Free but Focused

Reading Guide for the “Needs Attention” memo

weareuci:

A memo titled General Comments on Units Designated “Needs Attention” was sent to Humanities chairs and directors. The following is a very well articulated analysis of the memo, written by one of our brilliant UCI grad students. 

You can access the “Needs Attention” memo here:

http://ucleaks.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/documentzero.pdf
 (Note: I do not know who put this up. I don’t know how long this link will be good.)

The following is a “Reading Guide” I drafted for this memo. The acronyms are explained.

 

Hello,

My name is Tetsuro Namba and I am a graduate student in the Comparative Literature program here at UCI. I am passing around the “Needs Attention” memo because I believe that everyone who has an interest in the humanities should be aware of the situation we are facing. We all know that the state of California continuously cuts its support for the UC’s. But these budget cuts are not distributed equally; some parts of the university suffer more than others. The School of Humanities (SOH) is facing a 4.8% reduction in its budget; this comes out to $1.3 million. On top of this cut, there is still a $500,000 budget cut shortfall from last year. So the SOH must, altogether, cut $1.8 million by next year. Bear in mind that on 11/28, the UC regents met and approved of salary raises for lawyers, managers and administrators, including a 9.9% raise for UCI’s vice chancellor of planning and budget, Meredith Michaels. We are looking at an institution that finds nothing wrong with giving a raise to someone in charge of budgets, while at the same time cutting those very budgets.

However, what is most distressing about this memo is not the amount of money being cut, but how these budget cuts are being used by the administration to actively reshape the humanities at UCI. These sorts of budget decisions are made by the office of the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost (the EVC/P). Over the past year, the EVC/P assessed every department according to a variety of factors, with each department given points that ultimately designate it as either “Protect,” “Maintain,” or “Needs Attention.” “Needs Attention” here means having your budget cut. In other words, it’s not an affectionate attention. It’s a punitive attention. So far, the departments and programs that have been deemed “Needs Attention” are: African American Studies, Asian American Studies, Comparative Literature, East Asian Languages and Literature, French & Italian, German, and Women’s Studies.

  The “Needs Attention” memo attached was sent out by the EVC/P in order to explain how they have made these assessments. The assessment is based heavily on numerical factors used to determine the “productivity” of departments. Two important factors used are the majors-to-faculty ratio (“Total Majors per FTE”) and the number of students actually taught by faculty in classrooms. This latter is referred to on the document as the “SCH(PHD)/Filled FTE,” which stands for Student Credit Hours (Payroll Home Department) per Filled Full Time Equivalent. “Student Credit Hours” is the unit of measurement used to calculate students in classrooms. “Full Time Equivalent” is the unit of measurement used to designate faculty members (awkwardly labeled so it can encompass joint appointments). So a “Total Majors per Filled FTE” number represents how many majors there are, on average, for every faculty member within that department. So, the school average of 15.3:1 Total Majors per Filled FTE means that for every professor at UCI there are 15.3 students. These numbers are important as departments and programs are being urged by administration to teach as many students as they can, both in classes and as majors in the field.

  As students, we should be concerned that “productivity” is measured numerically in this way. Departments are being encouraged to have more students per professor. The administration wants faculty members to teach large numbers of students so that it can process as many students as it can for the fewest instructors. But a higher student to faculty ratio means that every student gets less attention and energy from our mentors and teachers. It is in our interest—in the interest of the quality of our education—to have lower student to faculty ratios. While we have many interests in common with the administration and the school in general, our interests don’t always coincide. Here we are directly at odds: we want the best quality education for our dollar, they want to cut costs as much as they can.

However, this purely numerical calculation is not the only factor in the assessment of departments.  Compare, for instance, the “productivity” of the East Asian Literature and Languages (EALL) department with History (bottom of p. 2). History is a unit that is “Protected,” while EALL is one that “Needs Attention.” The reasoning for this discrepancy is noted on p. 3-4. EALL is seen by the EVC/P as a department whose “focus” is hard to determine—not surprisingly, since it covers Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. These are fields that look to places and histories with radically different pasts and particularities (interestingly, not unlike the History department). The other reasons why EALL is a unit that “Needs Attention” is that it is very small, and that, furthermore, the School of Humanities is not interested in EALL. This latter point is very interesting, as EALL is a very popular department. The Korean language classes, for instance, are always full. From a purely numerical standpoint, there isn’t really a reason to cut the budget of EALL and not cut history as well. Instead, EALL is being cut because money has to be cut somewhere, and it simply doesn’t fit the image the administrators have of the humanities.

  In other words, if you look beyond the numerical analysis, a specific image of the humanities emerges in this memo, and this image is based on a limited understanding of the values of humanistic research. For instance, small departments and programs that are interested in interdisciplinary work suffer disproportionately. This is particularly alarming for those students who are interested in less traditional programs or more obscure fields. It is very telling to glance over which programs have been deemed the least “productive” (the table on p. 4)—all are associated with minority groups and are programs with histories of struggles for recognition and inclusion, even at Irvine. Our Asian American Studies program, for instance, was formed only after students here went on a concerted campaign and hunger strike. We cannot assume that it is by mere coincidence that a program that had to fight for its right to exist in the first place has been targeted for budget reductions that threaten its very existence and viability. Of course, it would not be accurate to call the EVC/P assessment racist or sexist. It is simply conservativist, with perhaps a hint of xenophobia.

  In short, the entire assessment and budget reduction process set a dangerous precedent. What we are witnessing is how the humanities at UCI are being institutionally forced into a more traditional and intellectually conservative position. In fact, this entire memo evidences an aggressive will to ignorance. Take, for example, the paragraph at the bottom of page 1, where the memo acknowledges that its form of numerical accounting unfairly disadvantages interdisciplinary programs, yet they do not bother to try to change their method of assessment to account for it. It seems that if the EVC/P does not understand what your department or program does, then it will not take measures to understand it or assess it fairly, and your department will suffer. In other words, the failings of the assessor are assumed to be failings on the part of the assessed.  Though this assessment attempts to appear objective and numerical, the comparison between History and EALL shows that these sorts of funding decisions can be and often are made on other grounds. They are made with certain assumptions about what is or is not legitimate humanistic research. This latter question is, of course, one that will always haunt the humanities, but it is a question that should be addressed by the students and faculty of the humanities, not by administrators.

  The older, more established departments, such as English, History, Classics and Philosophy, have long traditions, and these traditions do protect them from the more severe budget cuts—for the moment. The question for these protected departments is: how long will it be before the administration decides that it doesn’t understand why people study novels at all? Or obscure historical minutia? Or minor points of logical deduction? In other words, the conservativist demand that this kind of assessment puts on the humanities is antithetical to humanistic research, if not academic research in general. Through these sorts of “productivity” assessments and budget reductions, the administration is taking a very active role in shaping the future of the humanities at UCI. And this is a trend that should trouble all of us.

  If you are reading this letter, you are invited to a meeting Thursday of Week One of Winter Quarter at 6PM in HH 105. We will then decide on how best to respond to this situation and what viable courses of action are available to us. Any student of any year or program, graduate or undergraduate, is invited. Please pass along this memo, this reading guide, and this invitation. 

In solidarity,

Tets

Comparative Literature Graduate Student, 4th year

This document was drafted 11/25 – 11/29, 2011. It has benefited from clarifying feedback and information from multiple sources. But any errors or misunderstandings are mine. TN

(Source: takebackuci)

Undelivered Speech, November 9th UCI

I wrote this for the November 9^th rally at University of California, Irvine, due to time restrains I was unable to deliver it, which was fine by me (I’ll face my fear of public speaking some other day).

This is my first quarter in UCI and I’m still adjusting to my newfound home. Like so many of us I often wonder and worry about my future. I worked in Bankruptcy for over 3 years. I have seen corporate greed devastate the lives of so many hard working people. I took pride in that job, because I helped people eliminate a significant financial burden, whipping off thousands of dollars of debt and allowed them to start again.

WE! Students don’t have that luxury, any! loan from any! Bank, that is taken out for educational purpose cannot be removed, through bankruptcy. With this potential fee increase the regents will force many of us to mortgage our veryuncertain future. And I wonder, what kind of life I will have? When I could potentially have to forfeit 10 or even 25% of my income each month to pay off my student loan. Will I be able to provide for my (future) family? When the main purpose for many of us to pursue higher education is to improve our lives. What about those who are pursuing less lucrative careers? Students who want to teach or become social workers. It will get to a point were it will not be worth it for anyone to such career paths. What will happen to student life? When student will be in a mad rush to graduate taking on more units that they can handle and not having time to get involved in clubs or school activities. If this trend continues, this school will end up a shell of the great institution that it once was.

I first read of the state budget to cut on an email just before transferring, and a wave a fear came over me, I was angry, and felt hopeless. I’ve seen the real life burden that debt causes and I saw my self in the position of all those people I helped. The only difference in my scenario, if I face financial hardship I will not have a way out. But I am not hopeless and yes! I am angry! It is unfortunate that we have to fight for what is rightfully ours. This is a public institution and it will be an uphill battle to keep it that way.

This is the purpose of this rally; it is to send a message that we will not let that happen!

Pay attention UC students/faculty/workers!

weareuci:

Did you know?

-Tuition at the UC has more than doubled since 2000, from less than $5,000 to over $12,000—and that’s about to go up.

-If fees are raised 16% per year for the next four years (as speculated at the September Regents meeting), today’s freshmen would pay about $21,800 in 2015 for their senior year at the UC.

-Qualified California residents are being turned away in order to make room for out-of-state and international students who pay $36,000/year.

-The ratio of students to TAs has increased dramatically in recent years, fewer classes are offered each quarter, and departments and programs across campus that emphasize community and accessibility have seen their budgets slashed.

-The UC will continue to lose its best faculty as it is unable to offer competitive salaries or a supportive work environment.

-That UCI will need to cut $54 million from its operating budget for the 2011-2012 school year?  That’s the equivalent of one year of financial aidfor 3,865 undergrads. 

 -That these costs come in part from a 76% increase in administrators, “professionals,” and managersover the last ten years, with only a 24%increase in spending for what affects students most — faculty and instructors?

-That Student Loan debt now tops $1 trillion?

 Is the state broke?

California’s Gross Domestic Product has more than doubled since 1987, rising from about $803 billion to $1.9 trillion in 2010. Per capita income has grown steadily since 1959. (numbers adjusted for inflation at 2005 levels). California has the 8^th largest economy in the world. However, state funding for the UC declined 50% between 1970 and 2005, (well before the current recession). Per student state funding has decreased from $16,430 in 1970 to $7,570 in 2009-2010. While California’s incomes and output have grown, the state has chosen to defund California’s universities.

Is the UC broke?

Yes and no. While state funding for the UC has been cut sharply in the last few years, mismanagement by UC Administrators and Regents has worsened the impacts of these cuts and squandered workers’ pensions. While the UC administration has been laid off workers, watched faculty positions go unfilled, and cut services, it has added senior managers. There are now more senior managers than professors (and this does not include adjuncts, lecturers, and graduate student instructors). The UC Regents regularly approve millions in 20-25% raises for these executives at meetings where they also raise tuition. This costs about $600 million a year.

But you’ll get a higher paying job and pay off those loans soon enough, right?

The total US student debt has doubled since 2005—to $1 trillion this year. The average debt for a college graduate is $24,000. While tuition for the UC has doubled since 2000, the national average earnings for college graduates is down by 11%.

Why should everyone care about the defunding of higher education?

A high rate of college education provides economic and social benefits to society as a whole—including to those who have not attended college. The UC generates $46.3 billion annually in economic activity for California. For every $1 invested in the UC, the university produces the support and innovation for $14 in overall economic output. Higher educational attainment leads to higher incomes, more tax revenue, and less demand for social services. Higher rates of education are correlated with greater economic equality, lower crime rates, and higher rates of political participation. Most importantly, quality, accessible education and an informed citizenry are essential to a functioning democracy.

The Budget Crisis affects not just individuals, but entire UCI communities - and the student groups that support them. Join the UC Tumblr to lend your group’s voice; share how you have been affected by the budget cuts degrading the quality of your public education. Take a picture of you or your group with a sign describing the challenges you face and send it to us at: 

Nov9MediaUCI@googlegroups.com. Please keep attachments to 4 MB or under.

Of you can click here to submit directly on tumblr!

Click here to go to the Facebook event for the November 9th Rally (Noon at the flagpoles at UCI)

(Source: takebackuci)