On Friday, Interim Provost and Executive Vice President of Academic Affairs Lawrence Pitts sent out a letter announcing that the proposed faculty furloughs will not occur on instructional days–those “days for which a faculty member is scheduled to give lectures, lead classes or workshops, have scheduled office hours, or have other scheduled face-to-face responsibilities for students.”
In some ways, this might seem to a no-brainer as it mitigates the impact of what should be the university’s primary duty–the education of students. However, not surprisingly this has trigger criticism from faculty leaders and representation.
“The furloughs that have been necessitated by the severe University underfunding by the State are causing significant problems for faculty who have restrictions on research and service as well as increased teaching workloads; employees who have fewer days to do their work and sometimes fewer colleagues to help them; administrators who have reduced staff and budgets to accomplish their complex tasks; on top of lower salaries for everyone. Students too will suffer the effects of the underfunding–larger and fewer classes, and increased fees, as were imposed for this fall instruction period, among other burdens. In such difficult times, I believe that we must do everything we can to ensure that the students continue to receive all of their instruction. Asking the faculty to carry a full teaching load during furloughs is a large request, but in my mind is justified by the University’s paramount teaching mission. Research is permitted on furlough days, but for many faculty this extra research will not be remunerated unless they have grants in which there are funds that can be reallocated to pay for increased effort. And since furlough days are not “service days”, they can be used for outside professional activities that may be remunerated.
We understand that the furlough plan will cause hardships for the entire University family. As such, the President and the Regents are committed to do everything possible to ensure that the plan ends after 12 months.”
In Sunday’s Davis Enterprise, Bob Powell, who chairs the UC Davis Academic Senate was quoted as arguing that Provost Pitts’ letter argues that other people “trump faculty.” Faculty had asked that some of the furlough days occur on instructions days as a sense of balance.
The article continued:
He said that he felt UC offered no strong statement about the disruption furloughs would cause careers, day-to-day lives ‘and even young families,’ no reasons why faculty should ‘bite the bullet,’ and no plan for what UC will do so that furloughs are limited to a single year.
‘Where’s the message he’s sending these people?’ Powell asked. ‘Basically he’s telling the faculty ‘keep working – keep doing research and teaching and service, you’re just going to get paid 8 percent less.’ … What I keep hearing (from faculty) is that they should just call it ‘pay cuts,’ because that’s what it is.’
There has been an expressed sense that there ought to be some sort of teaching impact to the cuts as a means not only to spread out the pain, which seems to be an overused term during the economic crisis, but also to provide some sort of teaching consequence to huge amount of cuts. By this logic, it might be useful if the budget cuts actually impact education rather than merely inconvenience faculty members.
While I can certainly understand that line of thinking, by the same token, I think the UC system has to cognizant of the political fallout that would occur if they were to cut education and instructional time rather than their own time whether that be used for research or other academic endeavors.
Professor Powell may be right to complain that there is no guarantee or plan that UC will limit the furloughs to a single year, but the reality is that the state will likely be facing more not less cuts next year and the UC system is not likely to have more money next year than this year.
As such, while I was opposed to furloughs from the outset believing there was probably other ways to make the budget cuts beyond impacting the primary duties of the university and cutting staff time, I would be even more opposed to the idea of cutting education and instructional time. Having been thoroughly immersed in the research culture at UC as a graduate student, I am very aware of that mentality. Nevertheless, I still believe the first duty of a university is to educate. That is not to diminish the need for research, however, public monies should go to education first and research second.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
This was an excellent decision. Credit goes to Lawrence Pitts and the UC Administrators for recognizing that students are already going to be hit very hard by all the cuts that are being made this year. Scheduling furlough days on instruction days would have been a huge slap in the face to students, who are already being asked to pay significantly more for significantly less.
And the Administration taking salary increases for themselves isn’t a “huge slap in the face” to the faculty and staff (not to mention the part time lecturers) who are now being forced to work harder (larger class sizes) for less pay? NO . . . it is time for these bloated overpaid and under performing administrative parasites to set an example!
I’m tired of hearing the Bull Stuff about having to pay “market rates” to these “highly talented and gifted” experts or we won’t be able to attract or keep them and the UC reputation will crumble, so what . . . Humpty Dumpty is already broken. If they don’t want the job at a lower pay rate, believe me there are thousands lower down the ladder willing to do the job with better results! You don’t think that potential faculty recruits are still placing California’s public universities at the the top of their lists, do you? And how does paying these outrageous salaries and perks to the top heavy administration help the students get the decent education that they are paying for? It is time to get real . . . and stop sitting on yesterday’s laurels! That was then . . . now is here, and it is past the time to start leading by good example!
The common response for all public education dealing with budget cuts has been to stick it to the students. With a bit of hostage-taking and blackmail, the public education establishment quickly moves to reduce services and then uses “The governor is hurting the kids” as a perpetual tag line for the their marketing campaign.
Provost Pitts’ decision is indicative of a different and more progressive mindset… one that puts the students (the primary customers and the primary justification for every UC job) first. This will do much more to elicit public support for UC budget and employee compensation interests than the more common “outrage over student damage” approach. Besides, it is the right thing to do.
I agree w a view from the bottom, that UC exec salaries are obscene. That said, I also agree with the position that furloughs should be taken on noninstructional days. However, I heard from a neighbor that at UC Santa Barbara, incoming freshman cannot take more than 11 credits at a time. Anyone know anything about such a policy? This could be a real problem, if students are not allowed to take the necessary credit load they need to take…
Doesn’t appear to be true. You could have looked this up as easily as I could.
“Undergraduates. Minimum Cumulative Progress (MCP) is a policy, effective Fall 2008, designed and approved by the faculty to provide important guideposts to ensure timely degree completion. The MCP requirement establishes a reasonable expectation of student workload. For undergraduates, the average academic study load is 15 units a quarter; the minimum full-time study load is 12 units.”
No stipulation for freshmen.
Link ([url]http://www.catalog.ucsb.edu/current/general/app.htm#ClassLevel[/url])
Do you really believe that the upper echelons really believe, “the students are the primary customers and the primary justification for every UC job”? Provost Pitts decision does not exhibit leadership . . . he and all UC employees (from the Regents south) should be subject to the same decision and they should ALL be taking the same pay cuts (“furloughs”) and expected to perform their same duty. If his decision is indicative of a “different and more progressive mindset”, there is no justification for his job. He is telling the serfs to eat cake!
And what about the UCD Medical Center sacred cow? Nobody over there is being affected. Why are they not expected to help the students?
[i]This will do much more to elicit public support for UC budget and employee compensation interests than the more common “outrage over student damage” approach.[/i]
No it won’t, Jeff. The public doesn’t really keep track of how UC faculty are paid. In any case nothing in the budget is surviving on the basis of positive public opinion. The state is cutting everything that won’t come crashing down, or that can’t push back with the law. They have discovered that faculty salaries are a soft underbelly that can be cut with no consequences — in the short term.
In the long term, cuts always have consequences. Either UC enrollment will shrink to fit what the state pays for, or the cuts will eat away at UC’s prestige for years. Or both.
If the state lectures UC that educating students is the primary mandate, but doesn’t pay for it as the primary mandate, then one way or another it won’t work. It will be the primary mandate in name only. You can’t build a road just by declaring that roads are important, and you can’t provide a college education that way either. Maybe some of the students think that they are paying in full, but the truth is that they are substantially subsidized. That subsidy took a massive hit, much larger than the fee increase.
It also goes nowhere to suppose that there are “probably” other ways to make the budget cuts. Who here pays half for light bulbs, on the argument that GE is diversified and can “probably” find some other way to make money?
Maybe wild comments like “And what about the UCD Medical Center sacred cow?” could be a step towards enlightenment. Do people want UC to pay for classes with Medicare payments? After all, folks, if educating students is the “primary mandate”, so what if UCDMC has patients in hospital beds who expect treatment.
To “A View From the Bottom”: The Med Center brings in most of its income from fees for services and from research grants. Very few of the doctors there are salaried employees. Therefore, there is no effective way to furlough them. If they don’t work, they don’t bring in money.
“…the impact of what should be the university’s primary duty–the education of students.”
I had always been under the impression that UC is both a teaching and a research institution, and that neither is of greater importance than the other.
David Greenwald says, “Having been thoroughly immersed in the research culture at UC as a graduate student, I am very aware of that mentality.”
You may be aware of it, but you clearly don’t understand its source, because you speak of the “political fallout that would occur if they were to cut education and instructional time rather than their own time whether that be used for research or other academic endeavors.”
Research time is not “our own time.” Professors are judged on their research for tenure and merit pay decisions. The stature of the university is judged by the professors research. If a professor wants to leave the UC for another position (e.g., one where the pay is not below average as it is at the UC), again, the professor will be judged on the basis of research. And finally, research is not separate from teaching. Research enhances teaching; students know when they are getting taught cutting edge stuff by the very people who are cutting the edge.
You’re probably not going to agree with me on this point, but I recall going into my department on the weekends and the young assistant professors were there working on their research. They certainly were not getting paid for that time.
You saw young assistant professors doing research on weekends, therefore research is just “their own time”? With that attitude, you’re more-or-less asking anyone who does research to leave.
And whether or not you’re asking for it, it’s certainly what the furloughs are asking for. As in the article that you quoted, other states are eager to pick up the pieces. Indeed, in the spring we were warned that there would be a hiring freeze. But the situation with the furloughs is so ugly that the hiring freeze is a relief.
“They certainly were not getting paid for that time.”
I think they are salaried, not hourly, employees, but I could be wrong. Greg would know better. But if you look at the pay schedules for UC, it doesn’t list an hourly rate. It lists a monthly salary. So they were getting paid for that time.
Ok, maybe I’m not understanding this.
“Research is permitted on furlough days, but for many faculty this extra research will not be remunerated unless they have grants in which there are funds that can be reallocated to pay for increased effort. And since furlough days are not “service days”, they can be used for outside professional activities that may be remunerated.”
Huh?
[i]I think they are salaried, not hourly, employees[/i]
That’s correct, faculty do not file hours. But even if they did file hours, it would be pro forma. Telling faculty that they aren’t paid for research on weekends is like telling Picasso that he isn’t paid to paint on weekends. You would only ever hire Picasso because of his paintings, and he’s going to paint whenever he feels like it.
The reason to hire a Picasso is a little subtle. It isn’t just to teach students “cutting edge stuff”, although that does happen. It’s also generally to maintain high academic standards. Most of what I teach to undergraduates was known in the 19th century. By contrast, most of the mathematics taught at a typical teaching college was known in the 17th century, if not the 15th century. Mathematics from the 19th century is difficult enough that you might want to learn it from someone who does research in the 21st century.
But hey, if teaching is the “primary duty”, California could eventually ship that deeper expertise to other states. It would be a path to lower student fees.
[i]Huh?[/i]
What that part of the announcement means is that we are free to consult or pay ourselves from grants on furlough days. That second one could be a red herring for most faculty, because grant salaries are often capped; the NSF rule is two months. It’s worth asking the NSF whether we can take extra grant salary on furlough days. Almost certainly they will say no, but why not ask just to prove the Provost wrong.
[quote]Maybe wild comments like “And what about the UCD Medical Center sacred cow?” could be a step towards enlightenment. Do people want UC to pay for classes with Medicare payments? After all, folks, if educating students is the “primary mandate”, so what if UCDMC has patients in hospital beds who expect treatment.[/quote]
Greg, I’m afraid you missed the point or don’t understand the [u]new [/u]definition of “furlough”. Why wouldn’t the UCD Medical staff, administration, and doctors be expected to work for free on their furlough days too? Those patients in hospital beds should receive the same full service treatment as the UCD student being taught by a “furloughed” instructor.
I just don’t like double standards, this rotten system is full of them and it stinks from the head down! If it were a fish I would not buy it, and as a taxpayer I can resist being forced to but it.
It is late . . .l Last sentence above should read “If it were a fish I would not buy it, and as a taxpayer I can resist being forced to [u]buy[/u] it.”
David Greenwald writes: “You’re probably not going to agree with me on this point, but I recall going into my department on the weekends and the young assistant professors were there working on their research. They certainly were not getting paid for that time.”
Others have covered this: faculty are salaried, not hourly employees. And again, I want to add, faculty will be judged on their research regardless of how many “furlough” days they get. But it is difficult to find research time when one is teaching. People forget that teaching isn’t just classroom time: it’s lecture preparation, it’s office hours, it’s email replies, and it’s grading (depending on TA support — but then, there’s also TA supervision). Not to mention service to the university and to one’s profession more generally, which is also part of the job. So yes, most faculty work on weekends. We tend to work far more than 40 hours/week, which makes these fake-furloughs a real slap in the face. The administration can get away with it because the fact of the matter is that most will soldier on exactly as before.
Yes, the furloughs really are fake for faculty; they are just pay cuts. And although the phrase “slap in the face” is overused at this site, it’s hard not to think of Friday’s announcement that way. After giving each campus the freedom to implement the furloughs independently, they yanked it back. Despite generally being at the front of the budget issues, Yudof also didn’t have the courage to announce it himself.
Yes, the state can get away with it — in the short term. But in the long term, there won’t be as many UC Nobel Laureates as there would have been, and a UC degree won’t be as valuable. Again, a hiring freeze is just as well, because how do we recruit in this environment anyway. “Please take our offer. You know you want to work for the University of Shared Sacrifice.”
So Greg, what do you suggest be done??? The state is out of money, and so UC will get less. If UC gets less, where should the cuts take place? I agree athletic coaches can go. But you want exec salaries to remain competitive. So where does UC cut, if not furloughing faculty/staff?
You want the state to pay full frieght for student costs. And where is this money going to come from?
I’m not trying to pick on you, but let’s face it, everyone is between a rock and a hard place in this abysmal economy. The hard question is where will the cuts occur? Raising taxes is probably not an option, since everyone is barely making ends meet as it is. Raising taxes on the wealthy is problematic for many reasons. So what to do?
[i]So Greg, what do you suggest be done?[/i]
My suggestion to who? My suggestion to researchers is that if they get better offers elsewhere, they should take them. My suggestion to the voters (which they probably won’t heed for a long time) is that they should hang up the proposition system that has turned the state budget into a fiasco. My suggestion to UCOP and the governor is that they should shrink enrollment to what the state actually pays for, just as courts are forcing them to do with the prisons. But that suggestion is only half-serious, because I know that they aren’t stupid and that politics keeps them from making hard decisions.
[i]The state is out of money[/i]
The state government didn’t have to be out of money. The voters have been telling the state for years that thrift is theft. But yes, the state is out of money. If they were rational, which again they probably can’t be, they would shrink the mandate to fit the funds.
[i]But you want exec salaries to remain competitive. So where does UC cut, if not furloughing faculty/staff?[/i]
Executive salaries are a wonderful source of resentment and a big fat red herring in the budget discussion. Unless you want Yudof and Katehi to paid minus five million dollars each, cuts to executive compensation would spare very little of the furloughs. On the contrary, if we had executives that other states wouldn’t touch with a ten-foot pole, they would mess things up even more. I’ve seen it happen.
If they have to have furloughs, again, shrink the mandate to fit the funding. They really should have cut teaching days.
[i]I’m not trying to pick on you, but let’s face it, everyone is between a rock and a hard place in this abysmal economy.[/i]
No, that’s an oversimplification. Other state governments are between a sandstone and some packed dirt. Our state government, by virtue of bad governance, is between a granite wall and a titanium fist. At that level, taking politics into account, there is no solution. My “suggestion” is to take a time machine and rescind some of the spending from five years ago, or raise taxes back then. Yes, it’s unrealistic, but it’s no less realistic than repealing some of the state propositions.
Let’s say that I had a magic wand to rewrite state propositions, but not a time machine. Then for starters, Prop 98 has put higher education grossly out of balance with K-12 education. DJUSD is not getting jerked around nearly as much as UC in this crisis. And you can see the mission creep: As UC class sizes escape to infinity, high schools offer more and more AP courses. I don’t blame them for shoring up for UC and Cal State, but this is a Rube Goldberg solution that will not lead to excellence. The cuts should have been more equal.
Beyond that, if you want a tax-neutral reform, they should shift taxes from capital gains to property. And they should get rid of the ludicrous 2/3 supermajority rule to pass a budget. That rule has made the state spend more and tax less on a regular basis.