War of Words
columnist: Paul Benedict

Topic: American Culture
The University of California Fights for its Life

---

Like California and like the United States, the University of California must return to its historic roots.

---

by Paul Benedict
(libertarian)
Friday, July 17, 2009

The University of California's Board of Regents is in an ever tightening vice. On the one hand the reduction in state funding makes success by the traditional measures of growth in funding, programs, graduates and career security all but impossible. On the other hand past evidence of elitism in the U.C. system already has the legislature, through measure SCA21, calling for ending the U.C. system's autonomy. Because President Mark Yudof's emergency across-the-board savings plans will lower U.C. standards, they will ultimately aggravate the calls for legislative supervision. A clear plan is needed quickly.

Apparently the U.C. Board of Regents agrees. Russell Gould, who is taking over as the chair of the U.C. Board of Regents, is forming a commission to restructure. Gould claims that the University President, Mark Yudof and he both acknowledge that the U.C. system cannot continue to "limp along" with, one assumes, across the board cuts as a solution. Although one trusts commissions even less than campaign promises, and although a plan seems far from emerging, there is some evidence that Yudof intends to demonstrate leadership. In his letter to the Chancellors of July 9, he declares that the "tripartite mission (of the ten U.C. campuses), instruction, research, and public service will never be compromised."

Yudof's emergency furlough plan is uniquely progressive. U.C. employees making the less than 40,000 dollars will take 11 furlough days, but the number of furlough days increases with an employees salary until those making more than 240,000 per year will take 26 furlough days.

This will keep the unions happy, but the tenured professors in successful departments will not lie down for this forever, nor should they. Only small businessmen have no recourse when robbed at gunpoint by a government that represents the drooling mob. Professors, however, have alumni, fellow faculty, and pools of pliable students that they can rally to their banners.

On the other hand, the cuts being made campus by campus are, in many cases, far less progressive. For instance, forty percent of the cuts come from reduced classes. Although the number in dollars sounds equitable, it is not. The people that cost the system least are being penalized in vast numbers instead of replacing the people and departments at the top that cost the system the most. In 2007 top tenured professors could earn about $165,000 (over a nine month period) while associate professors earned less than half this amount. Additionally, the associate professors who instruct sections serve many more students than do independent research specialists working in post graduate research programs. Hence, if 40% of the savings comes from closing sections that, in turn, offer the U.C. the opportunity to release even lower cost student support staff, tremendous numbers of the lowest paid, hardest working U.C. employees are being hurt in order to maintain the more senior "elites." For instance, U.C. Davis is reducing courses and reducing "targeted enrollment" by 500. These kinds of cuts will only result in substandard research, instruction and service across the entire spectrum of the U.C. system. No matter what California's budget problems are, this is unacceptable. The people of California will want an accounting. The legislature could well get involved.

The Yudof plan must involve closing whole research units. This may entail reducing sections, staff, and student admissions, but not on the massive scale of the current cuts. If President Yudof's plan involves closing entire research units, or departments, tenured professors can be shown the door. Additionally, because the usual methods of measuring the U.C.'s success are buried beneath the ruins of California's budget collapse, Yudof's plan must clearly articulate the principles it applies in pursuing a clearly articulated vision for the U.C. system. Otherwise, charges of elitism and cronyism will be leveled and legislatures involved.

In June "Prize Fight" suggested a first principle for U.C. restructuring: all research should be conducted according to the U.C.'s own historic models. This principle, when applied only to intercampus research programs, found eighteen examples of obvious research cuts. Additional opportunities to apply this principle suggest themselves in abundance from all ten campuses. The decision to cut UCLA's Labor Center is an excellent example of principle 1 in action. This is exactly the correct kind of restructuring. Sections for incoming freshman are not reduced while useless faculty, priests of an idolatrous religion, is sent packing. Sadly this common sense decision was made by California's governor. If the Board of Regents doesn't grow a spleen, its autonomy will be jeopardized.

The principle of using the historic model for U.C. research is serenely diplomatic. Beyond the obvious refuge tradition supplies, the U.C. system has historically been a sterling example of what an academic institution can be. Nor is it a coincidence that some of the most useful research cuts are in those departments most recently founded.

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
5 thumbs so far

©2009 Paul Benedict, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Friday, July 17, 2009
Last modified: Tuesday, July 21, 2009

The views expressed in this article are those of Paul Benedict only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Paul Benedict is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.

Report violation by Paul Benedict of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.