Craig Bernthal
Fresno State came near to dying this spring. Had the Budget
Task Force’s main recommendations succeeded—to join the School of Arts and Humanities
to the School of Social Science, and to divvy up the College of Sciences and
Mathematics among the FTES hungry colleges of Kremen, Lyles, and Agriculture—that
would have been the end. And those two schools must have seemed like fat and
easy targets. One had a dean probably nearing retirement, the other was without
a dean at all. The faculty senate seemed to be asleep. The other deans were
amenable to an FTES feed. The senate chair was acquiescent. The prospects for
ramming through the mergers must have looked good.
The only thing that stopped it from
happening was a big, fast developing faculty protest that took the
administration by surprise. That protest was expressed in the Fresno Bee, in several meetings and
forums, in the Academic Senate, by an emeriti group that met with President
Welty, and in this blog. There may have been donor protest. (I don’t know about
that, but I hope so.) The rebellion was strong in Arts and Humanities, Science
and Mathematics, and Social Science. It was less strong, but not entirely
absent, in the other schools and library.
What
would have been lost had the Task Force recommendations been allowed to pass by
a sleeping faculty? The functioning liberal arts core of the university would
be gone to the detriment of every department and every student at Fresno State.
Art, music, and theater—the fine arts—require students to be taught in small
studio classes. I cannot believe those curriculums would have survived the move
in any but the most rudimentary form. Over time, they would have decayed. In
English, literature would have withered while the department became a service
writing department for the university. The re-housing of Mathematics to
Engineering and Biology, Chemistry, and Geology to Agriculture would
inevitably, over the course of time, have subordinated those disciplines to the
applied sciences for which those colleges exist. They would have atrophied as
they sank in subordinate service departments, their main duty being toward
general education.
In
the early twentieth century, on a visit to the Soviet Union, physical chemist, crystallographer, and philosopher of science Michael Polanyi tried to tell Soviet scientists and
administrators that their desire to subordinate science to applied science was
bound to fail. Only in the free play of inquiry, regardless of utilitarian
objectives, does major discovery occur. Scientific advancement relies on the
free play of the imagination as much as do the arts. The applied sciences
depend on the “pure” sciences, and the pure sciences depend upon curiosity and
freedom of inquiry. History proved Polanyi right. Science in the Soviet Union
foundered. In less spectacular fashion, the same thing would have happened
here. Fresno State may not be comparable to a UC in its commitment to pure
scientific research; nevertheless, people do pure research here and their
departments are stronger because of it. The irony is that it makes them better
service departments for engineering, agriculture, business, and other fields.
Splitting up Science and Mathematics would have been bad even for the schools
that stood in the short term to have their FTES problems solved. It would have
been bad for the students.
The
wonder is that the administration of Fresno State is this devoid of sense or
scruples. The Task Force proposals would never have seen the light of day had
the Provost not wanted them to be adopted. The idea that an independent Task
Force put these mergers before Provost Covino, who then went into deep thought
about whether to adopt them, is an incredible fiction. The faculty was asked to
believe in another stretcher: that these were budget proposals—that their
adoption would save money. These consolidations more probably would have cost
money.
So
what was the administration trying to accomplish? The reconfiguration of Fresno
State as a complete “professional” school, dealing only in applied knowledge
that leads directly to jobs? The elimination of a recalcitrant body of faculty
through their dispersal? A more centralized structure that allowed the Provost
great control of curriculum and instruction? For my money, all of the above,
with the blessing of President Welty and Chancellor Reid. One can only wonder
what education appears to be in the minds of these people. The loss to the
culture of the Central Valley would have been huge.
But the attempted Task Force coup was
only the first chapter of how things played out this spring. As faculty began
to examine the budget, and data slowly became available, we found that the
carry-forward for the university last year was enormous: $65 million. To quote a previous blog;
Here are the carry-forward figures and the places where
they can be found:
06-07: $28,834.038 See
the 2007-08 Budget Book, p. 13.
07-08: $30,920,037 See the 2008-09 Budget Book,
p. 13.
08-09: $27,314,040 See the 2009-10 Budget Book,
p. 13
For the next two entries, no page numbers are available.
Look under title "Expenditure Budget Summary" in the referenced
Budget Books.
09-10: $44,035,938 See the 2010-11 Budget Book.
10-11:
$65,806,057 See the 2011-12 Budget Book.
We
did not know about that $65 million while the Budget Task Force was meeting,
while sections of 300 or more students were being offered, while student
tuition was being raised, while department offices were running out of paper
and paper-clips, urinals went unfixed, etc., etc. It is impossible to avoid the
accusation of fraud and deception. The Budget Task Force was convened in an
atmosphere of dire emergency, of a broken contract by the state. Well, we may
have long-term problems, and carry-forwards may need to be larger than usual,
but we had no emergency and the necessity for having a task force was a based
on a lie.
How
can President Welty now go to the students with a straight face and tell them
they ought to pay higher tuition, or go to the state legislature and say we
need more money, or tell the faculty they have to sacrifice more, teach larger
sections, and do with less funding for research? I am very curious about how he
is going to handle this on March 22. To say the least, it presents a challenge
in rhetoric.
Departments are now being asked to “spend down” 1.8
million dollars. Come up with proposals, is the Provost’s call. Just think what
could have been done with that 1.8 million last fall. There is always some left
over at the end of the year to spend, but
1.8 million?
The
only good news in this is that the faculty came alive. Important resolutions
against the mergers were introduced into the senate, as were others
re-affirming the importance of the University Budget Committee in faculty
consultation. A faculty group formed in opposition to the mergers and top-down attempts
to control curriculum and instruction. A vote on one of the senate resolutions,
against cohort hiring, is still pending, and will be discussed on Monday. The
Senate has to pass it if the faculty’s traditional duty to decide on curriculum
and instruction is to be maintained.
It
has been an enlightening academic year and a profoundly depressing one. We have
had a disquieting disclosure of the intentions of this administration and the
methods it is willing to employ to get what it wants. I had hoped that the
agenda of Provost Covino and that of President Welty would turn out to be
different; I no longer hope for that, having no reason to believe it’s
true. I doubt that the
administrative game plan has changed or that it will change in the future. It
has merely suffered a temporary reversal in an attempt to turn Fresno State
into a super-Phoenix or National. The faculty will have to battle this for
years, until a more rational model of education finds its way to Long Beach.
For now, it is critical that the faculty follow through in two ways: it needs
to take a clear stand against the imposition of top-down cohort hiring, and it
needs to get the best people it has into the Senate and on Senate committees.
More on those issues tomorrow.
Yes but Chancellor Reed just won a big award for "Leadership Excellence." So he must be pleasing somebody! Who are these lobbyists and cockroaches that stand behind his administration? TIAA-CREF, a pension services organization. And we sure do have a big pension problem, I think.
ReplyDeleteGreat blog entry Craig! I certainly learned a lot. Your sure right about a depressing year. All of that wasted energy which only just got everybody upset, brought down morale of most of the university and students, gave the community a poor impression of how Fresno State's being run ... and in the end ... there's the usual monkey business with the bookeeping ... and it was all unnecessary. Is that 'evidence' of an administration that is doing a good job? I guess it is an inverse relationship in their topsy-turvy world where incompetence wins 'leadership in excellence' awards, and competency gets you demoted or fired I guess. Reminds me of a Buddhist quote that to cultivate the mind of enlightenment is to cultivate the 'straight-forward' mind. There does not appear to be an 'enlightened' administrative culture in the CSU, in that respect.
ReplyDelete