Over the past few weeks, I have been working with coalitions and groups of student activists, student government leaders, statewide student organizers, University faculty, graduate students, and union workers around a Day of Action today, September 24, against the severe budget cuts and student fee hikes.
In the 1970s, student fees were less than $100. The University of California extols the virtue of a free public education, and thus charges "fees" instead of "tuition." On July 17, 2009, the UC Regents, a board of decision-makers appointed by the Governor of California and including only one student, declared a state of fiscal emergency and granted UC President Mark Yudof emergency powers to make financial decisions. The Regents are now recommending a 32% fee hike, which would push UC student fees over $10,000 for the first time in history.
The CA state legislature cut the University of California system by $813 million. Some of the fault for crumbling access to higher education lies with California's Republican choke hold on state revenue, which has de-prioritized public education through de-funding and program cuts. And some blame should be attributed to the UC Regents, who have continued to make ill spending choices and granted themselves raises while academic services have been cut ("Execs still get raises as UC cuts staffing, pay"). Instead of disclosing their highly-guarded budget or devoting resources towards serious reform of the California policy on tax revenues, the UC has sought to fund the cuts on the backs of students, workers, and faculty.
Today, we stage a walkout, to show voters that public education is worth funding, to show the UC Regents that the fee hikes and denial of access to higher education are not inevitable, and to allow students to stand in solidarity with faculty, workers, and each other in this battle. At Berkeley, the day's activities will include picket lines, a rally led by students and faculty alike, and a march around campus, but each UC campus has many different actions planned.
Meanwhile, the University of California is fighting back. Several weeks ago, the UC Office of the President launched a campaign to deflect the panic about student fees through their own channel, targeting state legislators instead of administrators. UC President Yudof tweeted about it:
Of course, the decision-making body that will ultimately decide to raise fees $2500 by Fall 2010 is the UC Regents, not the state legislature.
Upon arriving back at campus this fall, it was apparent how the budget cuts affected the campus. Classes are smaller, professors have been furloughed, and libraries are no longer open on weekends or for 24 hours per day during finals week, which squeezes long-standing academic resources for students. With the fee hikes comes a gentrification of the UC, as students of color are systematically denied access via increased cuts to the multicultural recruitment and retention centers on campus.
The UC Berkeley administration boasts the virtues of a "High Fee, High Aid" model, in which raising fees is morally acceptable by boosting financial aid packages for lower income students. But this forces the shrinking middle class to slip through the cracks-- students who could barely afford public education but do not qualify for financial aid or grants now cannot return to school.
As a member of the student senate, I heard a special order last Wednesday evening from UC Berkeley's Associate Chancellor about the importance of college affordability. Unfortunately, as it turned out, the Associate Chancellor, Linda Morris Williams, received a severance package of more than $100,000 to leave her job in the UC Office of the President, only to be rehired immediately at UC Berkeley. She now earns more than $300,000 yearly. My campus administration sent a delegate to talk about fiscal responsibility who epitomizes some of the excess that has led to the dire public education crisis in California. From a Berkeley student's perspective, even $30,000 would allow us to keep our libraries open for finals week.
Wednesday, the UC Police Department was observed taking down posters for the walkout. On early morning Bay Area TV stations Wednesday morning, the UC aired advertisements against the strikes and walkout. Berkeley Haas Business School students, as well as graduate student instructors from various departments on campus, have received emails warning of academic and professional repercussions with participation in the walkout. This overreaction tells activists that we are doing something right.
The walkout is not the last step in the fight for access to public education. But it is a first, hopefully large, step toward defending public education in California.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Personal is Political: University of California Walkout Today.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16179
The parallels to the City University of New York are astonishing. We are going through the EXACT same thing. Our university also extols accessible education, but the bloomberg administration (with the authorization of our own administration) has been systematically privatizing the university and is thus systematically getting rid of our working class students and students of color. The mayor has also been using the recession as an excuse (which didn't stop the city from handing over billions to wall street. what a bust!). Oh, and I don't know about UCLA, but everytime CUNY's tuition goes up, the chancellors salary goes up. He now makes $540,000 + hundreds of thousands in perks. Talk about corruption.
The students are organizing a rally in october at city hall, but I don't know what its going to take exactly to reorganize the politics of this city.
Unlike Disney and Apple and the other big-box stores that took over the Square, I bet all the peep-shows would still be paying out a lot of taxes to the state if they were still around.
In any economic downturn food and vice maintain a revenue stream a lot longer than luxury shopping.
much as I want to support this, what people need to be doing is fighting the rediculous lack of taxes in california. The school has no money, and walking out isn't going to change that. I have a friend that works there, and is unsure how she's going to afford the furloughs. but until they repeal the "taxes on buildings can't go up while they're owned by the same person" proposition(I don't remember which number it is) protesting the school is not going to help. Telling the school to give you money that they don't have isn't helpful.
Yep. I grew up in CA, and there has been so much trouble caused by our tax laws (it takes a two-thirds vote to raise taxes instead of a simple majority). While some of the UC system's problems could be fixed by rearranging the chancellors' salaries, etc, it will probably take raising taxes to fix it entirely, and while a majority of Californians might approve that tax, two-thirds probably wouldn't.
Proposition 13 is the culprit. I can't even conceive of a young person or couple who want sto own a home moving to California. They have a huge structural deficit which at this point is unsolvable.
The people want the best services but refuse to pay for them. The state, and the university systme, is broke, and no amount of protests by students will change that fact.
As far as the chancellor making $540,000, that job is like being the CEO of a billion dollar company. You pay the chancellor half that salary, and you will probably get someone less capable.
I always find it entertaining how paying teachers less is justified by the idea that you only want people who "really want to teach" in education, rather than people who do it for the paycheck. I'm OK with making a little less money to teach, but it seems that administrators aren't OK with making a little less money to do their part for students.
My wife is a teacher (fortunately in a district that pays very well). The superintendent probably makes five time what she makes in total compensation. But he is responsible for running a system that has almost 200 schools and 200,000 students. I think teachers are generally underpaid, especially in less-affluent areas. But the reality is that the people responsible for running the systems better be paid somewhat comparable to what they can make in business.
But a superintendent doesn't teach 200,000 students. superintendents are administrative and their work is oversight and/or organizational. They're also a little bit like politicians.
Good luck to everyone participating. I think this is so great, public universities should not be so high priced that they require all 18 yr olds to go into debt upon entering.
Proud Banana Slug (UC Santa Cruz) participating in the Walkout. Thanks for writing about this, Ariel!
Where is the money supposed to come from? As others have said, the protest is aimed at the wrong target.
Your state has no money, thus your state school has no money.
Fairly sure not too many serious economics majors are going to be participating in the walk-out.
Thanks for your concern Logrus, but the Econ department even held a teach-in today on the values of education and in solidarity with the Day of Action.
Our state does have money, and it cuts disproportionately from education. Our Regents have enough money to give themselves raises consistently, yet raise our fees. The highest paid California employee is the UC Berkeley football coach, at more than $2 million a year, yet the entire sports program (all sports) at Berkeley still have an annual deficit of $10 million.
Tax oil. Tax tobacco. Increased state revenues are possible, and these budget cuts are not inevitable.
I don't know anything about your board of regents, but the Bears alone make a profit and 2mil is a tiny salary for a PAC 10 head coach.
Football and basketball are the only two teams in the black at Berkeley and your sports deficit is down 3 million from three years ago.
Getting rid of the 25 or so teams that don't actually generate a revenue would be a fiscally proactive response (it would also mean clipping every single female team sport you have), attacking the one sport that makes the most profit is not.
So long as the regents are making salaries comparable to the national average adjusted for local cost of living the problem is not with them. It's with the people who have erected lavish smoking tents outside their office in Sacramento.
/hates football.
//fences at a university with no recognized fencing team because that would cost money (as does our crappy football team which, unlike the Bears, does not generate revenue).
///Suggested having fencing tournaments in pirate costumes, you know to cash in on Johnny Depp and get the kids buying tickets. Strangely, the idea was rejected.
Increased state revenues are possible, but they require the input of the entire state, not just students.
It takes a lot to tax oil and tobacco, and it takes a big vote. As I recall California proposed a few taxes in the past that failed to pass muster on the referendum front.
And yeah, cutting Cal football seems like a bad idea when it raises more money than it requires. Cal football's profits allow for some of those other sports that are in the red.
I was at the Walkout at UC San Diego today. It was our first day of class so the leaders didn't have much time to organize, but the turnout was considerable (I'm not good at estimating crowds) when taking into account the general apathy and uninvolved-ness of our student body. We had a handful of tenured faculty that I recognized show up along with many staff members watching from the sidelines.
Most of the participants were people of color and are members of other activists groups on campus (Students for Gavin Newsom, Young Democrats, MECHA, Cross-Cultural Center, and Women's Center). The hope is to keep visibility and action up throughout the quarter. All I know is that if I were a freshman (I'm graduating in June) I would be scared shitless by the prospect of such high costs.
Seems like what is needed is cuts to different areas of the system that are more effectively politically guarded.
I'm sure that the prison system and the agricultrural subsidies received far less cuts than the UC system.
This isn't about trying to create more streams of revenue in order to get out of the crisis. This is seeing that the current way is unsustainable and making cuts that allow the system to survive to the future. As far as I see it, reducing the amount of students who can go to college by raising fees is the exact thing that will reduce the tax base and result in more problems in the future. It's good politics, but it's bad policy.