Tag Cloud
Friday, February 10, 2012
Students and professors rally for education
by Matthew Ceccato, published on March 5, 2010 at 12:59 PM
Storyline: Life
Loading images
"You say cut back. We say fight back!"
The screams and cheers of thousands of students could be heard as far away as three blocks. Students from CSU and UC campuses all over the state rallied against education cuts on the north steps of the Capitol Thursday.
The "Educate the State" rally was organized by the California Faculty Association and CSUS. Students and professors rallied side by side under the common cause of improving higher public education. The two-hour event was marked by speeches from professors, students and some legislative officials not afraid of facing the crowd.
The message was clear: stop cutting the higher education budget and increasing fees for students. Student fees are up 45 percent since 2007, while teachers are being furloughed and administrators are cutting enrollment by 40,000 students statewide.
"This rally turnout is amazing but this is only day one," said Lillian Taiz, President of the California Faculty Association. "We need to harness this energy because people really believe in one another. Lawmakers need to know that we will not stand back idle any more."
Assemblyman Alberto Torrico, who is the author of AB 656, which would impose a 9.9 percent oil severance tax, spoke at the rally. His plan would give 100 percent of the money raised from the tax to higher education in the state. California is the only oil producing state without an oil severance tax. The new tax would be imposed on corporations that drill for oil in the state.
"The fees hurt a lot," said CSUS student Nastassia Simmons as she waved a "Pass AB656" sign over her head. "Classes I need have been cut and I don't think I can graduate on time because of it."
The crowd was treated to special entertainment throughout the rally. Two professors from CSUS performed an education blues song and a modified "This Little Light of Mine" as they played the guitar and harmonica.
Organizers stressed the need for continued advocacy. Rallies were held all over the state in collaboration with the Capitol rally. Walkouts occurred at UC Berkley, UC Davis and other public education institutions. Other rallies are planned for March 22.
"You are the key," said Senate President pro tem Darrell Steinberg. "This is the time we begin to restore the dream of public education."
"Hey hey, ho ho, budget cuts have got to go!"
Photos by Matthew Ceccato
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
I would like to see some reaction from the state politicians, but I would also like to see a better solution from the CTA and students. Raising taxes on oil companies is the answer? I need more convincing.
What would your plan be? Any better ideas?
Under the relatively standard Calpers plan, employees would need to work 36 years in the system and retire at 65 to achieve a 90% pension - and a lot of professors could never reach that point even if they stayed for their entire careers as they don't tend to start in their late 20's after master's and PhD's have been completed. It's a somewhat complicated sliding scale of years of service and age at retirement and, for example, 25 years of service at age 60 would yield less than 60%. Looking at the way the table works, I'd be surprised if the majority were higher than somewhere in the 50-60% range.
I used the Calpers example because the CSU uses Calpers - I know, because I'm in it.
I know UC has a different system but my point remains the same - to suggest that "all the retiring employees can receive 90% retirement pay plus benefits" is false, even if some senior, long-serving UC professors can.
Either way Tony, 90% or 60% is unsustainable when each employee pays in around 5% of each pay check to then be supported for 10 to 15 years on this pittance of contribution. Get real man, cash out now before promises made to you are broken and you get a fraction of what you were promised. Have you seen what's going on in Greece? California will follow soon and default on union promises and pensions.
Also, if a tax is given to oil companies, is there any reason why they wouldn't pass that tax right on down to consumers in the way of increased gas prices? Oil companies have, in the past, increased gas prices due to government action and increased taxes. If that's true, than the entire state would essentially be paying for our tuition.
I am currently going to CSUS, and understand the pain of increased fees. It's horrible when you log into My Sac State to find that you owe $500 more dollars in the next week or you are dropped from your classes. It's messed up. That said, I also understand the structure of the state and how difficult it is to secure funding for just about anything, and I'm incredibly skeptical that a rally is going to do absolutely anything to change it.
As for saying that not everyone had college paid for, every CSUS student does have their college paid for. The state of California subsidizes our fees heavily. $2500 does not cover the cost of one semester. You can be guaranteed that the state loses thousands for every student that walks on campus. The $2500 you pay is but a fraction of the cost the state incurs so that you can receive a college degree. According to the CSU website, it costs over $11000 a year to attend CSU if you're not a state citizen, which means that our $5000 is less than half the amount of our education. The state already pays for us.
Also, the protesters fail to justify why they deserve state funding over other institutions and programs that are getting cut in the state. What about the medical coverage that's being cut? Policeman and firefighters? Why should students, who are already funded heavily by the state, get prioritized?
I understand the pain of increased fees and furlough days, but I also see the bigger picture. Until the protesters justify their place in that picture, I remain skeptical about the effect of a rally on the capitol.
Stephen, you're right, it's about priorities. Taxpayers are often asked "do you like A?" and "do you like B?" They don't often get asked "do you prefer A or B?" or "if you like both A and B but only had enough for one or the other or part of both, what would you choose?"
Some of the rhetoric gets a little too crude for meaningful comparison. A statement like "schools not prisons" on a protester's sign loses its utility as presumably we don't want no prisons at all. But it is worth noting that every time we send a casual marijuana user to prison, or send a non-violent felon to prison for life on a three strikes conviction, the amount we spend per year to incarcerate them stops something like 6 potential students from entering college. So a message like "fewer prisons to allow for more schools" is quite meaningful - it just happens to be harder to fit on a sign.
We somehow manage to spend so much on every prisoner that you could take somebody out of prison, enroll them in school, AND pay for a dorm room and a meal plan and still save money! I'm not saying that would be a good idea, merely pointing out how expensive prisons have become - we spend more on them than on all of higher education.
And they are basically preaching to the choir....
A big part of why Americans were so well-educated and wealthy in the mid-20th century is because we had very good, very well-subsidized public colleges, and public programs like the GI Bill that allowed regular folks to study there. Instead of going into low-wage jobs like their parents, they moved into the professions. The result was that they made more money, bought houses, paid higher taxes--and became a bountiful dividend as a result of an investment in public education.