UWP Lecturers Fwd: probably worth signing

[Steven Axelrod]

Dear Deborah,
You make a good point, but it's a subtle one. I don't think most casual
observers or even legislators will take the message about cutting state
funding further. I think it's important to show solidarity with a colleague
who has the stature to make our concerns audible. Moreover, I think the
letter is worth endorsing just for the "tyranny of the minority" line. I've
signed.

>From the land of Guelphs and Ghibelines,

Steve
-- 
Steven Gould Axelrod
President, The Robert Lowell Society
Co-editor, The New Anthology of American Poetry, Vols. 1-3
Professor of English
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Deborah Willis <dwill at ucr.edu> wrote:

> 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
> >________________
> >________________
> >
>



-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucr.edu/pipermail/englecturers/attachments/20090714/9a1258da/attachment.html