem in teaching more students? The fixed costs are the same! The taxpayers I talk to have recognized the shell game being played and are very, very upset. Instead of working to drive the costs per student down, the union members are washing their hands of the problem and complaining about the "administration." The "administration" comes from the ranks of the tenured faculty. You are complaining about yourselves. Stop complaining. Stop whining. Socialism always fails. It has now failed in California. Learn from the experience and stop supporting the socialists with the union dues tax that I pay in order to work in the California university system. Ask what you can do to help the students and then do it.

  • Posted by Adjunct George on July 18, 2009 at 6:00pm EDT
  • 95% of the CSU faculty are registered democrats. Please put the anti-Republican comments and comments about Chancellor Reed in perspective. It is blame game time, not solution time for the unions. I have asked the union for their list of govenment programs that can be cut to save money for education. Not response. It is easy to ask for money but not easy to make the cuts needed to stay within budget. We are on the wrong side of the Laffer curve folks. Higher taxes will bring in lower total revenues. Figure how to fix the problem, not the blame. Socialism never, ever works even though socialism is the religion of the secular faculty members in the CSU system.

  • Get your facts right and don't start trouble.
  • Posted by BigGuy1 , Assistant Professor at CSU on July 18, 2009 at 10:00pm EDT
  • Socialism? Ninety-five percent of faculty are registered democrats? Academic gravy train? "Research" in quotes to imply that professor aren't doing real work? Cite your sources, Adjunct George. And I'll kindly ask you to help the situation, not create artificial wedges between adjuncts and tenured/tenure track faculty. We're all in this together. Many T/TT faculty were lecturers at one time. I count myself among them. Usually I ignore posts like yours when they are unfounded or seem intended to provoke. I'm replying this time to set at least one thing straight: There's no evidence that furloughs will prevent adjunct faculty from losing their jobs. In fact, many lecturers are already gone. If you don't get this point, you haven't been paying attention.

  • Spoiled narcissists
  • Posted on July 19, 2009 at 7:15am EDT
  • Most of these comments sound like a chorus of the most self-absorbed people on the planet. None seem to have noticed that this is a global crisis, not a piddling CFA or CSU issue.

    It's depressing to read such whining and blaming. I suggest a start in sacrificing a little ourselves and an end in removing from power every family of that ruling class that we keep re-electing. They have handed us this mess, not our chancellors, sports coaches, teachers unions etc., etc., etc.

  • Posted by Penny on July 19, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • Yes, it is petty and selfish to want to keep paying your mortgage. Professors don't live in the same world as everyone else, where food costs money. Professors don't have kids they need to clothe and send to school. Professors don't have bills to pay. When they ask to be paid the promised wages for their work, they are just being selfish and greedy because they don't actually do anything in their jobs anyway [end sarcasm].

    California is having economic troubles, but many of them spring from the repeal of the modest car tax by our movie star governor, from the corporate tax break he instituted as blackmail for last year's budget, and from an unreasonable insistence on a "cuts only" solution to decreased state revenues. California's teachers and students are being asked to pay for a broken budget negotiation process that results in stalemates every year, that can be broken only by giving a handful of Republican's whatever they want, including rollbacks of environmental protections and social programs and union-busting. It is unfortunate the rest of the country doesn't understand what this crisis is about, largely because of crappy reporting, embodied by the article sitting above these comments.

  • Whining, you ain't heard nothin' yet
  • Posted by Forrester , Professor/Elem Ed at SJSU on July 19, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • The whining will get even louder when people like the person who posted "Narcissistic Whiners" wake up. Shutting down DMV means you can't register your car. The volume of whining will undoubtedly increase when the benighted voters who embraced reduced registrations fees discover that vehicle and driver licensing are actually a protection for THEM. Expect more whining when those folks get hurt on the job. Cutting the worker's compensation staffing will slow things down quite a bit. Of course, it only matters when it happens to YOU (that's the narcissism part!)

    Retail is in a state of collapse, but you can hardly expect all us government workers to go out and sign contracts for new cars. Even if we have the down payment, without any certainty about our paychecks, who can consider it? So expect some whining from small business owners, department stores, auto dealers, piano teachers, personal trainers, manicurists, florists, wedding planners, and anybody else whose livelihood depends on a working middle class with a little discretionary income.

    I didn't make this mess, and I am indeed unwilling to make any sacrifices to sort things out unless those sacrifices are shared, and those with far more than the rest of us step up the plate. Government services, despite assertions to the contrary, benefit everyone.

  • Penny and BigGuy1:
  • Posted by DFS on July 19, 2009 at 6:00pm EDT
  • Adjunct George has it exactly right. You have to pay your own bills, Penny. 'Big,' -- meaning you're actually small -- you don't have to knee-jerk in lieu of provided paragraphs of annotated documentation --we're no longer doing your "research" for you -- just get over it, dude.

    I stand by my original comments: "California has spent more than it takes in." Quit spending! Suck it up.

    And, Penny -- you would be promoted to Nickel if you realized that the state legislature has control over the purse strings, there.

  • To Adjunct George
  • Posted by Major Major at Institute for Research in Alternative Economics on July 19, 2009 at 9:45pm EDT
  • Define "socialism." If you are correct, then bailing out the Big Boys, the creditor class (corporate socialism?), will fail again as it always does eventually.

    If you mean by "socialism" the Soviet Model, consider that there could be democratic versions not yet formulated and tried with protections against capitalist interference and sabotage, i.e. networked cooperatives.

    "The only cure for the ills of democracy," said Al Smith, "is more democracy."

  • RIP: California Master Plan
  • Posted by Vanessa Vaile on July 20, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • Lower tier jobs are the only casualties. Although active in adjunct issues, I cannot help but remember the now deceased father of an old friend from long ago and faraway, a CSU professor who sat on the original commission that drafted the California Master Plan for Higher Education. I'd never heard of it but could tell how proud he was of being part of it and that it topped his personal list of professional achievements. What would the designers of the master plan be thinking of the current situation? The clliché "rolling over in their graves" comes to mind

  • Tyranny of the minority
  • Posted by Carol , librarian at CSULB on July 20, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT
  • I agree with Betsy and Bob, the problem is much bigger than the current crisis. And it's certainly not a problem that can be solved by the CSU, much less the CFA. California voters need to demand better government and education! And to insist on a system where the majority's voice isn't silenced by a one-third minority of voters and the Legislature.

    California needs to get rid of its requirement of a two-thirds vote to pass a budget and its two-thirds requirement to raise taxes. We are the only state with both; two other states require a two-thirds vote to pass a budget and 12 other states have two-thirds requirements to raise taxes. This might mean that a majority of Californians would be willing to raise taxes, or at least re-balance the tax burden by revising the property tax laws. (Californians' tax burden ranks 18th in the nation, when its high-income status is taken into account, according to the Public Policy Institute. And it is disproportionately income-tax heavy, while other states revenue is more dependent on property taxes. This exacerbates problems during recessions because income-tax revenue drops more quickly than property-tax revenues.)

     

  • Lecturers Bear the Brunt
  • Posted by Karen , Lecturer, History at CSUEB on July 21, 2009 at 6:15pm EDT
  • Penny writes that there is no divide between lecturers and tenured faculty over the furloughs.I beg to differ. I don't know how faculty in my department will vote, but I do know that I feel there is a conflict of interest in having lecturers represented by the tenured faculty's union. Obviously, the issue can come down to "do we vote to lay off lecturers or to cut our own pay?" I have lost classes this year to tenured and tenure track faculty, which caused me to lose my health insurance, and I have no classes yet for fall quarter. I have served the University for 7 years, taking large classes, especially in the History of Nursing, at the most inconvenient times and places,and I have been told all along not to have any loyalty to the University because it has no loyalty to me. I think the current dysfunctional system which uses lecturers at the convenience of the tenured faculty is a feudal system of exploitation - the dirty little secret of academia. I hope this budget crisis brings this dirty secret into public view and destroys it.

  • Compassion trumped all
  • Posted by Prof Red on July 25, 2009 at 8:00pm EDT
  • DFS admittedly has this partly right--and I live in this state and feel good about it. The main reason "Penny" can't meet a mortgage is because the populace, with full encouragement of CA government, grew housing costs to the point where no normal working stiff could afford one. CA never imagined this was unsustainable or that a recession could in fact impose a reality check on their fantasy. At times, the Left Coast doesn't have a station stop for the clue train. Forrester's comment about DMV shutting down and residents won't be able to register or drive cars is a great example of hallucinogenic raving. Tell us when that happens. I'll finally enjoy getting on an LA freeway.

    Lecturers, your union leaders didn't have an alternative other than layoffs, and never thought of one. Reed, who is getting undeserved abuse from some total jerks, is the one who proposed furloughs as a way to keep you guys from getting thrown under a bus by your own union. It turned out that most faculty agreed; they voted to give up some pay to save their colleagues. I'm one who did so, and sensed some union reps seemed surprised and furious. If furloughs had been THEIR idea, they would have had the cheerleaders out for it--but it wasn't their idea. All CSU administrators are giving up same %, and they don't want their colleagues thrown out on the streets either.

    So while CA may be La La Land, there are many compassionate people who will pull together to take care of one another despite the lunacy. So DFS, now wherever you are, ask your college leaders what they are doing to solve a deficit in your state--and you have a deficit. Thanks to your Federal govt., every taxpayer owes close to half a million. I'll bet your state's college leaders ain't doing squat other than pushing vulnerable people under a bus so they can keep their own raises and fat salaries.
    Karen, the caste system of Higher Ed between tenured and untenured is unethical . It violates the principle of justice. The situation is national, and it is far worse in most other states., especially those which have no unions to help balance power of faculty with administrators who are often no more than political hacks,. If you had evel lived outside CA, you would know that there is no "secret." It's just a tolerated type of discrimination.

  • Prof Red
  • Posted by DFS on August 1, 2009 at 9:15pm EDT
  • Great comment!

    I don't know if you're still in this thread, but I want to use your line: "...the Left Coast doesn't have a station stop for the clue train." That's worth remembering.

    You're right; I only had it partly right. I don't live on the Left Coast -- therefore it must be the Right Coast to live. And my CC president has handled our budget perfectly. He is an awesome capitalist, after all. No firings, no lay-offs, no cut-backs -- even though our state asked for monies back. We had it covered, and everyone's happy here.

    My point still remains: California has spent more than it took in. And, we resent having to pay for it.