Response from the Academic Senate candidates

In these challenging times, having an informed debate among our leaders in the Academic Senate is critically important.  This is especially relevant for the Senate, which holds important power in terms of budget oversight and control over curriculum.

We posed the following questions to the four Academic Senate candidates.  Two of them (Chase-Dunn and Graham) answered directly, while Gauvain and Walker chose to respond via the Academic Senate web site.  To provide an equal platform, we are pasting the relevant responses, and providing links to the Academic Senate pages below.

Finally, in response to Professor Walker's statement about the representation of faculty interests, we disagree.  We believe that elections are about ensuring responsiveness to faculty concerns, and especially those from a wide range of disciplines and colleges.  We also believe that our elected leaders should remain accountable to their faculty, and should remain independent of any pressure from administration.

Sincerely,
Pat Morton
Karthick Ramakrishnan
(on behalf of Concerned Faculty at UCR)

Questions to candidates:

a) MEDICAL SCHOOL: What are the fiscal conditions under which the Academic Senate should give the "green light" to the medical school plans in the next 2 years, and what are the conditions under which we should urge the administration to "hit the pause button"?

b) FISCAL OVERSIGHT: Much has been made about whether the "firewall" in spending also applies to the use of Chancellorial funds. The Chancellor has previously proposed spending up to $20 million in discretionary money over the next 2 years, and after that, potentially having the campus on the hook for upwards of $30 million a year once the school is established (if state and federal funds do not materialize).

Many Academic Senate leaders, past and present, believe that this violates the spirit, if not the letter, of a firewall in spending between new projects and existing areas of excellence.  Do you agree?  If so, how do we rebuild this firewall?

----------------------------

Responses (in alphabetical order):

CHASE-DUNN

a) I support the founding of a Medical School at UCR. But I do not believe that we should jeopardize existing mission-critical campus programs in order to use campus funds for starting up the Medical School. If the fiscal conditions should substantially improve soon and existing programs are not jeopardized I would support some  use of campus funds for the Medical School start-up. 

b) I agree. If elected Chair of the Senate I will consult with all those on the UCR faculty who are concerned about this issue. After this period of consultation I will engage a discussion with the UCR Administration with the goal of rebuilding the firewall.

------

GAUVAIN

Thank you for your request for further information on our views. I will be putting an addendum to my personal statement with this information on the Senate Election Website. This addendum will be posted by Friday of this week.

Sincerely yours,

Mary Gauvain

Link to Addendum (Academic Senate)

------

GRAHAM

Thanks for your questions!

As I wrote in my statement on the Academic Senate web page,
given the collapse of State funding for the Medical School, as
a campus we need to slow down. We approved it conditional on
State funds; Systemwide approved it conditional on State
funds; and so to did the President. And the funds are now
gone. We need to slow down.

I'm all for a clearly demarcated and strongly adhered to
firewall between new and existing programs and. I'd do my best
to see it rebuilt and maintained.

Sincerely yours, Peter Graham

------

WALKER

No response, but the Academic Senate addendum specifically refers to the Concerned Faculty email sent on April 7.

Link to Addendum (Academic Senate)

Suggested email to send on iLearn

Dear students,

March 4 will be a statewide Day of Action in support of public education.  Across California, faculty, students, parents, community leaders and workers -- from K-12 to University of California -- will take part in events to demand full funding of public education.  This is a crucial time for advocacy for public education while the Governor and the Legislature negotiate a new budget that may include more cuts to UC and public education.  The rallies in September and November have been effective: the Governor's office credited them with motivating his proposal to cap prison spending and increase the floor on higher education spending.

The UC system, the world's premier public university, is now at a breaking point. Students cannot get the classes they need even as they pay 45% higher fees, class sizes are ballooning, faculty have less contact with students and larger workloads, and staff work harder for less money.  We are concerned about a future UC where thousands of eligible students are turned away, or take longer to finish their degrees. The future of the UC system must remain affordable and accessible to California's residents, in keeping with the Master Plan for Education. 

On March 4, a Teach-Out will start at 12 noon at the Bell Tower. Students, workers and faculty will speak about the effects of the recent fee increases and budget cuts.  The rally will continue with a march down University Avenue and rally in downtown Riverside.  

For more information:

Facebook page of the Social Justice Alliance UCR: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=info&gid=142229676325 

Free UCR Alliance web page: http://freeucr.org

March 4, 2010: What we encourage faculty to do

Dear colleagues,

Next Thursday, March 4, is a national Day of Action in Defense of Public Education.  Across California, and the country, educators, students, parents, community leaders and workers -- from K-12 to University -- will take part in rallies to advocate for public education, including full funding of public higher education.

We ask you to support these efforts.  The Governor and the Legislature are negotiating a new budget that could include further cuts to UC and California public education.  The rallies in September and November have been effective: the Governor's office credited them with motivating his proposal to cap prison spending and increase the floor on higher education spending.

There are a series of events next week that will culminate on Thursday, March 4 in a Teach-In at the Belltower and March to downtown Riverside. For more information, see the links in the post below.

In addition to links to flyers, we have a sample email that you can send to students via iLearn, or announce in class.  We also encourage you to support these efforts in one of the following ways:

· Actively participating in the March 4 events: Please note that key times are 11am, Noon, 1pm, and 2pm at UCR, and at 2:30pm and 3:30pm in downtown Riverside;

· Not penalizing students, lecturers, and TAs who participate in the March 4 events; in particular, we encourage our colleagues to adjust their curricula so that students who take part in the Day of Action are not academically punished for doing so—they are, after all, supporting our livelihoods;
· Drafting collectively signed statements similar to the one signed by Ethnic Studies (we sent this earlier, and have posted it on the Concerned Faculty site).

On March 4, you may want to cancel your classes, meet your class and send the students to the Teach-In, or use class time to discuss the actions.
Thank you for your help in making these laudable efforts of public advocacy more effective.

Links to flyers and events

March 4, starting at 11am through 5pm: March 4 in UCR and downtown Riverside

March 3, 3pm: Empire Strikes Back: Organizing Inland

Some progress, some new problems

First, a big thank you for your vote and efforts to get your colleagues to vote on the various Academic Senate resolutions. The resolutions sent a strong statement, that we have upwards of 200 faculty on this campus who are engaged and determined to make sure that our voices are heard in the future direction of our campus, and of UC.

On Thursday, February 4, we will continue our tradition of town hall meetings, with some *VERY* pressing and troubling issues about how UCR will fare in the next round of budget cuts and systemwide strategic plans (more details below).

Thursday, at NOON in the Jenkin Library, Watkins 2145 (2nd Floor)

Please join us as we continue our efforts to restore UC (and our campus) to the way it should be.


-------------------

INFORMATION YOU SHOULD KNOW:

1) As we heard at the last Town Hall meeting, the UCR is belatedly getting input into some of the Gould Commission working groups, but significant problems remain.  For instance, we have one faculty representative on the Commission headed by President Yudof and Regent Gould, but they have canceled the past 3 monthly meetings, and are still planning on having a preliminary report to the state legislature this spring.  Also, when meetings do occur, the agendas are circulated with only a day or two notice.  Our concerns about watering down shared governance are worse than we thought!

In terms of substantive proposals, the notion of UCB and UCLA "going private" has been actively discussed, and has not been ruled out.  These would certainly have some important implications of what it means to be a UC campus.  There are also discussions about the budget implications of shifting more towards out-of-state students, as well as other ways to restructure campuses to work more with each other.

Perhaps something that is particularly challenging for UCR and our student demographics is the seeming consensus in one working group that "the UC should not be doing any remedial education."
2) It looks like March 4 is shaping up to be a day of statewide, and even national action to defend and support public higher education.  Students may engage in walkouts and other public actions.  In the next meeting, we would like to discuss what faculty can do and/or should do.

3) Our resolution efforts are already being noted on other campuses; here is a post on the widely-read "Remaking the University" blog, which notes:
http://utotherescue.blogspot.com/2010/02/uc-riverside-academic-senate-calls-for.html
"In a forceful effort, the UCR Academic Senate has passed a series of resolutions calling for greater transparency, equity, and a renewed commitment to the Master Plan. In particular they have taken a strong stand against the overriding of shared governance involved in the Regents' Grant of Emergency Powers to President Yudof, insisted on greater fiscal transparency, called for a suspension of cuts to programs and staff until there is a genuine evaluation of their effects on the educational mission of the University, and called for the State, the Regents, and UCOP to a renewed effort to preserve the Master Plan for Higher Education."

4) We now have a web site as a clearing-house for information.

This was prompted in part by a rumor we heard recently that we Concerned Faculty were encouraging UCR to become a teaching campus, along the lines of the UCSD letter. This allegation was particularly painful to hear since what energized most of us during the summer was the now-infamous UCSD letter, in addition to the actions taken at UCOP.  Now, we have a clearing-house of information so that anyone can see what we stand for, and what we are pushing for.  (A detailed debunking of the rumor can be found in the post below).

Explaining our cautious stance on strategic planning

Recently, a colleague in Engineering informed us that he heard a rumor: that we were opposed to research excellence at UCR, and wanted us to be a "teaching college."  A further whopper: that we were implicitly backing the argument made in the UCSD letter for a two-tier system!!

Nothing can be further from the truth, but we realize that some recent statements urging caution about a singular focus on AAU status may have gotten twisted through various communications.  Here is where we stand:


Improving the research standing of the University is important for all of us.  Many faculty have been been concerned, not about the push for an AAU profile, but rather the particular way in which some have argued it should happen (in the Strategic Planning Town Hall, for instance, the chair of the Research Excellence committee noted erroneously that growing the sciences is the only way to achieve AAU status, while recent statements by the AAU note that a strong humanities and social science presence is critical for AAU member institutions).

Perhaps more concerning for some faculty is that--from a strategic planning point of view for the next few years--what a singular focus on AAU status might do to other parts of University operations.  We know pretty well that there will be more budget cuts next year, and perhaps even the year after that.  So, at what costs are faculty willing to impose when saving research and letting other parts of the University community get slashed (janitorial staff hours, department admin workload, student financial hardship, etc.)?  That is an open question, and we are simply stating that a singular focus on AAU status may not be the most helpful way to proceed.  It will not even help advance the research mission if, for instance, MSOs are stretched to the limit and facilities are less likely to be maintained.

So, many faculty are concerned not about AAU status as a goal (which they agree with), but with it being the over-riding goal at this particular time.

Furthermore, some of us have heard from high-level administrators that the AAU has given signals that it is unlikely to expand membership in the foreseeable future.  Instead of making just AAU the goal to rally around, we should be putting together a better message of who we are, and what we excel in (as opposed to our hopes to be recognized in the future).  Also, importantly, we heard from a member on a Gould Commission committee last week that having tiers of research and non-research campuses in the UC system is a non-starter.  It may be part of the fantasies of some colleagues at UCSD and elsewhere, but UCOP is not taking it seriously at all.  So, there is no basis for clinging to vague hopes of AAU status to address the (debunked) fear that we are not going to be a campus that excels in research.

Arnold's Plan: Are we safe?

Two weeks ago, the Governor outlined a plan to increase funding for higher education (setting a floor of 10%), and decreasing funding for prisons (setting a ceiling of 7%).  Sounds great, until you learn that this will have little or no impact for the next 3 years, with a proposed constitutional amendment kicking in only until 2014.

Something for UC advocates to keep in mind, as we will likely face another grueling budget season of proposed cuts from the state.