|
|
|
|
News & Views item - January 2011 |
University of California President's Open Letter to California. (January 11, 2011)
In response to Gov. Brown's proposed budget, released January 10th,
University of California President Mark Yudof issued the following open letter
to California.
This
is a sad day for California. In the budget proposed by Gov. Brown, the
collective tuition payments made by University of California students for
the first time in history would exceed what the state contributes to the
system's general fund. The crossing of this threshold transcends mere
symbolism and should be profoundly disturbing to all Californians.
Early and enduring support for the University of California has been
critical to the state's success, seeding the world's eighth largest economy,
shaping its society and serving its citizenry in myriad other ways.
California emerged as the Great Exception, to borrow Carey McWilliams'
phrase, in large part because of this investment, made across generations by
all California taxpayers in the service of a common good.
Undeniably, the governor's hand has been forced. He has produced, as
he calls it, a tough budget for tough times, and the university will stand
up and do all it can to help the state through what is a fiscal, structural
and political crisis. There can be no business as usual.
To that end, I will be giving each of the system's 10 chancellors
specific budget reduction targets and asking them to develop and report back
to me within six weeks their plans for meeting them. We will do the same at
the system's central office. I then will go to our governing Board of
Regents with a detailed scenario of what steps would be required to absorb a
$500 million reduction — a reduction that will take the state's annual per
student contribution to $7,210, compared to the $7,930 (amount after
one-third of tuition has been returned, by policy, to financial aid) to be
paid by students and their families.
Precision is difficult with a reduction of this magnitude, but every
effort will be made to protect the quality that has made the University of
California — and the state it serves — the envy of the world. My intent is
to preserve the core academic and research mission as much as possible. My
preference at this point, and my sense of where the Board of Regents stands
on this issue, is to not seek an additional fee increase; that said, I
cannot fully commit to this course until the board and I have assessed the
impact of permanent reductions on campuses. I also will attempt to maintain,
if feasible, the programs of financial aid that are so crucial to our public
mission of serving all qualified California students, regardless of family
income level.
But let me be blunt: This won't be easy, and all possible remedies
must be considered. The cuts the governor proposes will require sacrifice,
pain and courage. Already we are working hard to streamline administrative
functions, looking to create $500 million in savings within the next few
years. While we are striving to realize the savings as quickly as possible,
it still won't be enough. With the governor's budget, as proposed, we will
be digging deep into bone. The physics of the situation cannot be denied —
as the core budget shrinks, so must the university.
All of this comes at a time when more California students than ever
are applying to attend a University of California campus. My hope is that
going forward, Californians will begin to ponder the implications of
declining state support for their university. The proposed budget will
reduce taxpayer investment by an additional 16.4 percent; in just 20 years
state support, as measured on a per-student basis and adjusted for
inflation, will have declined by 57 percent. Rising tuition and fees have
made up only half of this shortfall. The cost of producing a credit hour
actually has decreased; it's the students' co-pay, if you will, that has
risen.
The governor in his inaugural address invoked the irrepressible
California spirit. He quoted from the crossing journals of his
great-grandfather, who endured many hardships as he trekked to California in
1852. It is interesting to note that, even as the governor's ancestor
embarked on this journey, newly arrived Californians already were making the
case for an educated populace that would ensure prosperity long after the
gold mines were played out.
"We hope for a better time; for a time when our people will call
California by those good old words ‘Our Commonwealth'," proclaimed The
Pacific newspaper, in an Oct. 10, 1851 editorial. "... When we have reached
this condition, teachers will be welcomed, schoolhouses, academies and
colleges will be built and filled, and the means of a varied and large
education provided."
It continued: "Whatever difficulty and discouragement may now
surround the effort to make California as rich in mind as she is in gold,
they are to diminish. The institutions profitable for wisdom, as well as all
other institutions which mark the progress, character, honor and virtue of a
State, are to be here. It is only a question of time...."
Now, 160 years later, California must take up the question of whether it wishes to turn back from the wisdom and foresight of these earliest Californians. With the advantage of hindsight, it should be abundantly clear: The stakes are as high today as they were back then.