It likely won’t come to a shock to most CSU students, but they will be seeing higher bills next semester.  Not only did Chancellor Charles reed ask the trustees for a 20% fee increase, but he also indicated that he would be looking for ways to save money throughout the system. That means furloughs, more classes taught by less expensive “lecturers,” and fewer office hours.

Of course, if you were cynical, you could point out that fee increases seemingly always happen in the summer, when must students are away from their campus.  So, it is harder for students to organize.  However, that doesn’t mean that students will simply lie down. Steve Dixon, president of the California State Student Association plans on making sure the Chancellor and the Legislators hear from students.  

“We’re very upset,” Dixon said. “Every time Sacramento can’t balance the books, we students end up bearing the financial responsibility. But we’re not getting an increase in quality. We’ll see increased class sizes, fewer courses and fewer teachers of Ph.D. quality. Worse, we’ll also see tens of thousands of students denied access.” (SF Chronicle 7/17/09)

Both state university systems have been making huge cutbacks, and this will hit employees extremely hard. It is unfortunate that despite the fact that Californians want to ensure that we have quality higher education, Far-Right Legislators use the system to once again block wise fiscal and education policay.

The SF Chronicle has a good list of some of the impacts of the budget crisis upon the systems.

During the University of California Board of Regents meeting today in Riverside, I explained to the Board why I think it’s time all of us — students, community leaders, bloggers, and education advocates — reject further student fee increases. Simply put, I don’t think it’s appropriate to consistently shift the tax burden, year after year, to one of the segments of our society that are least capable of affording the costs.

Adjusted for inflation, student fees have more than doubled at the UC and CSU systems and more than tripled at the community colleges since 1990. When the state dissuades students from pursuing a higher education, we only rob ourselves of potential tax revenues in later years and increase the number of today’s youths who will be tomorrow’s prisoners or recipients of aid. To address our budget woes, we need to turn away from the easy fix of taxing students and begin the process to repeal the two-thirds legislative majority requirement to pass budgets and adjust taxes.

A transcript of my remarks to the board is below the fold, and you can also listen to audio here.

My statement at the UC Board of Regents meeting:

“The proposed budget that was signed basically requires that this group of regents approve a 9.3 percent increase in the fees, which amounts to something slightly less than $700. It’s interesting to note that the legislature decided to not increase other fees by some amount or another but instead decided to impose upon the students what could arguably – and I’ll make that argument – be called a tax of $700 additional tax on every student in the University of California system, and about half that amount in an additional tax increase for every student in the CSU system. That is a particularly stupid tax policy when there are further options available. I’ll just point out that the one percent increase in the sales tax of somebody who chooses to buy a $50,000 Mercedes would amount to some $500 increase in their tax burden. There are options out there, and what I would hope that this body would consider is to stand up and fight. And to push back. To push back really hard, because you are powerful, and the university is powerful. It has a voice, and it really ought to use its voice to stand up and fight and say, “Enough.” Enough already. Enough of stupid taxes on students. Enough of the starvation of the education system. We are starving this system, and in doing so, we are destroying the economic potential for the future. And I think we really have to stand up and fight. You got to push back. We just can’t say, “Well, there’s nothing we can do. We’re just going to have to accept it.” I’m all for a fight, and that’s a fight about the future, at least in my opinion.”

I don’t know how many times I have read this kind of article this decade, but it’s still once too often:

Facing a significant budget shortfall, the University of California plans to increase tuition at its 10 campuses by nearly 10 percent by July, in time for the summer session.

The proposed 9.3 percent fee increase would raise basic tuition for undergraduate students from $7,126 a year to about $7,789. In addition, various student services fees are also expected to rise….

Birgeneau said middle-class families will bear the brunt of the tuition increase.

Under the proposal, families earning more than $100,000 would pay the full fee increase. Families earning from $60,000 to $100,000 would pay half the fee increase, or about 4.65 percent. Families earning less than $60,000 would not be subject to the fee increase.

Even considering this graduated level of increased tuition, the price is unsustainable. An annual tuition of $7,500 is out of the reach of most families, period. It’s nearly double what I paid from 1996 to 2000, and is a 570% increase over what a UC grad would have paid from 1961 to 1965. Student loans might make up the difference, but those are much more difficult to get during a credit crunch and even if you can get one, they’ll be an anchor around your neck for decades, preventing you from finding financial security.

As I argued here back in October 2007, this is all likely part of a deliberate move to privatize public education slowly but surely over time. The Schwarzenegger Administration in 2004 rolled out a plan to raise fees and cut funding in order to accomplish this privatization goal.

Although the UC and CSU systems (which are likely to follow UC in making their own fee increases soon) remain officially public entities, they have been effectively privatized over time, as their funding now depends on private giving or student payments. The state contribution is now becoming almost incidental – with this recent budget nearly 80% of UC funding is coming from sources other than the state of California.

Even with the massive fee increases, educational quality isn’t necessarily going to be sustained. New faculty hires are going to be dramatically scaled back, meaning new profs who bring new ideas and fresh blood to the university – and who often bring the best teaching to the classroom – will be fewer in number.

The original goal of the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education was to guarantee access to college and affordability for those who were qualified in order to grow the middle class in California. It worked spectacularly, creating one of the leading economies of the globe over the last 50 years. But in the last 20 years this has begun to ebb, as fewer people can afford higher ed. And as the California Budget Project’s study A Generation of Inequality found, young college educated Californians have had a harder time finding work than those with just a high school diploma while they are saddled with debts they cannot pay off.

In Vietnam they “destroyed the village in order to save it.” Here in California, it seems clear that the goal is just to destroy higher education  and the economic mobility and the foundation of the middle class along with it. It’s time for us to determine how to reverse this trend.

While Arnold Schwarzenegger is making claims to want “economic stimulus” with his demands for gutting environmental and labor laws, he is also undermining one of the core means of economic stimulus and recovery – higher education.

When the economy is in recession many laid-off workers take the time to return to school and finish a degree, or get new forms of training and expertise. This helps keep the workforce skilled and up-to-date on the latest innovations and insights, thereby keeping California workers globally competitive. And it can create jobs at the colleges to meet the demand. At the local community college enrollment is soaring – instructors are finding long waiting lists to get into their classes, which they haven’t seen for a long time.

For all this to work, of course, those students need financial aid, since in a recession they have a difficult time affording a return to school out of pocket. Which is why Arnold’s plan to slash Cal Grant funding is so reckless:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is proposing major cuts in Cal Grants, the state’s main financial aid programfor college students. The most significant change would involve abandoning the state’s commitment to cover any rise in tuition for grant recipients, and it comes as officials at both the University of California and California State University are gearing up for 10% fee increases in response to the yawning state budget gap….

A spokeswoman for the governor said he “understands how difficult these cuts will be” but is responsible for leading the state through the economic crisis. “The governor doesn’t want to cut programs and he doesn’t want to raise taxes, but in the face of a $42-billion budget deficit and with the Legislature’s failure to pass a comprehensive solution, we’re simply running out of options,” she said.

Which is the typical BS being put out by the governor’s office these days, quotes not worth the paper on which they’re printed. The Legislature DID pass a comprehensive solution and Arnold vetoed it. Arnold has been completely unable to get a single Republican vote for his budgets over the last few years, yet continues to insist against all available evidence that the two parties in the Legislature try and work out some agreement, which is impossible as long as Republicans refuse to play.

Cal Grant cuts combined with yet another UC and CSU fee increase will put higher ed out of reach for thousands of qualified students and workers looking to remain competitive. California as a whole will suffer – but perhaps that’s the point, the endgame of Arnold’s term in office: destroying what remains of our shared prosperity so his friends in the elite can grab what is left over.

I will be on KRXA 540 AM at 8 this morning to discuss this and other issues in California politics

In 1960 the state of California made a promise. All students who met eligibility requirements would be given a place in the state’s higher education system, and that education would be provided free of charge (although students would be responsible for room and board and books, they were not to be charged for the cost of instruction). Sure, that place might be at a UC, or a CSU, but under Governor Pat Brown both Republicans and Democrats agreed that for the good of the state, its economy, and its future, affordable higher education had to be guaranteed.

That was the essence of the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education and it perhaps more than any other project of the Pat Brown era was responsible for catapulting California to global economic leadership, creating broadly shared prosperity, and making this state a better place to live. Without it we would be much worse off than we are today.

The Master Plan has been betrayed before, starting with Governor Ronald Reagan’s 1967 student fee hikes. Over the decades the promise of free college has eroded, but at least those who met the eligibility requirements could get a place. In recent years that opportunity became more remote and more dependent on debt, but at least it was there.

Under Arnold Schwarzenegger the slow but steady decline of California higher education has dramatically accelerated. Arnold has shown nothing but contempt for higher ed and no interest whatsoever in upholding the promises of the Master Plan or securing a prosperous future for all Californians.

So it comes as no surprise that he is again targeting higher ed for massive cuts, and cuts that are leading the Cal State system to turn away eligible freshmen for the first time ever:

Under one of the cost-cutting proposals, the CSU system may turn away eligible freshmen for the first time in its history. If the proposal from Chancellor Charles Reed is enacted, schools will give priority to freshmen in their “service area,” meaning CSUMB would first admit Monterey County residents. Students from outside the county would be put on a waiting list.

Institutions of higher education statewide stand to face a staggering $464.1 million in combined cuts under the governor’s plan to plug an $11 billion drop in state revenue projections.

During a recession, you want students to attend college. Regardless of age, students get education and job training that will help them grow the economy upon graduation. It is a tried and true form of economic stimulus. Arnold’s cuts are going to forestall this:

The community college system, which would be hardest hit by the cuts, would lose about 10 percent of its state funding under the governor’s plan….

“When unemployment goes up, enrollment at community colleges goes up,” Pyer said. “So we’ll have more students, and we won’t get money for that.”

Tough economic times also force some four-year students to drop down to two-year institutions, Pyer said.

The proposed budget cuts are not the only fiscal adjustment to education bouncing around Sacramento. The state Legislative Analyst’s Office has proposed fee increases that would raise community college tuition by 50 percent by fall 2009…

“It’s the community college’s feeling that it’s the worst time to raise fees when the economy is in a slump,” said Monterey Peninsula College spokesman Rich Montori.

Disclosure: I teach part-time at MPC but do not anticipate being affected by any of these cuts.

Community college cuts are especially pernicious. These schools are the primary location where working-class and lower middle-class Californians get a chance at upward mobility. Even small fee increases can put college and work skills further out of reach, especially since most of these students already work full-time.

As this budget crisis unfolds it is becoming clear to everyone that what is at stake is more than just a fiscal plan for the state government. Our very future is at risk here. I don’t know how to put it more clearly. If these cuts continue, if this overall situation is not reversed, California will simply not be sustainable for most of its residents. The prosperity of the 20th century will have given way to the aristocracy and inequality of the 21st.

Are we going to let the Yacht Party get away with it?

As we’ve reported before, the CSU has had a problem with refusing to allow potential employees to modify the state’s loyalty oath to fit the employee’s religious needs, despite the fact that the UC system has had no problem accommodating such religious freedoms. Eventually People For the American Way got involved and today they reached an agreement with CSU that gets one of the fired employees a job this fall and ensures that CSU will finally begin properly administering the oath:

CSU has agreed to appoint [Wendy] Gonaver as a temporary lecturer teaching two classes in American Studies and Women’s Studies during the fall 2008 semester, and to allow the attachment of a revised explanatory statement to the oath that CSU agrees does not undermine or qualify the oath….

Judith E. Schaeffer, Legal Director of People For the American Way Foundation and Gonaver’s attorney, said the settlement clears the way for others with religious or other objections to the oath to attach an explanatory statement, as long as the statement does not undermine or qualify the oath.

This is a welcome result – Wendy Gonaver should never have been fired and the CSU should have had better practices to handle religious objections to the oath. Still, this doesn’t mean everything is now fine – the loyalty oath still exists, and remains an obsolete relic of a McCarthyist past. California legislators should ramp up their efforts to do away with this pointless oath, so that schools and teachers can get on with the business of educating their students.

While Jeff Denhamn chases Communist ghosts, activism on the loyalty oath continues. In response to recent firings of Quaker teachers who needed to alter the oath, People for the American Way delivered 11,000 petitions to CSU Chancellor Charles Reed’s office calling for the CSU system to conform to case law and the UC system practice of allowing employees to attach an “explanatory statement” to the oath clarifying its relationship to their religious beliefs. The petition text:

“There’s no good reason for Cal State not to let employees express their religious or other objections to signing the state’s “loyalty oath.”

“Please uphold freedom of religion and freedom of speech by adopting a policy that allows employees to add an explanatory statement to the oath that will allow them to sign it without violating their beliefs.

“This is already common practice at the University of California. You should make it the practice of Cal State.”

PFAW Foundation President Kathryn Kolbert explained it this way:

“It is simply beyond irony that a teacher planning an American studies course with a section on the McCarthy era would be required to sign a ‘loyalty oath.’ Our members are engaged around this issue, and we’re committed to seeing it through to the end. This should be a straightforward matter for the University, the protection of religious freedom and free speech. We’re hopeful this issue will be resolved soon.”

There is no reason for the CSU system to not embrace these calls for reform. The loyalty oath is an anachronism from the 1950s, and while CSU cannot refuse to administer it, they are under an obligation to handle it with respect to Californians’ religious freedoms. The recent firings of CSU teachers at the Fullerton and East Bay campuses suggest that CSU needs to change its policies and practices.

You can also sign the petition online – and help ensure religious freedom and civil liberties at the CSU system.

Last week I brought you the story of another CSU teacher who was fired for wanting to change the state’s ridiculous and anachronistic loyalty oath to suit her religious beliefs. Today’s LA Times brings us the update on her story:

A Quaker who lost her appointment as a Cal State Fullerton lecturer after she objected to a state loyalty oath submitted a revised statement of her beliefs Thursday in a bid to win the job back.

People For the American Way, a Washington-based civil rights group now representing lecturer Wendy Gonaver, called on the university to reinstate her and adopt a policy protecting the religious freedom of all California State University system employees.

“She is willing to sign the oath as long as she can exercise her free-speech rights and note that her views as a Quaker would prevent her from taking up arms,” said Kathryn Kolbert, president of the organization and a constitutional lawyer. “We would like to avoid filing a lawsuit, but we are certainly prepared to do so if we need to.”

PFAW has clearly stepped up on this, and rightly so – this is a clear-cut case of violation of constitutional rights and Wendy Gonaver deserves support. They have proposed a new CSU policy regarding the oath in a letter to the Cal State Fullerton administration:

CSU recognizes that some of our employees may have religious or other objections to taking this oath.  It is our policy to accommodate the religious and other beliefs of our employees by allowing an employee to append an explanatory statement to the employee’s signed oath.

This would be a sensible policy, at least until the state finally does away with the moronic oath. No word yet on whether CSU is going to accept this, but the recent incidents suggest that CSU needs to reexamine their practices regarding the oath and need to adopt proposals such as this to guarantee the rights of their employees. There is absolutely no reason for them to resist this.

Unfortunately for Wendy Gonaver, Cal State Fullerton is resistant on offering her the job again:

[CSU General Counsel Christine] Helwick said the campus might not be able to rehire her despite the revision: “The addendum she is now proposing is different in tone, scope and content from the one she originally presented. However, the position for which she originally applied last August had to be filled by someone else when she refused to sign the oath.”

This is BS. It wasn’t Gonaver’s fault, as the CSU implies, but their own. The CSU system, and CSUF in particular, should be able to offer her another position. And the CSU system needs to implement the PFAW’s proposed policy change as well as get behind Alan Lowenthal’s effort to do way with the oath. Enough is enough.