Day 179

"Who's university? Our university!"

This anti-fee hike and layoff slogan developed by student groups and staff unions is ringing in my ears this morning after waking up to NPR's announcement that a riot took place on Berkeley campus last night. A group of people (though they appeared to be students, with which groups they are affiliated is unclear since it's come out that police suspect at least half were not students) broke into a construction site on campus to protest the money being spent on the capital project rather than being used to alleviate fee hikes and layoffs. The protest originally started as a peaceful flash dance mob, but later turned into a riot when a portion of the original protest group broke off, trash cans and dumpsters were set ablaze, windows smashed, and other property damaged before the altercations began between "protestors" and riot police. Apparently one girl was sort of punched in the face by an officer as she was taunting and threatening him, which will undoubtedly be fodder for police brutality accusations and investigations, and further division within the movement and the support it is trying to garner. I am certainly leaning on the side of, "What on earth are these morons thinking?!" because they are destroying the credibility of their own arguments and actions. And if someone was threatening your livelihood or your home, would you protest those actions by smashing your own windows and setting stuff on fire? Seems pretty stupid to me to protest the administration by claiming ownership of the university, then subsequently trying to destroy it. In an email condemning the actions and asking for campus help in identifying the rioters, the Chancellor also stated, "Sadly, such action does incredible damage to our advocacy efforts with Sacramento and with the California public to preserve public higher education." Regardless of whether protesters want the Chancellor's blessing or not, he is absolutely right.

Day 176

Campus is somewhat unexpectedly abuzz today with sort-of-not-quite student protests going on. The main lobby of my building--normally a place where students do nothing more exciting than take a nap or wait for the elevator--is humming with activity. About 6 tables for various student causes, mostly related to California legislation and budget cuts to UC, line the walls. The tables are covered with printed materials and are surrounded by students, a scene normally only present on Sproul Plaza, where students from the sixties fought for those specific tabling rights. A set of giant red posters line one wall reading "HEAR US," with another that says "Ruck the Fegents." On the lawn outside the building doors are grave markers stating things like, "RIP Affordable UC Education." Yesterday, the walls and bulletin boards (and door frames, and elevators, and bathroom stalls, and door handles, and...) were covered with fliers about events taking place in the building throughout the day as part of something called "Rolling University: opening the doors to Our University, one building at a time." Here is a schedule:

12-1: Potluck lunch with students, staff, workers, and faculty
1-3:30: Banner making and March 4th discussions
3:30-5: Dialogue about impact of cuts on staff
5:30-7: Roundtable with Professors Nelson Maldonado-Torres [of the ethnic studies department] and Barrie Thorne [of the sociology department]
7-8:30: Dinner and discussion on eviction of Bear's Lair businesses
8:30-10: Screening of "Columbia Revolt"

My boss asked our receptionist yesterday whether anyone had asked her to book rooms in our building for these events, which they had not. It seems that the students are peacefully and in a very organized manner squatting, and according to something I overheard one of the student organizers say, they plan to continue these Rolling University activities for the rest of the week. My theory is that since the March 4 demonstrations now have official university administration endorsement and support, which is something that at least some groups on campus are not interested in having, that the groups will secretly reschedule to demonstrations, or host something separate on a different date.

My black boots have a tear on the side along one of the seams. I wore black socks underneath so that you can't see it from far. I may or may not have also used a black sharpie to hide the scuffed toes.

Day 170

This morning, we received an email from the Changellor's office with the subject line, "Important information regarding upcoming marches on Sacramento." Long story short, the university is officially endorsing a student-organized set of meetings and rally in Sacramento in March 1, and is not condemning the union organized protests of March 4. The university's clever maneuver is to endorse active protests against the actions of the state while saying that they cannot endorse protests against raising student fees or layoffs, justifying these actions as necessary in response to state cuts. If you remember from my posts about last semester's protests, the campus website made it clear that while faculty and students were basically given the green light to skip class, staff were expected to show up to work on time or face potential consequences. How about this change-of-tone, solidarity-enforcing paragraph in the email?:

"Staff wishing to participate in these [rallies and other events] should arrange in advance with their supervisors for time off through furlough or vacation.  Supervisors are encouraged to grant such requests provided that the work needs of their unit can be met."

I just received a travel reimbursement allocation from central campus for some visiting students we'll be having at that event I mentioned yesterday. Our standard for reimbursements are up to $300 for students flying in from outside CA, and $100 for students flying from within the state; most students don't meet the maximums unless they are flying from outside the country, or a small city. The related campus offices wrote to inform me that they have agreed to only pay up to $250 for one student flying in from Washington, D.C. "after looking up the cost of flying from Washington D.C., with a Saturday night stayover." They recommend students use Travelocity or other similar sites to find deals. I felt only a little bit of a cad for rolling my eyes at both the $50 reduction, and at the suggestion that we need to instruct the country's top internationally-educated students of the Millenial generation on how to effectively navigate the internet.

Day 169

Last week I was focused on planning an upcoming annual event for the department. For this event, we'll need to serve our guests breakfast and lunch. This department has for as long as any of us can remember used the same caterer for such things. Sometimes, organizations might choose to remain loyal to a vendor for a variety of reasons including reliability, quality, and some of the other perks that might come along with such a relationships such as occasional discounts or other favors. Normally, I don't work directly with any vendors for this event (we have a staff person in charge of these sorts of event logistics), but since I have a 25% budget cut for the event this year, I decided to take the time to look over the specifics of the budget from last year. I was appalled to realize that last year, we spent over $24 a person for boxed lunches. Boxed lunches! These include a sandwich, apple, cookie, and a three-bite-full container of pasta salad. We bought drinks separately, adding to the cost. I figured that due to the overall fairly large size of the budget that someone had just overlooked the price per person for the sake of simplicity. So I did some homework, found a handful of far more reasonably priced vendors, and passed these menus along to my department's event planner. I was even more mortified when she responded saying, "These menus look great, but I've got a lot going on right now, so I hope you don't mind if we just stick with the old standby for the sake of simplicity. Thanks!"

Did she miss the memo about the budget crisis? 

I wrote back with a thanks-but-no-thanks and generously offered to take care of it myself, my eyebrows bent ever so slightly in suspicion of this dubious loyalty to an outrageously priced sandwich...

Day 157

Times Higher Education is an industry magazine published in London. They focus, obviously, a great deal on British and European education, but also spend about as much time covering the international higher education landscape. The buzz in global higher education at the moment is that while the US and several European countries are disinvesting in higher education in response to the current economics crisis, major players in Asia such as China are pouring money into higher education. This has led most everyone to believe that China will rather suddenly become a major competitor in an area where US schools along with a good handful of European universities have for the most part for over 100 years been the undisputed leaders. Granted, the US still spends far more on education than China at the moment, but the gap is closing. In a fairly short article in the most recent issue of T.H.E., they note that in the US, "public higher education budgets are in freefall. Governments have discovered they can cut funding and get away with it." They cite one university to illustrate the point: the "world-leading" University of California system. In this example, they point out that "the freeze on student places, tuition-fee hikes of a third or more, and staff-furloughs...are not enough to cover the revenue gap." They blame a change in Western culture, which is "the weakening of public consent for taxation and the idea of higher education as a shared benefit," and the regression to "the alternative model of education as an investment by families and students."

American families and students are currently focused on the role of a university as a means to a financial end, meaning they pay for a college education so the student will be able to find a good job. This has not always been the case, hence the assertion of a change in Western culture. It is true that land grant universities included engineering and agricultural schools, and we have a rich (although surprisingly short) history of quality law, medical, and business schools all aiming at professions. But for the majority of the history of American higher education (right up into the 70s), a bachelors degree was seen as a way to improve the mind in a variety of ways such as improving culture, developing personal philosophies, sharing a common knowledge with your fellow man, learning ethical values, being a better citizen, and so on.  Everyone benefited from a local University--including its museums, research, and classroom education--which is why it was worth the public investment. Look up the history of the University of Chicago, and see what it did for that city in a very short amount of time. Now, the perception is that a university is there to serve as a vehicle for young people to figure out how to make money, which is why we have fights over what, precisely, undergraduate tuition and taxpayer money pays for that directly benefits the career prospects of those students. This is why politicians and taxpayers want to know why their hard-earned money is going to support a program in ancient Russian literature when California employers aren't exactly chomping at the bit for 22-year olds who are experts on the role of Peter the Great on the reformation of the Russian alphabet.

I am a believer in education for its own sake, and I have not held one job aside from undergraduate internships related to my professional undergraduate major. I know I've preached on about this before, but it is closely related to the perception that universities are wasting money on foolish subjects that do not lead to jobs for students, and that the university serves a public good, rather than just a private one to the individuals who receive those degrees. Perhaps universities, including this one, have shot themselves in the foot while trying to hold onto precious taxpayer money: our message has been that the presence of universities, and their subsequent degree recipients in a community are directly related to economic growth. We have failed to convey in that message that this prosperity is in part related to the fact that we have a generally well-educated population on a variety of liberal arts topics, and not just because we "produce" computer engineers and financial managers. We have also failed to successfully express the non-economic importance of culture, libraries, the arts, original research, and the understanding of human history. American prowess, power, prosperity, and legacy will diminish along with our de-prioritization of our education and culture.

Day 156

My absence from this blog has been unacceptable. But given the fact that this is my busiest time of year, I forgive me, and thank you in advance for your forgiveness as well.

We had a staff meeting this week so our boss could update us on the budget situation, the Operational Excellence project going on around campus, and a few other office details. Recently, our department HR person left, and none of us really thought she would be replaced any time soon, if at all. We all suspected that the consultants on campus would recommend consolidating HR, and possibly eliminate the position from departments, or at least re-configure the roll. Well, we were right and wrong: the consulting group will very likely make recommendations on ways to centralize some HR functions, but not all. And, in the meantime, we have enough of a need in this department, that we've decided to fill the spot at 75%. The reduction from 100% is based on the fact that we are very low on faculty, and will be low on student instructors because of university budget cuts, so that the job needs will be lower than normal over at least the next few years. The extra workload for our other two staff members who can take care of HR functions has been a bit much, I think, which is also a likely driver as to why they are filling a position during a time of shrinking budgets.

Another bit of news that sort of sounded nice, but confuses me, is that the campus is lifting the hiring freeze on faculty hires for next year, and has all but promised that faculty and staff furloughs will be over. However, departments will likely be asked to cut another 5% from staffing budgets, and the money in the pot for faculty will remain flat. I am most definitely not an accountant, but I think there is a puzzle piece missing in there that has yet to be designed. Our manager predicts/hopes that this coming year will be the bottom of the valley before things start looking better. I wondered aloud how hiring faculty, ending the furlough, and cutting staff budgets bodes delightful for those of us on the staff side. "I see your point," my boss says. She and her colleagues posed a similar query at a recent meeting with campus money and human resources people. It seems that the campus is kind of holding its collective payroll breath because as it turns out, forty percent of our workforce is at retirement age. Forty percent! They are predicting/hoping that if and when the economy improves, retirement funds will start to look healthy again, and people will start retiring en masse. This will free up money for new (cheaper, younger) faculty and staff. Ahhh, we can all breathe now.

I was dismayed to receive a comment that my blog sounds terribly depressing. Well, when you are living on the edge in a non-profit career to begin with, and the state government responsible for supporting said non-profit is not only cutting your funds, but borrowing money back, it can be a little nerve wracking. Not that UC is going anywhere, but I think we were all a little nervous there for a while, and it isn't exactly clear where we are headed. All of that said, no, it is not too depressing here. Working on a campus is truly wonderful, and my fellow staff are truly wonderful, too. So fear not, my loyal readers! Things are scary and shaky, but so far, fairly intact. Pink slips and padlocks are depressing, and we are nowhere near that point just yet.