Davis Faculty Association

The social movement known as Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is growing and raising issues of direct relevance to the faculty, students and staff of the University of California, including contracting opportunities and increasing debt loads for our students created by a system of privatized education and a refusal to provide high quality affordable public higher education.

The Council of UC Faculty Associations, on behalf of all UC faculty, is making a statement supporting OWS available for UC faculty to sign. The text of the statement reads:

We, members of the faculty of the University of California, write in solidarity with and in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement now underway in our city and elsewhere. Many observers claim that the movement has no specific goals; this is not our understanding. The movement aims to bring attention to the various forms of inequality – economic, political, and social – that characterize our times, that block opportunities for the young and strangle the hopes for better futures for the majority while generating vast profits for a very few.

The demonstrators are demanding substantive change that redresses the many inequitable features of our society, which have been exacerbated by the financial crisis of 2009 and the subsequent recession.  Among these are: the lack of accountability on the part of the bankers and Wall Street firms that drove the economy to disaster; rising economic inequality in the United States; the intimate relationship between corporate power and government at all levels, which has made genuine change impossible; the need for dramatic action to provide employment for the jobless and protect programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, in part by requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes; and the disastrous effects of the costly wars that the United States has been conducting.

Only by identifying the complex interconnections between repressive economic, social and political regimes can social and economic justice prevail in this country and around the globe.  It is this identification that we applaud, and we call on all members of the University of California community to lend their support to this peaceful and potentially transformative movement.

We urge you to read the statement and support it by clicking here.

(iPetitions is a free internet service that CUCFA chose for this statement because other “Occupy” statements are being hosted there.)

This statement was originally developed by faculty at Columbia and Barnard. For an excellent short article on this growing movement and how it relates to higher education, read Prof. Jonathan Cole’s post on OWS which is reproduced below:

The social movement known as Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is growing and too few of our government and corporate leaders are willing to examine closely what this movement is about. Instead, the political right resorts to mudslinging and labeling, claiming that those who participate in the rallies and marches are un-American (we have a long history in this country of placing this tag on legitimate dissent), or are moving towards “class warfare.” Some critics, and so-called Sunday morning television pundits, claim that the group lacks clearly stated goals and policy objectives. In fact, this movement of dissent has exceedingly clear goals and objectives that our national leaders and corporate America ought to take seriously.

Here are a few of the goals and objectives of OWS, at least as seen by me and many of my colleagues at Columbia University, where more than 300 faculty members have just signed a statement in support of the group’s goals. Much of the protest focuses on inequalities in social and economic outcomes and on the sharp differentials in power between the super-rich in our society (the fraction of one percent of the population in corporate America with the power and resources to shape policies that disproportionately favor themselves), and the rest who feel totally incapable of effecting meaningful social and economic change. In 2011, one percent of the nation’s population controlled roughly 40 percent of our society’s wealth. Not since the gilded age at the end of the 19th century, when the robber barons were making their fortunes, has wealth inequality in America been so great. As one might suspect, the corresponding percentage of the population who are living in poverty is growing — it is now greater than it has been in about 20 years. Median incomes for Americans have actually declined since the recession of 2008. The incomes of middle-class America have been stagnant for over 20 years.

The aspirations of talented young people who are born by chance into families of the 99 percent and who lack the kind of wealth that we find on Wall Street and among the leaders of large hedge funds, private equity companies, and banks, will never be realized. Their educational opportunities are limited — not by their ability, but by their inability to afford college educations that are commensurate with their talent. Meanwhile, the millionaires and billionaires, and large multinational corporations, receive tax breaks that result in them paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries. Their children compete on anything but a level playing field. We have one of the lowest marginal tax rates in the Western world; we have grossly unequal access to educational opportunities for minorities and the poor; we still have tens of millions of our citizens who lack any health care coverage. OWS wants to put back some modicum of equality of opportunity in America.

The OWS is asking for some form of accountability for those people responsible for the housing bubble and the economic tsunami that has hit this country. Few of the super-rich complain about the millions of families who have abandoned their homes because their value had been outstripped by their mortgage debt. All we hear from them are warnings of “moral hazards” if the banks and the nation were to buy down some percentage of each mortgage so that families could have a reason to hold onto their homes. The banks are not willing to refinance these loans at lower levels, but are willing to ask for bailout money from these same taxpayers.

The leaders of the banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, and private equity firms fail to realize that their wealth is not only a result of their individual talent and hard work. They are the beneficiaries of a system that has provided them disproportionate opportunities and great tax advantages from the time they began their careers. Are they really going to have us believe in Herbert Spenser’s 19th century, worn out idea of the “survival of the fittest” — with them cast, of course, as the fittest? While official unemployment exceeds 9 percent, and the actual proportion of the population without work (including discouraged workers) exceeds 15 percent. Meanwhile, Republican leaders in Congress, supported by the beneficiaries of the current system, refuse to create a meaningful jobs program that would put people back to work on jobs that have real social value — work, for example, on a crumbling American infrastructure, and jobs in new industries that pay decent wages. We cannot even build a high-speed rail system of the sort one finds all around the world in countries that don’t have half of our wealth. Instead, these leaders on the right call for even greater surgery on the 99 percent — for cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, while they rant against any increase in the marginal tax rates on the super wealthy. Has there been no criminal or civil liability associated with the mortgage catastrophe that the banks and associated insurance companies led us into? There surely has been no serious accountability for the group of financiers who got us into this mess. OWS would like to see just a little bit of accountability for those who drove us into our current economic mess.

The OWS is also asking whether or not this nation has its economic and social priorities straight and whether our moral compass is broken. Should we be spending trillions of dollars on misguided wars that last over a decade to no clear result? OWS is asking whether we have not ignored our own best instincts and our treasured national values in using our resources in out-dated forms of warfare in places that pose little or no threat to our nation. The liberties granted to the people — those that are set forth in the Bill of Rights of our Constitution — are being eroded because of our national obsession with terrorism. Should we be spying on each other? Should we be able to search people’s homes without probable cause or even search warrants? Should we be killing our own citizens without any trial? Should we be spending resources on things that have no productive social value when we could be building a better society at home? Are we going to crumble from within before we crumble from the action of external threats? OWS is suggesting, as did Walt Kelly’s famous cartoon character, Pogo, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

OWS also asks: Are our leaders adhering to our constitution at all, or are they committed to secret tortures, renditions, violations of basic civil liberties, which are only disclosed after the fact and never publicly debated. All that we are allowed to see may well be epiphenomenal — the real running of the country is done in secret and often in violation of fundamental constitutional principles, couched behind the banner of national security. OWS wants debate and more transparency and wants a government that acts for the people and adheres to our Constitution and its interpretation by the Supreme Court.

Finally, OWS is a peaceful, non-violent form of protest against government policies that produce still greater inequalities in our society. They are the conscience of America, not its enemy. For this we should be thankful and should join in their cause.

Jonathan R. Cole is currently the John Mitchell Mason Professor and former Provost and Dean of Faculties of Columbia University (1989-2003)

source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-r-cole/occupy-wall-street-as-the_b_1005147.html

The Faculty Association leaders would like to draw your attention to proposed APM 668, Negotiated Salary Program:
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/underreview/APM-668SystemwideReviewRequestandmaterials.pdf

The origins of this proposed addition to that Academic Personnel Manual are in the Joint Senate-Administration Compensation Plan Steering Committee http://www.ucop.edu/acadpersonnel/documents/compplan_gottfredson.pdf June 2010. Proposed APM 668 is, to some extent, modeled on the Health Sciences Compensation Plan (HSCP).

The basic proposal is to allow the use of non-State funds to supplement faculty salaries. This would be done on an individual basis. I.e. each faculty member in “Good Standing” could apply to his or her department chair for a temporary supplemental salary to be paid from non-State funds. This proposal would be reviewed by the chair and the dean. The procedure for further review and the possible involvement of Senate academic personnel procedures is vague. Final approval authority would be with the EVC.

Although the materials surrounding the policy seem to envision a very close connection between external funds generated by the faculty member (e.g. research grants) and the possibility of receiving a negotiated supplement, the policy itself is written to be much more general than that. It appears that tuition funds could be used to fund the supplement.

Implementation of the plan would be fine grained. Chancellors may decide if and how to implement the plan on each campus. Implementation may vary by unit on a campus.

Of course there is much more to the policy than can be mentioned here. The policy and surrounding materials answer many questions. However there are many issues that are not addressed very well.

Adoption of APM 668 would be a major departure from University of California academic personnel practice and tradition and raises concerns of equity and transparency. The proposed policy is currently out for review with comments due by Nov. 18. The DFA will be providing comment and would encourage your feedback.

Welcome back to school. This year looks like another difficult one for those of us trying to defend public, accessible, quality education. Public higher education is under attack all over the country: Texas, Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, and right here in California.

This year CUCFA and its associated FA chapters are joining the CSUs and Community Colleges of California in the “Campaign for the Future of Higher Education” [CFHE], a national campaign that includes the voices of the faculty from our universities, colleges, and community colleges, students, and our communities — not just administrators, politicians, foundations and think tanks. The aim is to ensure that curriculum, pricing, and structure of our nation’s higher education systems are good for our students and the quality of education they receive.

For faculty to bring our message to the public, we need to communicate with the media. So, as a service to our members and our community, our sister FA chapter at UCSC, the Santa Cruz Faculty Association is sponsoring an excellent workshop on the UCSC campus taught by Alice Sunshine, Publicity Director for the California Faculty Association (the organization that represents the faculty of the twenty-three campuses of the California State University system). While we realize it is unlikely that Davis faculty will be able to find time to attend, we wanted to let you know that the SCFA has invited all interested DFA members to come.

The workshop will be September 30, from 1 to 4 pm, at the UCSC Bay Tree Conference Center (also called the Career Center, in the same building as the Bay Tree Bookstore). A box lunch will be served starting at 12:15, but you’ll need to RSVP for both lunch and the workshop. By gathering a little early and breaking bread (sandwiches from Emily’s, actually) together, we can strategize and discuss and socialize before the workshop begins.  Please RSVP to this event by clicking on the link near the end of this letter, the SCFA needs to know how many people will be attending in order to plan accordingly.

UCSC FA chair Shelly Errington attended Alice’s program “Can You Hear Us Now? Earned Media and Other Communications Strategies” at the AAUP Summer Institute in 2010. She says she learned so much that she had not been aware of concerning media availability, how to create events and visuals that the media will cover, organizing yourself and your group for media coverage, and other topics. The following is a description of Alice’s program at the summer institute, which will give you an idea of what topics will be covered at the SCFA workshop. The program will be somewhat modified to meet the current needs of the FA’s.

Can You Hear Us Now? Earned Media and Other Communications Strategies

The fast pace and sheer volume of news today means your chapter or conference media communications strategy needs to be both smart and realistic. This hands-on workshop will train you to be a media “organizer” and effective spokesperson. Learn how to evaluate your message’s news potential and craft a media outreach program that attracts attention. Participants will discuss tactics for feeding stories to local media markets and generating “media availability” opportunities. It’s not enough to get noticed, though — before grabbing the media’s attention, you need to plan what to do once you’ve got it! In small teams, participants will practice the “nine-second sound bite” and other techniques for making the most of your media moment. Playback and constructive critique will be part of the drill.

This workshop is a public service for faculty who may be involved involved with programs and outreach that they’d like to publicize, having to do with their research and teaching. That’s fine! We want to provide knowledge of these tools that can then be used for any project you’re involved with.

If you are interested in more information, here is a link to an article by Alice Sunshine about media outreach: http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2011/MJ/Feat/suns.htm

If you wish to attend the workshop, please RSVP to this event by clicking on this link:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dGJ6aVNQZXJqaEVuNHlJYlpVVlVhOEE6MA

The UC Regents are meeting this week. The agenda is available at:

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/regmeet/sep2011.html

Streaming audio of the meeting will also be available at the above URL.

Items of note:

There are public comment periods at 8:30 am on Wednesday and Thursday.

Wednesday at 10:15 am – the Regents will discuss how Chancellors are not being competitively compensated.

Wednesday at 11:15 am – there is a collective bargaining issue on the agenda, but what the issue is is not described at all in the agenda. Compensation increases for 10 high ranking administrators will also be discussed.

Thursday at 8:50 am – Compensation increases for several more high ranking administrators will be discussed.

Thursday at 9:00 am – UC’s ability to recruit graduate students will be discussed. There is evidence that fewer prospective graduate students are making UC graduate programs their top choice. Of graduate students who were admitted to at least one non-UC institution in 2010, 48 percent indicated that they would attend UC, which was down from 52 percent in 2007.

Thursday at 10:45 am – Two important discussions: First, UC hired a consultant to prepare a report documenting UC’s contributions to California’s economy: “Through its direct spending and multiplier effects from that spending, UC generates $46.3 billion in annual economic activity for California and contributes $32.8 billion toward California’s Gross State Product.”

Second, UC will propose a four year budget. If state funding of UC remains flat over the four year period, UC would raise fees 16% per year, for a cumulative increase of 81%.

It is time to renew the DFA board. In accordance with DFA bylaws, a nominating committee has selected a slate of candidates to fill DFA board positions as listed below with the following code: C – continuing; R – renewing for another 2-year term; N – newly elected. I want very much to thank the nominating committee — Ian Kennedy, Margaret Ferguson, and Anthony Wexler — for their work. For a variety of reasons this was an unusually difficult nominating process, and I am very happy to see what a great list they ultimately selected:

Chair: Lyn Lofland (Sociology) [R]
Nathan Brown (English) [N]
Roy Curry (Physio & Membrane Bio) [N]
Marjorie Longo (Chemical Engineering and Materials Science) [C]
William Lucas (Plant Biology) [R]
Robert Rucker (Nutrition) [C]
Jon Scholey (Molecular and Cellular Biology) [N]
Phil Shaver (Psychology) [N]
Scott Shershow (English) [C]
Blake Stimson (Art History) [C]
Ex-Officio: Joe Kiskis (Physics)

All nominees have agreed to serve. Newly elected members serve a two-year term of office that will run until academic year 2013-2014. Further nominations may be made upon petition of 5% of the membership (15 members) in good standing. Such petitions must be delivered on or before August 17, 2011 to the Executive Director at 1270 Farragut Circle, Davis, CA 95618. If no nominations are submitted, the slate shall be accepted as elected.

I very much want to thank the outgoing board members Colin Cameron, Norma Landau, Richard Scalettar, and Pieter Stroeve for their past service on the DFA board. Some of these board members have served many years on the DFA board and I will certainly miss them.