As this account notes:
* More than 220,000 students are enrolled in the University of California.Will the protests help the UCs? Perhaps. But times are tough in California; if the universities have some funding restored, the cuts will be even harsher elsewhere. The heaviest ax always hits services to the indigent, who are in no position to protest.
* For every dollar of state money, the university secures six dollars in federal research money.
* UC researchers patent three new inventions per day.
* UC has the highest proportion of low-income students among the country’s top research universities.
It’s just stupid to think that de-funding the university will not seriously damage the state in the long run.
The problem is simple: California cannot raise taxes in troubled times, since our idiotic rules require a 2/3 supermajority on tax issues. Laws requiring supermajorities are inherently anti-democratic, because they allow a minority to set policy. In my opinion, supermajority requirements should be constitutionally banned throughout the nation, at all levels of federal, state and city government.
The Obama administration refuses to help California, and California will remember. For many years, residents of this state have paid more in federal taxes than they have received in services. Many other states cannot make that claim. If Obama's goal is to make sure that California's vote turns as red as its budget, he's succeeding.
7 comments:
The CSU (California State University) system is in the same situation, but no walkouts. Unlike the UC's, the CSU gets less money from research funding and is more dependent on the state, which has made drastic cuts to funding. Unlike the UC's, the CSU provides access to higher education for students from families that have not traditionally gone to college, those with lower incomes, and those who must commute to a local school for family reasons. Our ENTIRE university system is in trouble in California.
My county has had several proposed sales tax increases get defeated even though over 60% of the voters said "yes"
One lost with 65.9%
We have the same deal down here in Louisiana. I teach at the third largest university in the state and we serve a population that is quite poor. Our enrollment is growing. I'm paid horribly as it is and I've just been furloughed so we don't have to lay folks off. My university is a major employer in the community and turns out a lot of local teachers and a lot of the kid' parents own small business in the area or work for the areas' few remaining factories. There's no rhyme or reason to Jindal's education cuts. He's just undermining the future of the state right and left. I'm bailing this year. I don't mind working at a below market price if I feel like I'm doing some good in the world, but this has gone beyond ridiculous. They've increased our class sizes now and they also made some of the older tenured faculty teach unpaid overloads. To Jindal, it's just about tax dollars, he could care less about people's lives and futures and what happens as long as his short term career goals are filled.
I always wondered how a law to require a 2/3 majority could get passed with only a simple majority. It seems the disenfranchised in that scenario have grounds to repeal that aspect.
DK, write to me about the RAM, will ya? I don't have your email address.
It’s just stupid to think that de-funding the university will not seriously damage the state in the long run.
Of course it will. But They.Don't.Care.
The UC system is already toast because the CA K-12 system has been dismantled. Unless the plan to import everyone , and let other countries handle K-12 costs.
Post a Comment