اینترنت

برچسب: Faculty

  • Cal State faculty striking next week in series of one-day actions

    Cal State faculty striking next week in series of one-day actions


    Students, faculty and staff protest a potential tuition increase across the California State University system on Sept 12, 2023.

    CREDIT: MICHAEL LEE-CHANG / STUDENTS FOR QUALITY EDUCATION

    Thousands of California State University faculty are preparing to shut down their classes and strike for one day next week as labor negotiations have stalled. 

    The series of one-day rolling strikes will begin at Cal Poly Pomona on Monday, with San Francisco State following on Tuesday, Cal State LA on Wednesday and Sacramento State on Thursday. Some faculty from other campuses are expected to join their colleagues and not teach on those days. 

    Salary remains the largest disagreement between the 23-campus Cal State system and the California Faculty Association, which represents about 29,000 professors and lecturers. The faculty is fighting for a 12% general salary increase for this year and has not specified the size of the raises it will seek after that. However, the university system is proposing a total increase of 15% over three years, including this year. 

    “A lot of what we’ve been offered by management is dependent on the state budget,” said Kate Ozment, an English professor at Cal Poly Pomona who will participate in the strike. “That doesn’t work for faculty who have to pay bills right now.”

    Many faculty members have student loan debt and want to start families or are struggling to support the families they do have, she said. 

    “So many of us chose to work for the CSU specifically because we believed in the mission and we believe in the student body,” Ozment said. “The CSU talks a really big game about recruiting first-generation faculty and underrepresented faculty, but the reality is those populations are less likely to have generational wealth to fall back on, and they’re way less likely to have had good jobs that helped them save before they went to graduate school.” 

    But CSU officials say the system can’t afford to give more than 5% a year to the faculty group. 

    “We recognize the need to increase compensation, and we are committed to doing so. But our resources are limited, and our financial commitments must be fiscally sustainable,” said Leora Freedman, CSU’s vice chancellor for human resources, during a call with media. “CSU is prepared to return to bargaining with CFA at any time.” 

    Freedman added that the university system has already successfully negotiated 5% annual increases with four other labor unions. However, negotiations have also stalled with Teamsters Local 2010 representing 1,100 of CSU’s skilled trades workers. The Teamsters also announced they plan to join the faculty in their strike. 

    “Any larger salary increases would force very difficult and painful decisions on our campuses and would trigger a reopening of salary negotiations with other labor unions,” Freedman said.

    In August, the faculty union and the CSU entered a state labor mediation process. A fact-finding report written by a third-party labor negotiator was released by both sides Friday. The negotiator ultimately recommended a 7% general increase in faculty salaries for one year while noting that this would be below the rate of inflation. 

    In an email to its members, the faculty association said it appreciated the fact-finder’s work but believes the 7% proposal is not enough to address the loss in buying power. 

    The fact-finding report also highlighted that reaching an agreement has been challenging because the union and the university system have “radically different views” of the ongoing financial situation. The faculty union, as well as some student groups, have argued that the university system can use its reserves to cover expenses like faculty salaries. However, CSU has stated that its reserves are intended for one-time emergency purposes and can’t go to salary increases.

    Much of the wage dispute comes as CSU has granted salary increases to campus presidents and hired the new system chancellor with a nearly $800,000 base salary, even as the system faced a budget deficit. 

    As for the series of one-day strikes, Ozment said at the start of this semester that she alerted her students to the potential disruption of their classes in her syllabus. 

    “Being a teacher is about transparency and consistency, so I felt that if I told them from the beginning about a possible disruption they would be emotionally and intellectually prepared for it,” she said. “My students have been really upset when they learn how many of their faculty are not paid a living wage, especially how many classes are taught by lecturers who can’t afford rent or are constantly driving from campus to campus in order to put food on the table.” 

    Ozment said she did receive some concerns about the impact of the strike on grading or the ability to graduate on time even though just one day’s classes will be canceled.  

    “I told them the same thing that I always tell them, which is: ‘I’ve got your back,’” she said. “There’s going to be a disruption. That’s the nature of the thing I have to disrupt, but I’m disrupting management. I’m not trying to disrupt (students). I encouraged them to be a part of it because the better the disruption, the quicker this is over and the quicker they get the education they deserve.” 

    Students have also received communications from the chancellor’s office about the strikes and have been encouraged to speak with their faculty members about the impact on their courses and grades. And not every faculty member will participate in the strike, Freedman predicted.

    The chancellor’s office is caught between “a rock and a hard place,” she added. 

    “We need to be responsible and protect the university and our students and our operations,” Freedman said. “At the same time, we also need to pay our employees fairly and competitively. We are in a very tough situation. I wish we had more money. I wish we had more money to use and to make different choices, but we’re very limited.”





    Source link

  • Community college faculty call for union to take stance against accused professor

    Community college faculty call for union to take stance against accused professor


    Fresno City College campus.

    Credit: Ashleigh Panoo / EdSource

    The post has been updated to correct the position held by one of the union leaders mentioned in the story and to say that 50% of senators must be present and 75% must vote to remove the president.

    Some professors in the State Center Community College District are calling for their union leaders to be transparent about their knowledge of the 2020 sexual misconduct findings against a colleague at Fresno City College who formerly taught at California State University, Fresno. 

    “Shocked” by EdSource’s report of the “alarming” allegations involving Tom Boroujeni, Laurie Taylor, an anthropology professor at Clovis Community College, which is also part of State Center, said she questioned union leadership and called for leaders to resign during a Dec. 1 meeting. Two professors at the meeting confirmed Taylor demanded union leadership resignations. Boroujeni is a Fresno City College communication instructor and also president of the school’s academic senate.

    Union president Keith Ford forwarded EdSource’s interview request to the union’s executive vice president Ria Williams; Williams has not yet responded.  Lacy Barnes, the union’s immediate past president and the Secretary Treasurer of the California Federation of Teachers, declined to comment. 

    “We, as union members, demand to know what our union leadership knew and when they knew it,” Taylor said in an interview with EdSource. 

    Boroujeni was found to have committed an “act of sexual violence” against a professor and colleague at nearby Fresno State in 2015 when he was a graduate student and adjunct instructor. The alleged victim is also a professor and Boroujeni’s colleague at Fresno City College. The State Center Community College District, parent agency to City College, learned of the “sexual misconduct investigation” when the alleged victim requested a no-contact order against Boroujeni, which was granted in the spring 2022 semester.

    Boroujeni has taught at Fresno City College since 2015, the same year he began his academic career at Fresno State while still a graduate student. Fresno State couldn’t discipline him because he was a graduate student when the alleged violence occurred, Debbie Adishian-Astone, the school’s vice president for administration, told EdSource. Boroujeni resigned from Fresno State last year after officials said the act-of-sexual-violence report would be placed in his personnel file. 

    In his resignation, he agreed not to seek or accept work in the California State University system again.  

    But the matter had no immediate impact on his teaching career at Fresno City College, where the alleged victim teaches part-time in addition to her tenured position at Fresno State. State Center Community College District granted Boroujeni tenure in March. He assumed the academic senate presidency in May, after a two-year term as president-elect. 

    But the district put Boroujeni on paid leave on Nov. 30, a day after EdSource’s report. 

    This week, State Center officials remained tight-lipped over Boroujeni’s administrative leave because of “personnel matters subject to legal considerations related to privacy and to protect the integrity of any ongoing investigations,” a district spokesperson, Jill Wagner, wrote in an email. 

    A person familiar with the matter said the decision to put Boroujeni on administrative leave was because his presence on campus was disruptive and impacted the college’s ability to serve students, following EdSource’s report on the alleged sexual violence. Three instructors canceled class in response to the report.

    Union response 

    The State Center Federation of Teachers represents faculty in the community college district. According to a statement obtained by EdSource, union officers would not comment on the sexual misconduct allegations publicly but could talk with members individually. 

    “We cannot comment specifically on this case or any other,” according to the union’s formal statement. “In no way does the Federation endorse or condone acts of harassment or violence in any circumstance.” 

    The union’s statement, Taylor said, seemed “dismissive and placating,” and “more could have been said.” 

    And Liz Romero, an early childhood education instructor at Clovis Community College, said she is also angry with the union over their response. She said she expected the union to take a position on the allegation of sexual violence against Boroujeni. Romero said it was “disheartening” that the union, through its statement, said their responsibility was to “defend the contract” and “defend the faculty’s rights to due process.” 

    “It seems like a disparity in power structure with a full-time faculty versus a part-time faculty,” Romero said about the union’s statement, “a man versus a woman, a person in leadership versus a person not in leadership. It feels very unbalanced.” 

    Academic Senate response

    Professors who spoke to EdSource also directed their frustration at the Fresno City College Academic Senate, which Boroujeni leads.

    In May 2023, Boroujeni started a two-year term as Fresno City College’s academic senate president, a role requiring that he works with the college’s administration in setting academic policy among other responsibilities. He became president-elect in May 2021 for a two-year term before ascending to the senate presidency seven months ago.

    Romero, who has previously served as academic senate president at Clovis Community College, said the academic senate should remove Boroujeni as the president and hold a new election for the next president-elect. According to the bylaws of the Fresno City College academic senate, removing an officer requires a written petition detailing the rationale for the removal, with signatures from 25% of the academic senators; 50% of the senators must be present and 75% must vote to remove the president. 

    While Boroujeni is on administrative leave, the senate’s executive committee is using an acting president. 

    Past president Michael Takeda is the acting president while current president-elect Jackie Williams is on a sabbatical leave.  Williams will become acting president in January if Boroujeni remains on leave. 

    The executive committee did not discuss Boroujeni during its Wednesday meeting.

    “For now, there’s nothing really to discuss,” Takeda said.

    Boroujeni did not respond to EdSource’s questions on Thursday.

    As some faculty members expect more from the union, the college’s academic senate as well as the college and district, professors are finding ways to show solidarity with the alleged victim and to demand action. 

    For example, Romero said she won’t stay a union member if the union doesn’t take a stance on the matter. 

    “I don’t want my money to fund an organization that’s going to protect abusers,” she said. “That’s my only power in this situation. Everyone needs to do what they think is best for them, and I hope it’s always supporting victims of sexual assault and standing up for those with less power.”





    Source link

  • Faculty, staff urge California colleges to make backup plans in case DACA ends

    Faculty, staff urge California colleges to make backup plans in case DACA ends


    Madeleine Villanueva, higher education manager of Immigrants Rising and Maria Barragan, director of undocumented student support services at Loyola Marymount University.

    Credit: Courtesy of Immigrants Rising

    Iveth Díaz has spent much of her career helping immigrant students living in the U.S. without permanent legal status navigate college. But when her own application to renew her work permit and temporary protection from deportation was delayed because of backlogs, she had to resign from her job for three months.

    “It was extremely stressful. It was a time when I suffered from anxiety and depression, which is unfortunately very common within our community,” Díaz said. 

    Díaz and other college and university employees with work permits and protection under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program are calling on universities to do more to help them prepare for alternative employment plans in case the program ends. Some proposals include helping employees become independent consultants, preparing a severance package or sponsoring work visas.

    DACA offers temporary protection from deportation and permission to work for about 579,000 young people who were brought to the U.S. as children and graduated from high school, completed a GED or are veterans of the U.S. military. Every two years, recipients must apply for renewal. But the program could end at any time. It was found to be illegal by a federal judge in Texas, and that case will likely end up in the Supreme Court.

    The program, launched during the Obama administration, has long been associated with high school and college students, but most recipients are now working adults. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has not accepted new applications since 2017, making the youngest DACA recipients currently 21 years old, and the oldest, now 42.

    “The DACA generation are not kids anymore,” said Madeleine Villanueva, higher education manager of Immigrants Rising, an organization based in San Francisco that helps undocumented people achieve career and educational goals and published a guide for colleges and universities to support undocumented employees. “A lot of us are in our 30s and 40s. We’re doing this work so that the future generation of undocumented students doesn’t have such a hard time like we did when we were going to school.”

    Hundreds of faculty and staff at California colleges and universities are DACA recipients, although the exact total is unclear. According to the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration’s Higher Ed Immigration Portal,  there are about 9,211 recipients working in education in California, from elementary school to college. The University of California estimates it has more than 400 employee recipients, some of them students. Spokespersons for the California State University and California Community Colleges said they did not have data on how many employees are temporarily protected from deportation.

    Díaz worked for more than eight years at CSU San Bernardino as an administrative support coordinator for graduate researchers and as an admissions counselor. She now leads a program for students at Cerritos College who do not have permanent legal immigration status. As a fellow at Immigrants Rising, she conducted a survey of about 65 employees of California colleges and universities who at one time were living in the U.S. without permission, most of whom now have DACA protections. The employees included faculty, counselors, researchers and financial aid and admissions workers.

    She said most respondents said their colleges and universities have not prepared for what to do for their employees if the program ends.

    “Are we waiting until the program is canceled altogether, or are institutions being proactive in creating ways to retain their employees?” Díaz said. “I found that 70% of respondents stated that their institutions have not even brought it up, have not even had a conversation to their knowledge about what a response plan would be, which is really worrisome.”

    Laura Bohórquez García, the director of the AB 540 and Undocumented Student Center at UC Davis, decided to start her own business, Inner Work Collective Freedom, to employ herself if the program ends and she loses her work permit.

    “I’m like, OK, how do I prepare? Because I don’t feel like the university would be ready to jump in,” Bohórquez García said.

    In addition to plans in case DACA ends, concerned university employees and advocates recommended that universities offer more mental health benefits and that supervisors check in on their employees’ mental health. 

    “You have to check in with the students, but sometimes no one is checking in with you. How can we help others if we can’t even advocate for ourselves?”

    Eric Yang

    Many recipients working in colleges and universities are employed in positions dedicated to supporting immigrant students on their campuses, helping them get legal services or mental health counseling. But many of these positions are part-time and don’t offer health benefits, which are crucial when living with the uncertainty of losing temporary protection from deportation, advocates said.

    “So much of what they’re doing and the fires they’re turning off when it comes to students, it impacts them as well,” said Luz Bertadillo Rodríguez, director of campus engagement at the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, a group of college and university leaders dedicated to increasing public understanding of how immigration policies and practices impact students. “The constant word or feeling I hear when there’s a new DACA update is, ‘I’m exhausted.’ They’re just like, ‘I’m tired of living my life two years at a time and then even that not being certain.’”

    Whenever a new court decision comes out about the program, employees in the immigrant resource centers often find themselves holding workshops or trainings to help explain the decision to students, yet they are also processing the decision themselves. 

    “You have to check in with the students, but sometimes no one is checking in with you,” said Eric Yang, a recipient who has worked with immigrant students at two different California universities. “How can we help others if we can’t even advocate for ourselves?”

    University of California officials are currently examining ways to support employees if the temporary deportation protections are terminated, according to UC Office of the President spokesperson Stett Holbrook. He added that the UC Immigrant Legal Services Center offered immigration consultation workshops for recipient employees last summer, “many of which identified eligibility for employment, family or humanitarian relief.”

    RESOURCES FOR UNDOCUMENTED COLLEGE EMPLOYEES

    “The University of California has a long record of support for DACA recipients, and we will continue to support our students, staff and faculty regardless of their immigration status,” Holbrook said.

    The University of California is also currently considering a proposal to allow the university to hire students who do not have work permits under DACA. A coalition of immigrant students and allies, including legal scholars at UCLA and elsewhere, have argued that a federal law barring the hiring of immigrants living in the country without permission doesn’t apply to state entities.

    California State University and California Community Colleges both offer free legal services to employees who have temporary work permits. However, advocates said many faculty and staff are unaware that these services are not just for students.

    Melissa Villarin, spokesperson for the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, said the community colleges have also recently included resources for staff and faculty during the annual Undocumented Student Action Week.

    Díaz also recommended more training for university staff about DACA recipients. She said survey respondents said there was a lack of awareness or understanding among other staff and faculty about their colleagues who have temporary protection under the program.

    “There was just no knowledge by institutions of higher ed about even having undocumented staff and faculty on campus,” Díaz said.

    She said lack of awareness can lead to insensitivity. At one point, for example, she said a human resources director asked her why she didn’t just fix her status or apply for a green card, not understanding that Díaz, like most immigrants who entered or stayed in the U.S. without permission, didn’t have a way to apply for a green card without leaving the country and possibly having to stay out for up to 10 years.

    Yang said universities should do more to highlight the stories of staff who are covered by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program “so that people in the public know that there are professional staff who are also potentially without any protection or support.”

    Despite the challenges these immigrants face, Bertadillo Rodríguez said they should be commended for their work. “They’re very involved in the students’ lives because they’re able to create such strong bonds with the students,” she said. “They’re some of the most exceptional and brilliant practitioners that I’ve come across in higher education.”





    Source link

  • Cal State faculty staging historic systemwide, weeklong strike

    Cal State faculty staging historic systemwide, weeklong strike


    California State University faculty members protest for better salary and working conditions in Sacramento.

    Ashley A. Smith/EdSource

    For the first time ever, faculty across the entire California State University system on Monday is staging a weeklong labor strike. 

    The more than 29,000 faculty members in the nation’s largest public university system continue to demand higher wages and for the administration to return to the bargaining table. 

    For many of Cal State’s nearly 450,000 students, it means missing their first, second or third week of classes this semester or quarter as professors and instructors walk the picket lines across the system’s 23 campuses. 

    Kate Ozment, an English professor at Cal Poly Pomona, said she hasn’t met her students yet, with the first week of spring classes coinciding with the weeklong strike. Ozment said she posted a notice to her students through the Canvas online learning management system about the strike. 

    “My goal is to not create confusion with students and my goal is to not harm students,” she said. “I don’t want them on campus because with an empty campus, we win. I sent them information about why we’re striking and that I was participating and I also gave them an overview of the course schedule so they could see how I accommodate the work stoppage.” 

    Ozment said she won’t be grading, collecting assignments or leading instruction. But she has encouraged her students to work independently this week. 

    Arabel Meyer, a journalism senior at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, said all three of her instructors this quarter notified her that they will be striking this week and that classes have been canceled. On the quarter system, students at Cal Poly SLO are in their third week of classes. 

    “I support the faculty in their striking,” Meyer said, adding that as a college student who can barely afford rent in San Luis Obispo, she understands how difficult it is for a professor making the minimum salary to afford rent in the city. “I can’t even imagine being a college professor and living in the town that I live in and not being paid a wage that is enough to be able to survive and be able to provide for their families.” 

    Meyer said she’s not worried about a week away from classes hurting her academically, and she’s heard other students celebrate the idea of a “week off.” The real difficulty will be for the professors to “reorganize their schedules and make sure that they’re covering the material that they need to get through in a quarter,” she said. 

    Nicolette Parra, a political science junior at CSU Northridge, who transferred to university from community college, said she supports the faculty after noticing the problems in CSU.

    “There’s a sense of greediness, like the administration just wants more money,” she said. “I am concerned about canceled classes because when the strikes are happening is supposed to be our first week back from winter break. It feels like we are behind. It’s not the professors’ fault, it’s the administration and that worries me.”

    Salary and wages remain the top issue dividing the faculty and the administration. The faculty have argued for a 12% general salary increase for this year. 

    CSU FAculty demands
    • 12% pay raises to stay ahead of inflation.
    • Pay equity and raising the floor for lowest-paid faculty.
    • Manageable workloads that allow for more support and engagement with students.
    • More counselors to improve students’ much-needed access to mental health services.
    • Expanding paid parental leave to a full semester.
    • Accessible lactation and milk storage spaces for lactating faculty.
    • Safe gender-inclusive restrooms and changing rooms.
    • Safety provisions for faculty interacting with university police on campuses.

    Cal State Chancellor Mildred Garcia said that, without question, the faculty deserve a pay increase.

    “We are committed to compensating employees fairly, but we are and must be equally committed to the long-term stability and success of the CSU,” Garcia said on Friday during a meeting with reporters. “As a new chancellor four months on the job, I have no interest in a strike. We are ready and willing to come back to the bargaining table with the California Faculty Association, but we must work within our financial realities.”

    Garcia said despite the strike, Cal State campuses will remain open this week and provide guidance to students and families and updates about the status of classes.

    “The CSU is not canceling classes,” said Christina Checel, CSU’s vice chancellor for labor and employee relations. “Individual faculty members who decide to strike will cancel their own classes. So students should check their class portals or contact their professors to find out whether they intend to hold class.”

    Checel said the universities have made contingency plans to continue providing advising, financial aid and other services to students, but the strike “will not interfere with students’ ability to complete their courses or graduate on time.”

    Earlier this month, the CSU administration walked away from the bargaining table with the faculty union and offered a 5% pay raise starting Jan. 31. The administration said the salary increase is consistent with agreements CSU reached with five other unions. Over the weekend, CSU also reached an agreement with its skilled trades union, which represents about 1,100 employees.

    Faculty say they are insulted by the 5% wage increase.

    “Somebody can decide to stop having a conversation with you, but that doesn’t mean the conversation is over,” Ozment said. “They unilaterally decided what was appropriate for us. It was not done in collaboration, it was not done in conversation and it was not done based on any reasonable math from our perspective. What we’re hoping is that this (strike) brings them back to the table. They made a bad choice. They can unmake it.” 

    A 5% pay raise would have no impact on professors’ ability to make a living when campuses are raising other costs on them, faculty said. Kevin Weir, a Sacramento State professor on the faculty union’s bargaining team, said campuses are raising parking costs, which wipes out any benefits of a 5% increase for those instructors that are already struggling with the cost of living. 

    But meeting the faculty union’s demands would cost the system about $380 million in the first year and every year thereafter, an amount the system can’t currently afford, said Leora Freedman, CSU’s vice chancellor for human resources.

    “The CSU currently spends 75% of its operating budget on compensation,” Freedman said. “If we were to agree to the increases that these unions are demanding, we would have to make severe cuts to programs. We would have to lay off employees. This would jeopardize our educational mission and cause hardship to many employees.”

    Freedman said CSU has made several proposals to the faculty union, but the organization has not been willing to reduce its economic demands.

    “As soon as either union demonstrates that they’re ready to make meaningful movement in bargaining, we will be back at the table,” she said.

    Weir said he disagrees with the university system’s financial arguments. In October, the union released its own independent study conducted by an Eastern Michigan University professor that examined Cal State’s cash flows and reserves. That study, which CSU has described as incorrect, concluded that CSU has about $8.2 billion in reserves and cash investments.

    “They have more money coming in than going out every year,” Weir said. “They have enough money to give this chancellor 30% more than her predecessor, and her predecessor got 30% more than her predecessor. They have given campus presidents up to 29% increases. They have no problem rewarding the senior executives of the system, but they do have a problem paying faculty just to keep up with inflation. So, no, I don’t buy their argument.” 

    Much of the wage dispute comes as CSU has granted salary increases to campus presidents and hired the new system chancellor with a nearly $800,000 base salary, even as the system faced a budget deficit. 

    Steve Relyea, CSU’s vice chancellor and chief financial officer, said the faculty union has misrepresented the university system’s financial situation. Much of the $8 billion the faculty have cited as available for salaries can’t be used for salaries because it is already committed to CSU’s debt obligations, capital projects, and other contractual commitments like financial aid, housing and parking, he said.

    “To use those one-time dollars for ongoing commitments would be reckless and put the institution and our students at risk,” Relyea said.

    Even if an agreement is reached between the faculty union and the CSU, negotiations for the next faculty contract are expected to start this spring. Weir said union membership will begin receiving surveys to submit their ideas and thoughts on what changes and demands need to be made in the next contract. Weir said it wouldn’t be the first time that the union and the university system negotiated on two separate contracts simultaneously, with the last time occurring in 2011. 

    “But I would rather not do that,” he said. “I would rather settle this contract and then move on to the successor contract. I would love to get back into the classroom and be done with negotiations for a while. But in order for that to happen, I need a willing negotiation partner and, so far, management is walking away from the table and indicating they’re not willing.” 

    Faculty and students have indicated and are aware that if the salary disagreement between CSU and the union isn’t solved, there may be future strikes. 

    “My students are still facing rising tuition and my peers are still driving for Uber and going to local food banks,” Ozment said. “I think that people should anticipate bigger and longer strike actions if we don’t actually get what we need to run this system because we have it. They have the money. They’re just choosing to hoard it like little dragons from ‘Lord of the Rings.’ ”

    California Student Journalism Corps member Delilah Brumer, who is a student at Pierce College in L.A., contributed to this report. Arabel Meyer, a source in this story, is also a member of the California Student Journalism Corps.





    Source link

  • Cal State System reaches tentative agreement with faculty on salary

    Cal State System reaches tentative agreement with faculty on salary


    California Faculty Association.

    California Faculty Association

    Faculty in the nation’s largest public university system agreed to end their historic strike against the California State University system late Monday evening.

    The faculty union, which represents more than 29,000 professors, lecturers, librarians and coaches, agreed to a 5% general salary increase retroactive to July 1, 2023, and a 5% general salary increase on July 1, 2024, as long as the state does not reduce Cal State’s base funding this summer.

    Monday marked the first day of a planned one-week strike. The system’s nearly 450,000 students saw many of their classes canceled as faculty protested. However, the new agreement means all faculty will return to campuses and their classes on Tuesday.

    “The collective action of so many lecturers, professors, counselors, librarians and coaches over these last eight months forced CSU management to take our demands seriously,” said Charles Toombs, president of the California Faculty Association, the union. “This tentative agreement makes major gains for all faculty at the CSU.”

    The agreement would raise the salary floor for the lowest paid faculty by increasing minimum pay by about $3,000 retroactive to July 1 and raising it again by $3,000 this summer. It also expands paid parental leave from six to 10 weeks.

    Other highlights from the agreement include improved access to gender-inclusive restrooms and lactation spaces, increased protection for faculty who have negative interactions with campus police officers, and additional support for lecturers.

    The agreement extends the current contract for 2022-24 one year to June 30, 2025.

    “I am extremely pleased and deeply appreciative that we have reached common ground with CFA that will end the strike immediately,” CSU Chancellor Mildred García said. “The agreement enables the CSU to fairly compensate its valued, world-class faculty while protecting the university system’s long-term financial sustainability. With the agreement in place, I look forward to advancing our student-centered work — together — as the nation’s greatest driver of social mobility and the pipeline fueling California’s diverse and educated workforce.” 

    The university system is encouraging students to look for messages from their instructors about adjusting their classes this week. Faculty will vote to ratify the new agreement in the coming weeks.

    “This historic agreement was won because of members’ solidarity, collective action, bravery, and love for each other and our students,” said Antonio Gallo, an instructor on the Northridge campus. “This is what People Power looks like. This deal immensely improves working conditions for faculty and strengthens learning conditions for students.”

    The agreement marks another victory for education laborers, the union said, especially following similar strikes at the University of California and the University of Southern California.





    Source link

  • UC moves to ban political statements on its websites by faculty and others

    UC moves to ban political statements on its websites by faculty and others


    Hundreds of UC Berkeley students walked out of class on Oct. 25, calling for a cease-fire in Gaza. The students are among thousands who have walked out on campuses nationwide as fighting between Israel and Hamas continues in Gaza.

    Credit: Brontë Wittpenn/San Francisco Chronicle/Polaris

    This story was updated to reflect the UC board’s decision to table a vote on the issue.

    University of California faculty and other staff could be banned from publishing political statements, including those stemming from the Israel-Hamas war, on university websites and other university channels under a policy brought to UC’s board of regents.

    The consideration of such a policy comes after some units, including at least two ethnic studies departments, posted statements on their websites last fall supporting Palestine and condemning Israel. 

    The proposal is causing an uproar among some faculty who say it would repress their academic freedom and question how it would be enforced.

    UC officials behind the idea say it is necessary to ensure that the opinions of certain individuals or groups of faculty aren’t mistaken for the opinions of UC as a whole.

    “When individual or group viewpoints or opinions on matters not directly related to the official business of the unit are posted on these administrative websites, it creates the potential that the statements and opinions will be mistaken as the position of the institution itself,” regent Jay Sures, who helped develop the proposal as chair of the regents’ compliance and audit committee, said during Wednesday’s regents meeting.

    The regents won’t vote on the policy until March at the earliest. They initially planned to take action this week but opted to table the vote until their next meeting, scheduled for March 19 through 21, after the item caused much confusion and debate when discussed Wednesday evening.

    The effort is the latest fallout from the Oct. 7 attack on Israel by Hamas and Israel’s military response in Gaza, which has triggered sharp responses from pro- and anti-Israel groups.

    The policy does not specifically mention any particular issue, but some faculty see it as an attempt to prevent them from discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    Since the fall, the website for UC Santa Cruz’s critical race and ethnic studies department has displayed a statement calling on “scholars, researchers, organizers, and administrators worldwide” to take action “to end Israel’s genocidal attack on Gaza.” The website for UC San Diego’s ethnic studies department includes several statements and commentaries. One statement says the ethnic studies community at UC San Diego supports Palestinian people and their “freedom from an apartheid system that seeks to dehumanize them in unconscionable ways.” 

    Sures last fall also sharply criticized a letter by the UC Ethnic Studies Council. In the letter, the council said official UC communications denouncing Hamas for its Oct. 7 attack on Israel distorted and misrepresented “the unfolding genocide of Palestinians in Gaza and thereby contribute to the racist and dehumanizing erasure of Palestinian daily reality.” Sures wrote a public response to the council saying the letter “is rife with falsehoods about Israel and seeks to legitimize and defend the horrific savagery of the Hamas massacre.”

    One regent, Hadi Makarechian, acknowledged during Wednesday’s regents meeting that the regents were considering the issue because “some people were making some political statements” related to Palestine and Hamas.

    Christine Hong, a professor of critical race and ethnic studies at UC Santa Cruz, said during the public comment portion of the meeting that the regents are attempting to “repress academic freedom” and disallow “any critical study or discussion of Palestine.” 

    “Your emissary, regent Jay Sures, declared war on ethnic studies,” Hong added.

    Sures maintained Wednesday that the policy isn’t meant to impede free speech and that he believes there “are many avenues” for faculty to share their viewpoints.

    “I’m not so sure that it needs to go on the landing pages of departmental websites,” he said.

    The final language of the policy that the regents could vote on isn’t yet known. According to their agenda, regents were scheduled to vote Wednesday on a policy stating that “official channels of communication, including the main landing pages of websites, of schools, departments, centers, units, and other entities should not be used for purposes of publicly expressing the personal or collective opinions of unit members or of the entity.”

    That language was criticized for being too ambiguous, including by two key UC law professors who urged the regents to reject the proposal. The professors — Ty Alper of UC Berkeley and Brian Soucek of UC Davis — each previously served terms as chair of the UC Academic Senate’s university committee on academic freedom. As chairs, they helped develop a 2022 recommendation by the Senate that faculty departments should be allowed to issue opinionated statements. 

    In a letter to the regents, Alper and Soucek said the proposed policy “raises more questions than it settles.” Do official channels include a department’s social media pages, even though those aren’t UC-hosted websites? Do emails sent by a dean or department chair count as official channels? Are faculty departments violating the policy if they were to sign a public statement hosted on a website not operated by UC?

    Acknowledging that the language was indeed ambiguous, UC staff during the meeting amended it and presented two different options to regents. Under the first option, faculty departments would be banned from expressing opinions only on the “main landing pages” of university websites. The second option featured language that would extend the ban beyond the landing pages and to other websites, at the discretion of a university administrator.

    But those options also caused confusion and debate among regents and UC officials. 

    “Even if it’s not on the main landing page, if someone says, this is the official viewpoint of Department X on this political issue, I think you could interpret some of this language to say, we also don’t want people to do that,” Howard Gillman, the chancellor of UC Irvine, said Wednesday while addressing the regents.

    Some regents and officials also suggested that the policy include language that university departments should have designated opinion pages on their websites, and that any political statements or other opinions should be limited to existing on those pages.

    Sures agreed to work overnight with fellow regent Lark Park and UC’s general counsel, Charles Robinson, to further revise the policy and return Thursday with a new action item. On Thursday, however, the regents agreed to table the item until March following a motion by regent John Pérez.

    “Issues of First Amendment protection are crucial to the institution. I am supportive of the concept that we’re trying to get through here. After looking at the product of work that’s come forward, I don’t think we’ve got enough to act on in a meaningful way, in a way that’s defensible to the core mission of the university. I think we would benefit from more input,” Pérez said.

    By possibly banning faculty departments from making political statements, UC’s new policy could run counter to the 2022 Academic Senate recommendation, some faculty say. At that time, the Senate’s academic council and university committee on academic freedom agreed that “departments should not be precluded from issuing or endorsing statements in the name of the department,” noting that freedom of expression as well as academic freedom are “core tenets of the UC educational mission.” The Senate took up the issue after UCLA’s Asian American studies department published a statement expressing solidarity with Palestinians and denouncing Israel.

    In a social media statement Wednesday, the Berkeley Faculty Association said the idea to ban departments from making political statements was already considered and rejected by the Academic Senate in 2022. The faculty association also questioned how the new policy would be enforced and urged the regents to reject it.

    “Who gets to decide what is a political statement and who will be responsible for policing the websites and social media accounts of academic units? We urge the Regents not to approve a dangerously ambiguous policy which raises alarming questions about governance and academic freedom,” the faculty association wrote.





    Source link

  • Students, faculty, staff distrust state college systems’ handling of Title IX cases

    Students, faculty, staff distrust state college systems’ handling of Title IX cases


    Fresno State University

    Credit: fresnostate.edu

    Students and faculty at all three of California’s public higher education institutions do not trust how colleges and universities handle sexual discrimination and harassment. 

    The lack of trust was detailed in a California Assembly Higher Education Committee report released last week that offers recommendations on how the state’s public colleges and universities can better address sexual harassment and discrimination. 

    The report addressed significant deficiencies in the University of California, California State University and California Community College systems’ handling of Title IX, which is the federal education law that prohibits schools from sex-based discrimination. For example, none of the state’s public colleges or universities review how campus leaders plan to address and prevent sex discrimination as part of administrators’ evaluations. Another deficiency: The community college system does not mandate student participation in annual sex discrimination prevention education programs. 

    The report highlighted that students at faculty across all three systems distrust and resent their institutions when it comes to handling Title IX cases. “The prevailing message from students, staff and faculty is that current policies of the CCC, CSU, and UC do not protect survivors and instead are used to protect the institution from lawsuits,” according to the report. 

    Wendy Brill-Wynkoop, president of the Faculty Association of the California Community Colleges, said the goal for every district and campus should be moving from being reactive to being proactive and creating a culture of respect. 

    “When you have someone who has already been traumatized or victimized and you’re asking them to go through this incredibly lengthy and cumbersome process without an advocate, that’s not the greatest way to try and come to a resolution,” said Brill-Wynkoop, adding that an oversight body would be helpful. “Every district tries to do things correctly, but without some sort of system check, it’s difficult.” 

    Furthermore, the report found that California lacks an effective method for monitoring and regulating Title IX standards in its higher education institutions. 

    “California’s public higher education institutions are critical to the future of our state, and we must ensure our values of diversity and inclusivity are reflected in providing all students with a safe learning environment and all staff with a working environment free from harassment and discrimination,” Assembly Higher Education Chair Mike Fong said, adding that he will work with lawmakers to introduce legislation based on the report’s recommendations. 

    The report recommended providing more funding to the colleges to address sex discrimination, creating a statewide office to provide guidance and monitoring, annual compliance reports to the Legislature, and creating systemwide independent civil rights offices for each of the three systems. The committee also recommended more training and education, and making campus leaders more responsible for addressing sexual harassment and discrimination. 

    A spokesperson from the community colleges chancellor’s office said: “The Chancellor’s Office agrees with the findings and conclusions of this important report and looks forward to working with the committee, the Legislature and our colleges to implement the recommendations. We are fully aligned with the commitment to improve California’s higher education systems to better address discrimination and provide safe, inclusive environments for all students, faculty and staff.”

    The Assembly Higher Education Committee conducted the report following a series of news nationally and statewide about mishandled Title IX cases. The committee report cites EdSource’s investigation into Chico State, where a professor was investigated for an inappropriate sexual affair with a graduate student. He was put on paid leave last year after EdSource disclosed that he had allegedly threatened to shoot colleagues who cooperated in the investigation.

    The report also noted other EdSource coverage of Title IX cases at CSU campuses and an investigation by USA Today into the mishandling of a Title IX case by then President Joseph I. Castro. The case led to his resignation as CSU chancellor.

    The Cal State system was found to have mishandled a variety of cases over the year and reports from an independent law firm and the California State Auditor’s office last year found the 23 -campus system lacked resources and failed to carry out its Title IX responsibilities. 

    In response to the Assembly committee’s report, a spokesperson from the Cal State chancellor’s office said: “Any form of discrimination, harassment and misconduct is unacceptable. The CSU stands ready to work with legislators and with leaders from across the CSU system — including university administrators, staff, faculty and students — to make the changes needed to improve our Title IX and other nondiscrimination policies and procedures.”

    The report noted that the university system has already changed its policy allowing administrators who have committed misconduct to “retreat” to faculty positions. 

    CSU is currently implementing the changes and reforms called for in the 2023 state audit and in a report conducted by an independent law firm.

    A UC spokesperson said that system has made changes “to address these issues when they arise.”  Officials were interviewed for the Assembly report, and UC pledged to “review the recommendations closely in order to uphold our commitment to fostering an environment free from sex-based discrimination for all members of the UC community.”





    Source link

  • Amid faculty objections, UC considers limiting what faculty can say on university websites

    Amid faculty objections, UC considers limiting what faculty can say on university websites


    UCLA campus in Westwood on Nov. 18, 2023.

    Credit: Julie Leopo / EdSource

    This story was updated on Friday to include that the UC Academic Senate urged the regents to reject the policy.

    In a move faculty say infringes on their academic freedom, the University of California will soon consider a policy restricting them from using university websites to make opinionated statements. Such statements have come under scrutiny since last fall, when some faculty publicly criticized Israel over its war in Gaza.

    The proposed policy, which goes to the system’s board of regents for a vote next week, would prevent faculty and staff from sharing their “personal or collective opinions” via the “main landing page” or homepages of department websites, according to a new draft of the policy. Faculty would be free to share opinions elsewhere on the university’s websites, so long as there is a disclaimer that their viewpoint doesn’t represent the university or their department.

    The final version of the policy may not be complete until next week. Regents accepted feedback from the university’s Academic Senate through Friday. Following a systemwide review, the Senate’s Academic Council is asking the regents to reject the proposed policy.

    Whatever the final version says, the fact that regents are considering the issue at all is alarming to some UC faculty. They argue that issues of academic freedom are outside the purview of the regents and question how the university would enforce the policy. And although the policy doesn’t explicitly mention a specific issue, faculty see it as an attempt to prevent them from discussing Israel’s war in Gaza.

    “At a moment when across the country, academic freedom is being challenged, we’re worried that the regents have lost their way on this issue,” said James Vernon, a professor of history at UC Berkeley and chair of the Berkeley Faculty Association. “I think it’s out of their purview, and I think they’re doing it for very obvious reasons. It’s about Palestine and the political positions of some regents.” 

    UC officials have said action is needed to ensure that faculty opinions are not interpreted as representing the views of the university as a whole. The regents previously discussed a similar policy in January but delayed a vote until March. At the time, one regent said the board was considering the policy because “some people were making political statements related to Hamas and Palestinians,” seemingly referring to the statements made by some faculty last fall in support of Palestine. 

    By only disallowing statements on “main landing pages,” the latest version is less restrictive than the policy initially proposed in January, which would have banned statements made on any “official channel of communication.”

    To some faculty, the issue was already settled in 2022, when the Academic Senate determined that UC faculty departments have the right to “make statements on University-owned websites,” so long as the statements don’t take positions on elections.

    “The Academic Senate came out with very clear recommendations,” said Christine Hong, a professor of ethnic studies at UC Santa Cruz. “We have a group of regents who are running roughshod over what you would think would be the core commitments of the university to academic freedom and to the principle of shared governance.”

    Some faculty find the revised version of the policy to be an improvement, including Brian Soucek, professor of law at UC Davis and previous chair of the UC Academic Senate’s university committee on academic freedom. While he remains concerned with the regents “micromanaging” what faculty departments can say, Soucek said the revised policy “is not a major threat to academic freedom,” given that it only limits what can be said on the main landing pages of websites.

    UC officials declined to comment on this story, saying only that regents would consider the policy at next week’s meeting. 

    Traced to Oct. 7 attack

    The new push to limit faculty statements can be traced to the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas on Israel and Israel’s subsequent bombardment of Gaza. The Hamas attack killed about 1,200 people, mostly civilians, with about another 240 taken hostage. Since Israel launched its military response, more than 30,000 people have been killed in Gaza, most of them women and children.

    On Oct. 9, UC system leaders issued a statement condemning the Hamas attack as an act of terrorism resulting in violence that was “sickening and incomprehensible.” Several of UC’s campus chancellors also issued their own statements condemning the attack.

    In a letter the following week, the UC Ethnic Studies Council criticized UC’s statements, saying they lacked context by not acknowledging Israeli violence against Palestinians, including “75 years of settler colonialism and globally acknowledged apartheid.” The ethnic studies faculty also said UC’s statements “irresponsibly wield charges of terrorism” and called on UC to revoke those charges. UC later said it stood by those assertions.

    UC ethnic studies faculty then engaged in a back-and-forth with regent Jay Sures. Sures wrote a letter responding to the Ethnic Studies Council letter, saying it was “rife with falsehoods about Israel and seeks to legitimize and defend the horrific savagery of the Hamas massacre.” The ethnic studies faculty subsequently criticized Sures for not condemning Israeli violence and called on him to resign.

    Sures also wrote in his letter that he would do “everything in my power” to protect “everyone in our extended community from your inflammatory and out of touch rhetoric.” Now, Sures is the regent most fervently pushing the proposal to limit what faculty can say on UC websites.

    Since last fall, some faculty departments have displayed statements on their websites condemning Israel. The website for UC Santa Cruz’s critical race and ethnic studies department, for example, includes a statement calling on “scholars, researchers, organizers, and administrators worldwide” to take action “to end Israel’s genocidal attack on Gaza.” 

    Involving faculty

    UC isn’t the only university to move to restrict faculty from making political statements on department websites. 

    At Barnard College, a private women’s liberal arts college in New York, the department of women’s, gender and sexuality studies published a statement last fall expressing solidarity with the people of Palestine. The college removed the statement and then rewrote its policy on political activity to prohibit faculty departments from posting political statements on college-owned websites. The quick response prompted an outcry from some free speech advocates who criticized the college for making the policy change without consulting faculty.

    The American Association of University Professors, an organization that advocates for academic freedom, doesn’t have guidance regarding whether departments should take political positions, a spokesperson said. However, if universities are to create such policies, they should “be formulated through shared governance channels, with substantial faculty input,” said the spokesperson, Kelly Benjamin.

    In that regard, UC officials have made progress since January, Soucek said. 

    Prior to the January meeting, Soucek co-authored a letter to the regents urging them to reject the policy being considered at that time. Among other criticisms, Soucek wrote that the development of the policy was “sudden, opaque, and seemingly devoid of any collaboration at all” with the staff and faculty it would impact.

    Following the January meeting, regents shared a revised version of the policy with Academic Senate leaders, requesting their thoughts and giving them until this Friday to share that feedback.

    In an interview, Soucek commended the regents for “taking a breath” and accepting feedback on the revised policy. “That’s a great thing, and that’s what they should have done from the beginning,” he said.

    Even with the changes to the policy, some faculty still see it as a major threat. Hong, the UC Santa Cruz professor, is concerned with the intention behind the policy, even if the latest version is less restrictive than the original.

    Hong pointed out that UC’s general counsel, Charles Robinson, said during the January meeting that the intent of the policy was to “make sure that landing pages wouldn’t be associated with types of speech that the university would feel uncomfortable with.”

    Hong called that a “really striking disclosure,” saying that it violates the principle of academic freedom. 

    “Whatever revisions they make, we have to address what the intention behind this policy is,” Hong said. “This is a joke of an exercise. Why are we being forced to go through this?”

    Faculty also say it’s unclear how UC would enforce the policy. The revised version doesn’t define what constitutes an opinionated statement and states that the “administrator responsible for maintaining the website” will be responsible for “assuring compliance with this policy.”

    To Soucek, that suggests that the policy will be managed by UC’s IT staff. 

    “That’s how it sounds,” he said. “Our IT staff has enormous expertise. For most of them, it doesn’t extend to issues of academic freedom.”

    Whoever is ultimately in charge of scanning the many departmental websites across UC’s 10 campuses will have a “gigantic task,” said Vernon, the UC Berkeley professor. 

    “And then the next question is, who’s going to enforce it once they’ve actually found someone who’s violated this policy? That is really important to have clarified,” he said.





    Source link

  • UC delays vote on much-debated proposal to restrict some faculty speech

    UC delays vote on much-debated proposal to restrict some faculty speech


    Public speakers address UC leaders during a March UC regents meeting at UCLA.

    Credit: Julie Leopo / EdSource

    The University of California’s board of regents has delayed voting until May on a controversial policy proposal that would restrict faculty from using some university websites to make opinionated and political statements, such as opposition to Israel’s war in Gaza.

    The proposal would ban faculty departments and other academic units from using the homepages of their department websites to make “discretionary statements,” which the proposal defines as comments on “local, regional, global or national” events or issues and not related to daily departmental operations.

    In the days leading up to the meeting, the UC system’s Academic Senate had asked the regents to reject or at least delay a vote and expressed concerns that the proposal would limit freedom of speech.

    The policy was scheduled for a vote Wednesday during a joint meeting of the regents’ academic affairs and compliance and audit committees. But regents voted to delay a final decision until their next meeting in May. Before that meeting, they plan to collect additional comments from the Academic Senate and other regents.

    “People will submit their issues that they have. The Academic Senate will do their thing. We’ll hear everyone’s point of view. We’ll modify if we need to modify. And maybe we could just personally commit that we’ll vote in the next meeting,” said regent Jay Sures, one of the regents responsible for bringing the proposal forward. Sures is vice-chairman of United Talent Agency, a powerful entertainment and sports-related firm.

    Regent Jay Sures, seen during Wednesday’s board meeting, backs a proposal to curb opinionated comments on academic department homepages.
    Credit: Julie Leopo / EdSource

    UC systemwide President Michael Drake also supported delaying the vote, saying he doesn’t think the policy is finished and that the university “needs to get it right” before moving forward.

    The policy doesn’t mention a specific issue, but many faculty see it as an attempt to limit what they can say about Israel’s war in Gaza. The consideration of the policy, which has been in the works for months, comes after UC’s Ethnic Studies Faculty Council and several faculty departments have criticized Israel over the war. In addition, when the policy was first discussed at January’s regents meeting, regent Hadi Makarechian said the board was considering the policy because “some people were making political statements related to Hamas and Palestinians.”

    UC leaders who support the policy have said it is needed to ensure that the opinions of faculty departments aren’t misinterpreted as representing the university as a whole. 

    It’s unclear whether the policy will get enough support among the board when it does go to a vote. Some regents voiced concern Wednesday about the proposal’s possible impacts.

    Merhawi Tesfai, a graduate student at UCLA and a student regent, said during the meeting that he doesn’t think the regents should be setting a systemwide policy.

    “I think each campus should be free to decide on what policies they’re going to be doing, what guidelines they’re going to set around this issue,” he added.

    Another regent, Keith Ellis, said he was concerned that the policy could be used “as a weapon” against faculty.

    If faculty departments or other academic units, such as research centers, do want to make opinionated statements, the proposal still would allow them to publish those elsewhere on UC web pages, just not on the homepages. Those statements would also need to include a disclaimer explaining that the opinions don’t represent the university as a whole. The policy also allows faculty and groups of faculty to publish their opinions on private websites. 

    Last week, the Academic Senate formally requested that the regents reject the proposal or at least delay a vote. The Senate’s Academic Council voted unanimously, 19-0, in making that request to the regents. In a letter to the regents, Academic Senate leaders said the policy has the potential to “limit free speech and impinge on academic freedom,” among other concerns. 

    An overflow crowd waits outside of Wednesday’s meeting of the UC board of regents at UCLA.
    Credit: Julie Leopo / EdSource

    The policy was updated after the Senate submitted its comments, and did include some changes addressing the concerns raised. The latest draft of the policy, for example, includes a definition of the types of statements that would be banned, whereas the previous version did not.

    In remarks to the regents, Academic Senate Chair James Steintrager said the latest version was a step in the right direction but lamented that the Senate had only two days to review the latest version before the meeting. He urged the regents to delay a vote and send the draft policy out for further review by the Senate.

    Trevor Griffey, a lecturer at UCLA and a vice president for the union representing UC’s non-tenure track faculty, wrote on social media on Wednesday that the union is worried about how the policy would be enforced. The union “believes that enforcement of this vague standard cannot be done consistently, and is likely to increase interest group pressure” on faculty departments, Griffey wrote.

    Griffey also said the regents were trying to bypass the Senate on this issue. Rather than approving a new policy, Senate leaders have asked the regents to adopt recommendations made by the Senate in 2022. 

    The Senate determined at that time that UC faculty departments have the right to “make statements on University-owned websites” as long as the statements don’t take positions on elections. The Senate, like the regents, also recommended that those statements include disclaimers that the departments don’t speak for the university as a whole. But the Senate didn’t discourage statements from appearing on departmental homepages. 

    “These recommendations were based on comprehensive consultation with faculty on the ten campuses, as well as with UC Legal consultants. They are intended to guide departments whose members opt to post statements to do so in ways that minimize downsides and that do not infringe on academic freedom,” the Senate leaders wrote in their letter to the regents last week.

    Since last fall, some faculty departments have included statements on their websites criticizing Israel. The homepage for UC Santa Cruz’s critical race and ethnic studies department website has a statement calling on “scholars, researchers, organizers, and administrators worldwide” to take action “to end Israel’s genocidal attack on Gaza.” 

    In a letter last fall, the systemwide UC Ethnic Studies Faculty Council also criticized UC leaders for their public statements following the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas on Israel. The council said UC’s statements lacked context because they didn’t acknowledge Israeli violence against Palestine, including “75 years of settler colonialism and globally acknowledged apartheid.” The faculty also said UC’s statements “irresponsibly wield charges of terrorism.” 

    Sures, the regent who supports the proposal, responded with a letter of his own, saying the council’s letter was “rife with falsehoods about Israel and seeks to legitimize and defend the horrific savagery of the Hamas massacre.” He also pledged to do “everything in my power” to protect “everyone in our extended community from your inflammatory and out of touch rhetoric.” The faculty responded by criticizing Sures for not condemning Israeli violence and calling on him to resign. 





    Source link

  • Community college faculty should all be allowed to work full time

    Community college faculty should all be allowed to work full time


    Students at Fresno City College

    Credit: Ashleigh Panoo/EdSource

    When most people think of part-time employment in the public sector, they assume that it (1) could be a steppingstone to a full-time job; (2) pays less than full-time, chiefly because it involves fewer hours of work; (3) is voluntary, and (4) is primarily meant to supplement a family’s income.

    When it comes to California’s 36,000 part-time community college professors, the facts defy all four assumptions.

    Unlike workers in other professions, part-time college instructors, regardless of length of service and/or quality of performance, will not be promoted to full-time unless they are lucky enough to secure an increasingly scarce full-time position teaching on the tenure track. Part-time instructors, many who work for decades off the tenure track, have been called “apprentices to nowhere.”

    Over the last five decades, colleges have gravitated toward part-time instructors for the flexibility of their semester-length agreements with no obligation to rehire, and their lower expense.  For example, while all full-time instructors receive state-paid health insurance, only about 10% (3,742) of the state’s part-timers do.

    Part-time instructor salaries are not pro-rated based on a typical full-time salary; instead, they are a separate scale which amounts to about 50-60% of the full-time instructor rate. To be clear, this doesn’t mean they receive 50-60% of the income of a full-time instructor: California law caps part-time faculty workload at no more than 67% of full-time. This workload cap, when combined with the discounted rate of pay, means that the average California part-time instructor teaching at 60% of full-time receives about $20,000 while the average annual income for full-time instructors is in excess of $100,000 a year. 

    Surveys conducted by the American Federation of Teachers in 2020 and 2022 found that roughly 25% of part-time community college faculty nationwide were below the federal poverty line.

    With no natural transition from part-time to full-time, this two-tier workplace takes on features of a caste system, especially as both full-time and part-time instructors satisfy the same credential requirements, award grades and credits that have the same value, and have the same tuition charged for their courses.

    While California college instructors are represented by faculty unions (primarily the California Federation of Teachers or the California Teachers Association), the priority of those unions would seem to be tenured faculty, as evidenced by the differences in the collectively bargained working conditions. 

    In the case of workload, for example, while part-time instructors are barred from teaching full-time, full-time instructors may elect to teach overtime, often called course overloads, for additional income. Full-time instructors displace part-time jobs whenever they do. In fact, full-timers generally get to choose their courses, including overloads, before part-timers are assigned courses.

    A bill being considered at present in the California Legislature is Assembly Bill 2277.  It would raise the current part-time workload restriction from 67% to 85% of full time, which, in theory, could enable some part-timers to teach more classes and earn more income. But if passed, AB 2277 would hardly solve the problem for part-time instructors.

    To make a more meaningful improvement, AB 2277 could be amended in two ways, neither of which make an impact on the state budget:

    • Remove the artificial workload cap outright, thereby enabling part-time instructors the opportunity to work up to 100% of full time when work is available. 
    • Impose a ban on full-time tenure-track instructors from teaching overtime (overloads).

    One possible source of opposition to these changes could be California’s faculty unions, which are dominated by full-timers. While supportive of earlier attempts at raising the cap to 85% (e.g., AB 897 in 2020, AB 375 in 2021, and AB 1856 in 2022) — neither union has shown a willingness to support elimination of the cap outright or curbing full-time overloads.

    In 2008, AB 591 adjusted the cap from 60% to the current 67%, but the first iteration of that bill proposed outright elimination of the cap (as does our suggested amendment), which was opposed by the CFT (see the April 16, 2007 legislative digest and commentary assembled in a California Part-Time Faculty Association (CPFA) report). 

    Another source of opposition could be those full-time instructors accustomed to teaching overtime/overloads; they could oppose losing that option, which underscores the conflict of interest in a two-tier workplace when more for one tier means less for the other.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom acknowledged that California “community colleges could not operate without part-time faculty” who “do not receive the same salary or benefits as their full-time colleagues” in his Oct. 8, 2021 veto of AB 375 based on budgetary concerns — the fear that the state’s 36,000 part-time instructors would suddenly qualify for health care. (That fear has since been addressed by a 400% increase in the state’s contribution to the Part-time Faculty Health Insurance Program from an annual $490,000 to $200 million.) In the meantime, part-time faculty continue to be barred from working full time. 

    Faculty unions and lawmakers should take a step toward abolishing California’s faculty involuntary part-time work restriction by allowing them to work full time and protecting their jobs. An amended version of AB 2277 is a no-cost way of doing so.

    •••

    Alexis Moore taught visual art at colleges and universities for over three decades and served on the executive board of the Pasadena City College Faculty Association of the California Community College Independents (CCCI). 

    Jack Longmate has long served on the Steering Committee of the Washington Part-Time Faculty Association and taught for over 28 years at Olympic College in Bremerton, Washington, where his ending annual salary was about $20,000 for teaching at 55% of an annual full-time teaching load. 

    The opinions in this commentary are those of the authors. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link