UWP Lecturers Fwd: probably worth signing

[Deborah Willis]

I'm having trouble making up my mind about this letter.  I like many things 
about it, but I also have a major reservation.   If not a relatively equitable 
distribution of pay cuts (i.e. furloughs), what then?   The letter repeats a 
soundbyte I keep seeing in news articles --that UC's overall budget is $19 
billion, while the paycuts to faculty and staff only come to a piddly $193 
million.   The implication seems to be that UC has tons of money hidden away 
somewhere that could be used to plug this tiny 1% hole.  Though it's not 
Lakoff's point, in other contexts the message people take from this $19 
billion/$193 million contrast is that cuts to UC shouldn't be a problem.  In fact, 
since UC is so wealthy, why not just cut state funding even more? 

Well...sure, the UC budget is huge.  It's a 10-campus operation, with 
multiple hospitals and multiple research centers, etc etc.   And 72% percent of 
that $19 billion budget total are "restricted funds" -- meaning the funds come 
from grants, contracts, donations, and other such sources, which are 
earmarked for specific things and can't legally be used for faculty salaries.   
Salaries etc come from "core funds," the remaining 28% of the overall budget.     
A fairer contrast would be $5.3 billion vs. $193 million.    Okay, $5.3 billion is 
still a lot of money.  But finding that $193 million from the "core funds" to 
prevent faculty/staff paycuts means taking it away from faculty/staff salaries 
and/or basic operations.  In other words, it would mean laying off some faculty 
and staff altogether or shutting down some units, or ... closing UC 
Merced/UCR/UC Santa Cruz.  We're back to the Scull letter, or worse.   

Maybe there is a pot of gold that some administrator has hidden away 
somewhere.  I suppose it can't hurt to ask.  What I like about Lakoff's letter is 
that his main point is to motivate our well-connected regents to use their 
power to get MORE funding from the state or other sources. I like his point 
about the "tyranny of the minority."  I like it that he includes staff along with 
faculty.  I like it that he pans online education.  I like it that he makes his point 
about the probable "brain drain" and its consequences for the state of 
California without sounding unduly elitist.  I like his mournful yet controlled 
tone.    

So perhaps I will add my name to his letter. It's probably not worth spending 
much time brooding about it.     In any case, the Regents' meeting this week 
should bring us closer to some clarity about what the immediate future will 
hold for us.  For those of you interested in the proceedings, you can find the 
agenda, accompanying documents, and a link to streaming audio of the 3-day 
meeting at:

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/regmeet/july09.html

Deborah

---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:37:15 -0700 (PDT)
>From: <keithh at ucr.edu>  
>Subject: Fwd: probably worth signing  
>To: adriana.craciun at ucr.edu, Andrea.Denny-Brown at ucr.edu, 
carole.fabricant at ucr.edu, cf7516 at gmail.com, Caroleanne.tyler at ucr.edu, 
Deborah.Willis at ucr.edu, erica.edwards at ucr.edu, George.Haggerty at ucr.edu, 
heidi.braymanhackel at ucr.edu, jamestobias at mindspring.com, 
James.Tobias at ucr.edu, jennifer.doyle at ucr.edu, John.Briggs at ucr.edu, 
John.Ganim at ucr.edu, joseph.childers at ucr.edu, katherine.kinney at ucr.edu, 
keith.harris at ucr.edu, devlinucr at earthlink.net, michelle.raheja at ucr.edu, 
rise.axelrod at ucr.edu, rob.latham at ucr.edu, Stanley.Stewart at ucr.edu, 
Steven.Axelrod at ucr.edu, susan.zieger at ucr.edu, Tiffany.Lopez at ucr.edu, 
Traise.Yamamoto at ucr.edu, Vorris.Nunley at ucr.edu, englecturers at lists.ucr.edu
>
>Please see the letter below. Please forward.
>Keith
>
>Keith M. Harris
>Associate Professor
>Media & Cultural Studies
>INTS 3126
>900 University Ave.
>Riverside, CA 92521
>(951) 827-1016
>keith.harris at ucr.edu
>________________
>Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:26:56 -0700
>From: Toby Miller <tobym at ucr.edu>  
>Subject: Fwd: probably worth signing  
>To: freya schiwy <freyasch at ucr.edu>, Lan Duong <lduong at ucr.edu>, Setsu 
Shigematsu <setsu.shigematsu at ucr.edu>, Keith Harris 
<keith.harris at ucr.edu>, Ken Rogers <ken.rogers at ucr.edu>, Tim Labor 
<tim.labor at ucr.edu>, D Charles Whitney <chuck.whitney at ucr.edu>, Ruhi Khan 
<ruhi.khan at ucr.edu>, "derekb at ucr.edu> <derekb at ucr.edu" 
<derekb at ucr.edu>, Andrea Smith <asmith at ucr.edu>
>
>   This from George Lakoff--it may provide a good
>   way-in to the Regents' meeting, so you may wish to
>   consider writing George as below to support it, if
>   his letter makes sense to you (albeit that there is
>   a syntactical error in it--can't linguists even get
>   that right?). I think it's a pretty good letter
>   Toby
>
>     from:  lakoff at berkeley.edu
>     Begin forwarded message:
>
>       Dear Colleagues,
>       A number of you have asked me to write an open
>       letter to the Regents. It is attached. I am on
>       the docket to present it on Wednesday at the
>       Regents' meeting.  At least one member of
>       Regents will speak in support of what I am
>       saying in it. I am also going to release it to
>       the press.
>       For these reasons, it is important to have as
>       many faculty endorsing the letter as possible.
>       If you feel you can endorse it, please send me
>       an email with the subject heading "Endorsement"
>       and with your name, title, and campus and I will
>       add you to the "endorsed by" list.
>       If there are other UC faculty who you think will
>       endorse it, please forward this email to them
>       with a copy of the letter.
>       I have kept the letter short - two pages.  
>       I have not tried to say all the important things
>       that are being said in the email discussions. 
>       Those things need to be said as well, but by
>       others. I advise against a buckshot approach.
>       Rather consolidate the facts and alternative
>       positions that the Regents need to hear in one,
>       or a handful, of other letters.  Work on them
>       together if possible. Keep it as simple and
>       straightforward as you can. If the speakers all
>       say utterly different things, the Regents will
>       not pay attention to any of them. 
>       Thank you for your commitment to our university.
>       George Lakoff
>________________
>________________
>