From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: Santa Cruz Indymedia | Education & Student Activism | Labor & Workers
6,154 UAW members publicly call on UC to bargain a fair contract by 9/30
by for UAW Local 2865 (santacruz [at]
Tuesday Sep 18th, 2007 2:31 PM
Over 6,000 union members have signed on to the Public Statement calling on the University administration to negotiate fairly and reach agreement on a new contract by the end of this month, when our current contract expires.
Thanks to the many union members who have helped build the strength of the union by getting our colleagues signed on to the public statement through member-to-member organizing in departments. This dedication and hard work is inspiring.

The fact that a majority of current members are signed on to the Public Statement sends a strong signal to the University that we’'re highly mobilized, and that UAW members won’'t tolerate UC administrators stalling at the negotiating table.

If you haven’t yet signed on to the public statement, take the time to do so now by going to Please forward this email widely so we can continue building the strength of our majority during the last 13 days before our current contract expires.

To get more involved, please contact your campus office (contact information is below). Department leaders will be organizing activities and informational meetings over the next 13 days to continue building momentum around bargaining.

In Solidarity,

UAW 2865 Bargaining Committee

Tarone Bittner, Davis Unit Chair
Toi Carter, Riverside Recording Secretary
Meaghan Chadwick, Merced Unit Chair
Clinton Christensen, San Diego Recording Secretary
Cassandra Engeman, Santa Barbara Recording Secretary
Michelle Gallagher, Los Angeles Unit Chair
Tim Gutierrez, Davis Recording Secretary
Adam Hefty, Santa Cruz Recording Secretary
Samantha Iyer, Berkeley Recording Secretary
Jamie Keeton, Los Angeles Recording Secretary
Daraka Larimore-Hall, Santa Barbara Unit Chair
Christine Petit, Riverside Unit Chair
Dan Roth, Berkeley Unit Chair
David Selby, San Diego Unit Chair
Sara Smith, Santa Cruz Unit Chair
Coral Wheeler, Irvine Recording Secretary


We, the undersigned Union members, call upon the University Administration to abide by its duty to bargain with the UAW in a productive, constructive, and lawful manner so that by the expiration date of the current contract we have a new contract to ratify, which includes:

1. wages that are on par with ASEs at UC-competitor institutions and which reflect the high cost of UC attendance and living expenses in UC communities;
2. full fee and tuition remissions;
3. improved health coverage;
4. family-friendly provisions including child care, parental leave, and health coverage for our dependents, spouses and partners;
5. enhanced workload rights that address increasing class sizes and the ability to enforce these rights through arbitration;
6. increased transparency in hiring decisions;
7. summer-session compensation and rights that are the same as the academic year;
8. the preservation of our right to bargain campus issues on individual campuses;
9. and our right to stand in solidarity with other UC employees when they are striking.

Our work at the University is vital to its mission, and our working conditions directly impact the learning conditions of its students. If the University Administration refuses to acknowledge our demands and delays passage of a new contract, we are committed to taking whatever steps are necessary to ensure compliance, up to and including direct action, if called upon to do so by the Union.

UAW Local 2865 - Santa Cruz
310 Locust St., Suite B/Mailbox 2
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
phone: (831) 423-9737 / fax: (831) 423-3606
santacruz [at] /

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by Trevor (repost)
Tuesday Sep 18th, 2007 2:34 PM
The union for Teaching Assistants, Readers and Tutors at the University of California, UAW 2865, is currently negotiating a new contract set to expire September 30th.Our union is negotiating a number of issues that will hopefully strengthen the rights of trans, lesbian, gay, bi, intersex, and queers throughout the University, including transgender-inclusive health coverage, full health coverage for domestic partners and dependents, queer friendly leaves coverage, and including gender identity or expression in the contract's non-discrimination clause. Just recently the union succeeded in coming to an agreement to include gender identity or expression – the first major success so far on these issues. There's still a lot of work left to do, however. If we win the rest of the demands in negotiations we would also be sending a much-needed message that any form of discrimination against queer people is unacceptable.

"Transgender-inclusive healthcare" means that transition-related surgeries and procedures should be covered by our healthcare plans. As it is, most UC grad healthcare plans have specific exclusions. For example, the UC Santa Cruz GSHIP exclusion reads, "Expenses incurred for transsexual surgery or any treatment leading to or in connection with transsexual surgery." These transphobic barriers in access to health services prevent many of us from living in the bodies we want/need. Of course not all trans/ gender variant people want or need medical interventions, but for those of us who do the option must be there. We should not be forced to BUY health insurance that directly excludes our needs nor should the University be supporting this kind of discrimination.

We are members who want to support both these specific demands and more broadly create conversations around such topics. We want to
organize effectively to make sure that our union's demands are met in bargaining. We also don't want to lose a really key opportunity to
educate people at the UC about the importance of LGBTIQ issues, using what's happening in bargaining as a springboard for much needed
action. In that vain, we are looking for people who are interested in helping to organize around these issues.

To find out more information or to get involved, contact
eastanle [at] or tsangrey [at]

To see past bargaining updates go to

by Ike Solem
(ike_solm [at] Tuesday Sep 18th, 2007 8:30 PM
Let me point out here that the University has proposed to set aside $70 million for a new "Biomedical Research Facility" for the year 2007-2008.

This facility is unlikely to do much for undergraduate research, and represents a continuation of the ongoing corporatization of the University of California. The research done there will undoubtedly be done for the benefit of private pharmaceutical corporations, a theme that is already quite common in the Chemistry Department. As an ex-PhD student in the UCSC Chemistry Department (2000-2002), and the recipient of an NSF Graduate Student Fellowship in Microbiology, I have a good idea of what I'm talking about.

This new facility is a major part of the planned expansion of the University, but it will play no role in furthering undergraduate education. The City of Santa Cruz and the voting public in the region opposes this expansion, which the UC administrators are trying to justify as 'required under California law'. Their argument is that they are required to provide education for the growing number of students in California.

However, despite all the renovation on campus, organic chemisty labs (which I TAed 8 times) are still taught in the same decrepit 70's era labs in Thimann. The university expansion has not benefited students, but rather is just another step in the ongoing corporatization of the University. Not only that, but the new patent-obssessed atmosphere of university research hinders the free exchange of ideas, and creates a secretive environment that all too frequently can lead to a lack of scientific integrity in research.

Thus, I fully support UAW efforts to alter the direction that this University has embarked on. Their financial responsibility is to the students and to the public interest of the taxpayers of California, not to their private corporate sponsors.
by Time for a visit
Wednesday Sep 19th, 2007 8:33 AM
In one sentence you decry the use of the aged Thimman facility, in the next you state that improvements aren't benefitting the students.

In fact, the last decade has seen the opening of substantial new lab and teaching space for students, including the Adaptive Optic Labs, Sinsheimer Labs, Interdisciplenary Science Building, Baskin Engineering, Humanites Lecture hall and classrooms, etc.

Each of those facilities is filled with undergraduate students benefitting from expanded facilities offering superior equipment in new buildings.
by student
Wednesday Sep 19th, 2007 11:00 AM
"Time for a visit", have you had a class in the Humanities Lecture hall? Guess what, I sat through lectures in that room and it had a major flaw. Guess what it was. Our professor had absolutely no way to turn off the lights. You read that correct. Ok sure, the room came equipped with two computers (one mac, one PC), a state-of-the-art document projector (which is like an 'overhead projector' for transparency sheets, except the document projector will project anything and in color), a large projector mounted on the ceiling for screening video and three different sized white screens to project onto.

Now, back to the flaw. Our professor had absolutely no way to turn off the lights!! All that overhead projection was almost a waste of time because most students could not see what was being projected due to the lights being on in the classroom.

The big question is: Why was there no way for the professor to turn off the lights? The answer from the professor was that the building contractor and UC had a disagreement (I do not know the details) and in an act of retaliation against the UC, the contractor decided to 'finish the job' by finishing the walls before the light switches were working. I think the lights came on automatically when someone entered the room, but would not go off unless there was no movement in the room.

What was the solution? The solution was to employ people to sit or stand in or near the control booth in the way back of the classroom so that a UC trained and paid media specialist could turn the lights on and off when requested by the professor. I believe this had to be done through a fuse box.

This inconvenience broke the rhythmic flow of our professors presentations. Instead of way over-crowded lecture halls and 25 - 30 students in "discussion sections," I would much prefer smaller class sizes and some quality time spent with professors (who are often too busy for us).
by Time for a visit
Wednesday Sep 19th, 2007 11:34 AM
That's a sad and hilarious story, and highlights one of the problems facing UC construction. The Uni. is required to take the lowest available bid for construction. Not the best bid from the most experienced builder, just the cheapest bid.

But that hardly makes bullshit the fact that you a student are sitting in a brand new building with the high end equipment you listed...and that was my premise: that new buildings are being used by students.

As for the lightswitch? I suspect you'll go back this quarter and find the problem fixed. That building only opened in Nov. or Dec.; small flaws are common in any large scale building project, and I expect you'll now find switches in there. It's fine tuning, not unusual.

Hope you had a nice summer, and welcome back.
by Ike Solem
Wednesday Sep 19th, 2007 1:01 PM
Please - the entire campus revolves around patents and corporate funding. Dean Kliger said as much in an interview with CHP some years ago - he thought funds should go to those departments that bring in the most corporate support. That's a good way to run a corporate business, but the administration can't seem to understand that the university is not a corporate business. The University has been taken over by profit-obssessed individuals who are reaching out to corporate interests in order to line their own pockets and secure their 'academic positions'.

For example - the Chemistry Department loves to promote the 'natural products research' being done in the Crews lab, which involves 'exciting work on discovering anti-cancer compounds from marine sponges'. What the University doesn't promote is the arrangement between Novartis (now Syngenta) and the UC, under which Syngenta has sole control of any intellectual property that comes out of that research lab. Syngenta is one of the world's largest biotech-ag corporations, formed by the merger of Novartis and Zeneca. Some may recall the controversy brought about by Novartis' abortive attempt to buy the entire UC Berkeley Plant-Microbiology Department a few years ago. They've gotten more secretive as a result.

The most UCSC will say about the contractual relationship is this: "Novartis's Institute for Biomedical Research and the Josephine Ford Cancer Center are both involved in ongoing partnerships with Crews, screening his library to find drug leads."

Take a look at a typical patent application from the Crews lab:
This represents a 'partnership' between the UC Regents, Professor Crews and Gallileo Laboratories (
Galileo Labs is itself controlled by the Novartis Venture Fund. ( 2006_01_venture_fund_fullversion.pdf )

Fun, fun, fun. How many shell companies does it take to hide your involvement with gigantic corporate interests? Meanwhile, the University wants to continue in this direction by building a massive Biomedical Sciences building, while claiming that their only motivation is to 'serve the expanding student population'. What a crock.

Note that noone 'invented' these marine sponge compounds - they're entirely natural. That's a separate problem in US Patent law. Patents were intended to protect inventions, not as a means for corporate interests to patent nature.

This whole thing is just rotten. I've personally seen graduate students have their thesis and publications postponed until the patents are approved - just to make sure that the corporations don't have to worry about someone else getting
those intellectual property rights. Is that 'the free exchange of ideas'? Hardly.

These guys are not in this to benefit the public interest, they're in it for the money - part of the new breed of 'scientific entrepreneurs'. There is a place for that - it's called 'private industry', where cushy tenure packages are unheard of.

Now, there is a place for academics in industry - the very traditional consulting arrangements that go back a century or more. What's going on now is something very different - the wholesale takeover of the university by corporate interests. Educating the student body is not a profitable activity, so it gets last place - which is why TAs and lecturers are now the ones who teach most of the courses, while seeing their salaries and benefits cut on a routine basis.

Serious changes are needed in the direction that the UC system has embarked on. One of the top research and educational systems anywhere in the country is slowly but surely being converted into nothing more than another corporate research park. It's a nice way for corporate interests to outsource their R&D costs at the taxpayer's expense, isn't it?

P.S. Why doesn't 'time for a visit' use his/her real name?
by Time for a visit
Wednesday Sep 19th, 2007 1:46 PM
I never questioned whether or not the University is more involved with coroporate partnerships with each passing year; I questioned your assertion that there are no new facilities being made available for undergrads.

I posted a list of facilities that are for that specific purpose; you appeared to sidestep that point and move on to your next one. So I'll take your avoidance as acceptance that you misspoke on that point, and lets move on to the issue of corporate partnerships. I'll keep it short:

I totally agree with you that there is more and more corporate involvement. I disagree that it's based on evil greed by subverted faculty. I think its the fault of everyone in California who has repeatedly refused to fund the UC system.

From what I can tell, the average cost of educating a student is now based on 25% state funds, 25% tuition, and 50% private/corporate donations. Don't like it? I don't either. I vote to fund education whenever it's on the ballot. Unfortunately, most don't, and so the Uni. is left short on funds.

(And in answer to your other question: I don't use my real name because I don't want to be harassed with phone calls and emails from Robert Norse.).
by Ike Solem
Wednesday Sep 19th, 2007 5:10 PM
Sinsheimer labs has zero undergraduate teaching facilities. It was strictly a research lab for professors in biochemistry and molecular biology.

The Adaptive Optics labs are a dual use military project, which have also resulted in some nifty advances in ground-based telescope resolution, but that project was initiated years ago for use in spy satellites and infrared-tracking missile systems, and only recently was allowed into the non-classified sector. It is good technology for ground-based astronomy programs, however. I've never heard of any undergraduate teaching associated with that.

The Humanities building? Not my area of expertise. I do understand that the university has hacked journalism, language and art programs to pieces over the past decade. In fact, there is no longer a journalism program at all, is there?

The ISB is the new home of physics and environmental studies departments. They've hired some odd environmental studies types, like Brent Haddad, former advocate of corporate water privatization and a big desalination booster.

You also don't mention the UCSC-HP-NASA center. University blurb: "A 10-year, $30 million program establishing a University Affiliated Research Center (UARC) at NASA Ames was initiated in 2003." The University doesn't mention that this is an affiliation with Hewlett-Packard and again, the patents will be controlled by the corporate interest:

City on a Hill press has a shameless puff piece on this 'marriage' here, but they make no mention of the real issue, which is who gets control of the intellectual property rights resulting from this research consortium:

Hewlett-Packard and UCSC administrators seem to have a few other things in common - like an appetite for spying on everyone, for example, and an obssession with 'controlling the message'. HP does make some quality printers, though. They also have a global R&D program ( ) - so what's with the UCSC linkage? Specifically, who controls the patent rights?

The basic point is the University is completely obssessed with patents and profits, and as a result basic research, ethics and student education are suffering. Paying low-ranking employees a decent salary doesn't seem to be much of a concern, either.

You're not in the vice Chancellor's Office of University Relations, are you? Come on - use your real name. It's not like you'll be fired for promoting the UC administration's PR line, is it?
by Time for a Visit
Thursday Sep 20th, 2007 7:55 AM
You ask why I don't use my name, so I explain that I don't like the harassment I've seen carried over from this site into people's every day lives....and so you immediately try to out me and ask me again to give my name. Funny stuff.

Even if I were a Uni. employee who supported the campus position on this issue, what would it matter? Would it make my personal beliefs any less credible than the anti-university position of a disgruntled ex-employee such as yourself?

As for my being incorrect; you're again selecting small segments of a large statement to defend your incorrect position. Sinsheimer might not have classrooms, but it does have labs in which undergrads participate in research and thus further their education. Ibid ISB, ibid Humanities. Weak debating tactic, trying to pick and choose your examples to bolster your incorrect asssertion.
by Ike Solem
Thursday Sep 20th, 2007 1:46 PM
The point is that the University of California is turning itself into a corporate research park, not an educational and research facility.

University administrators, the UC Regents, and professors with dollar signs in their eyes are the ones who are behind this.

It has been going on for quite some time. It really is damaging the quality of research and education throughout the UC system.

Here is a concept that will cause the above-mentioned group to go into conniption fits : non-exclusive licensing of all university patents to industry for a minor fee.

Here's their response: "But corporate interests won't adopt any of our technologies unless they have exclusive control over them!"

Now that's funny.

P.S. I'm not a disgruntled ex-employee, I'm a well-gruntled alumni of the university, and am simply trying to prevent it from destroying itself.

I just think that future students should have a good educational experience, and that basic research should be continued, and that the contributions of staff should be recognized, and that the entrepreneurs should find jobs in their natural environment - private industry.

What's wrong with that?
by Time for a visit
Thursday Sep 20th, 2007 7:22 PM
I disagreed with your initial post that I thought presented an all-or-nothing portrayal of the current reality. I think it's shades of grey. And I think the cause is as much due to economic necessity to survive due to lack of funding as it is on personal greed from corrupted people within the system.

I agree 100% with your wish that "future students should have a good educational experience, and that basic research should be continued, and that the contributions of staff should be recognized, and that the entrepreneurs should find jobs in their natural environment - private industry."

I agreed that corporate influence has grown, I disagree as to what the cause is. I think that the reason it's changing is largely due to the need to survive in an environment where the public has neglected to fund it adequately.

As for the disgruntled ex-employee part; you said you were a t.a. in a grad. lab. That's not a paid position?
by Ike Solem
Friday Sep 21st, 2007 4:54 PM
Look, if you want to discuss my background, have the courage to use your real name.

Regarding the 'need to survive', that's a pretty bogus argument to justify turning a once-respected public research and education institution into a corporate research park run by entrepreneurs who have zero interest in scientific integrity, the open and free exchange of ideas, or educating students.

One might as well try and justify selling crack on Pacific Avenue using the same argument - it's an economic necessity for survival!

Consider the fact that the top administrators and UC Regents keep giving themselves bloated raises on a regular basis before moaning about 'economic survival', would you? Let me guess: they need to do that in order to attract the top talent!

Funny how that doesn't apply to the lecturers and staff, isn't it?
by T.F.A.V.
Friday Sep 21st, 2007 7:31 PM
It was your original post that freely offered your history; apparently as a means of validating your credibility. Seems a bit disengenous to try to claim that I'm trying to use it against you now..

Regardless, it seems we've confirmed that we have differing opinions. Beyond that, I have no desire to dig into you by attacking your reality or history or opinions, nor do I mean to invite reciprocal response.

I think we both want the Uni. to be a high quality center for educating our general populace, and I'll end it at that.

by Ike Solem
Saturday Sep 22nd, 2007 1:10 PM
...and why, despite these ongoing increases in student tuition, there is a noticeable decline in the quality of undergraduate student education at UCSC.

One issue is that students have to take more and more loans out to pay for their education. Who are the loan companies and banks that benefit from this? The UC isn't saying. They conducted an 'internal investigation' and reassured everyone that it's all on the up-and-up.

Another is that the University exansion has been designed solely for the benefit of corporate-funded and corporate-controlled research, and virtually nothing has been given to improving undergraduate education.

The examples I've presented in this thread are just the tip of the iceberg, and many more examples exist, from every single UC campus, as well as within UCSC itself.

I don't think you've made a single point, and you've tried to turn the discussion into a personal attack while hiding behind a screen of anonymity.

The truth of the matter is that a handful of greedy and short-sighted professors and administrators, in collusion with various corporate interests, are wrecking the University and attempting to turn it into a corporate research park. These people all belong in private industry, not in tenured University berths.

The future of the UC system in California depends on reversing this trend. The relationship between academics and industry should go back to the traditional consulting arrangements that have been around ever since the first US college was founded well over a hundred years ago.
by T.F.A.V.
Saturday Sep 22nd, 2007 6:51 PM
Your statement that " The truth of the matter is that a handful of greedy and short-sighted professors and administrators, in collusion with various corporate interests, are wrecking the University and attempting to turn it into a corporate research park".....encapsulates the difference in OPINION that you and I are experiencing.

It's not a quantifiable truth, it's a subjective opinion; it's your truth, not mine.

We're two blind people "looking" at the elephant. You're grabbing a trunk and insisting that an elephant is like a giant, muscular snake. I'm grabbing a leg and countering that it's like a tree trunk. We're both right, we're both wrong.

To insist that your personal experience/vision is the accurate one is a farce. And while you deny that you're a disgruntled ex-employee, your statements here conflict with that assertion. If you want to assert credibility by touting your past involvement with the system, then it's hypocritical to turn around and cry foul when someone calls you on that history.

One way or the other, but you don't get it both ways in the real world.

by Ike Solem
Sunday Sep 23rd, 2007 11:50 AM
What's actually going on at the University?

Courses for undergraduates have been gutted.

Teaching labs for undergraduates have not been renovated.

Tuition for students has been increased, forcing more students into high levels of debt in order to get an education.

The University is obsessed with patents and for-profit relationships. They've admitted as much.

Staff and lecturers are viewed as non-essential and disposable, and the University has repeatedly tried to cut their compensation.

Huge increases in pay for top administrators have been pushed through repeatedly.

The University ignores the wishes of the local community regarding expansion.

I'd highly suggest reading Jennifer Washburn's "University Inc.: The Corporate Corruption of American Higher Education."

(I'd refer you to Bookshop Santa Cruz, but they won't carry it. Is that because City Councilmember Ryan Coonerty is associated with the University?)

If you have some facts that prove all of the above is false, why don't you present them? Instead you rely on personal attacks (disgruntled employee, subjective reality) while avoiding the real issues. Now, why is that?
You say: teaching labs haven't been renovated, and new facilities play no role in furthering undergraduate education.

I responded: there have been half a dozen new facilities opened this decade that provide class and/or lab space for student use. (You tried to refute that by focusing on one specific building. I responded that you ignored the others I list. A simple look at the class schedule proves me to be correct; all of those buildings are offering class and/or lab experience for undergrads.)

There is nothing subjective about that fact, regardless of your unwillingness to accept them. And there is a humorous irony in your complaining about lack of renovation/improvement while at the same time complaining about growth. The two go hand in hand.

This issue of facilities and their availablity/use for undergraduate educationwas the sole point addressed in my original post. It's been you who throws in a laundry list of additional issues with each post.

If anyone made it personal since then, it was you, by your immediate query as to my identity and subsequent mention of in each post since. To hold up your own personal experience and history as validation of your authority, and then to whine about it when I respond to that information is humorous.
by nr5667
Monday Sep 24th, 2007 12:15 AM
UC schools have always been research oriented, head to CSU if you want a university that is oriented towards the undergraduate population.
by Ike Solem
Monday Sep 24th, 2007 11:46 AM
Regarding the first comment - You say:
"And there is a humorous irony in your complaining about lack of renovation/improvement while at the same time complaining about growth. The two go hand in hand."

That's odd. Have you been up to look at where the undergraduate labs in chemistry are being taught these days? In Thimann, as I recall. Has any money been spent on renovating those facilities, with their barely-functional fume hoods? Are you saying there is undergraduate teaching lab space in the new Chemistry building? Are there plans for putting biology teaching labs in the now-stalled Biomedical Sciences building?

Do you know how much tuition has risen at the University over the past fifteen years, as another example? It's a lot more than "the pace of inflation", that's for sure, and the course offerings are far more limited now than they were then. Do you know how much more debt graduating students are saddled with now than they were then? Do you know the names of the banks who are the principle beneficiares of this arrangement with UC student loan officers?

As for the other comment:
Yes, the UC system has always been research-oriented. In fact, university-industry relations played a major role in the origins of Silicon Valley - but those relationships were of the traditional consulting kind. The UC system has gone off the deep end and is now trying to be a private industry leader, not a supporter. You can't be both a business and an academic institute - as the famous physicist Ernest Rutherford (discovered of the atomic nucleus) put it about a century ago, "You cannot serve God and Mammon both." A bit flowery, but you get the idea, right?

This attempted merger of academics and business is just a disaster. The venture capitalists want nothing to do with the UC because, as they say "The UC is too grabby when it comes to patents".

It used to be that University research labs provided a steady stream of well-trained researchers and technicians to local private industry. However, look at what's going on over the hill right now - Silicon Valley is turning into a major hub of renewable enery startup companies. However, there are no research labs devoted to renewable energy at UC Santa Cruz - at most you have a few poorly funded side projects. That is also due to the lack of support at the federal level, but the UC could still do far more - such as setting up an ORU dedicated to renewables (an Organized Research Unit).

It used to be that the University was responsive to the needs of local industries - and what the growing Silicon Valley renewable energy industry needs now is a steady stream of technicians and researchers with cutting-edge experience in new technologies - but sad to say, most of that cutting-edge renewable energy research is now being done in Japan, Australia and Germany.

I would say that this is largely due to the fact that UC Regents and the corporate sponsors of the University have too many ties to financial interests that are linked to fossil fuel interests, such as State Street Corporation, the bank that manages UC funds.

However, the California legislature seems to be aware of this situation and is pushing for more democratic oversight of UC policies:
by T.F.A.V.
Monday Sep 24th, 2007 6:04 PM
Your tunnel vision and inability to see beyond your personal experience doesn't prove your statements. Mine, I can prove. You say no new facilities are futhering Undergrad education. I've said your wrong, and so does the campus website. Pretty easy googling:

Sinsheimer Greenhouses: "these greenhouses provide support for faculty, post docs, researchers, visiting faculty, graduate, <b>and undergraduate students doing plant-related research </b>in the departments".

Interdiscaplenary Science Building :Houses undergraduate advising and home office for Phsyics, Social Sciences, GIS Lab for undergrads, Env. Studies for undergrads etc. Offers classes in the same.

Baskin Engineering: Houses undergraduate program and advising in Electrical Engineering. Houses undergraduate program in Information Systems Management. Houseses undergrad program in Bionfomatics.

Also, O-Chem lecture is being taught in the relatively new Media Theater. So is Chemistry. Chemistry was also taught in the new Phys. & Biological Sci. building this summer.

On, and on, and on.

I stand by my original statements: The new facilities are being used for classes and research for undergrads. And you do need to make a visit to acquaint yourself with the current reality, not your outdated presumptions.
by Ike Solem
Tuesday Sep 25th, 2007 11:07 AM
Well, at least you've revealed the real problem with the University's plans. Their expansion is not for the benefit of the undergraduate student body, but is instead primarily aimed at benefiting a small set of politically connected corporate interests and professors.

As far as Sinsheimer's greenhouses, I've worked in Sinsheimer, and sometimes the labs let undergraduates do side projects or assist with graduate students. That's not teaching facilities.

Furthermore, housing administrative offices for undergraduate programs is not the same thing as teaching students. You're also dodging the question of the decrepit and underfunded teaching labs.

And what about class sizes? The expansion has not reduced class sizes, has it?

You also refuse to discuss the major program cuts that have been made to numerous programs. Journalism has been removed entirely, for example (it was cut entirely by the Dean of Humanities in 2003)
(Journalism cut)

(compare that with the administrative excesses):

You know, it's curious that you refuse to give your name and yet seem so passionate about this topic. Could it be that you work for the University PR office, and are just trying to continue to justify the development plan based on the argument that "The University needs to expand to provide space for more undergraduates"?

For more, see:
"The Selling of the UC System: Secret research funding. Commercial Sponsors. Professorial payoffs. How corporate cash is corrupting the University of California," by Daniel Zoll, San Francisco Bay Guardian, March 21-27, 2001

"College campuses are among the few places on the planet devoted entirely to the business of learning. But nowadays they're increasingly devoted to the business of, well, business. The University of California is a perfect example. Between 1995 and 2001, its private industry-sponsored research grew by 77 percent, and its corporate grants and gifts doubled. The result: tainted experiments, secret findings, and a new kind of academic pressure that has nothing to do with grades."

Everyone at the university knows that teaching is not valued, but that securing corporate funding is.
by T.F.A.V.
Tuesday Sep 25th, 2007 3:03 PM
Are you sure YOUR real job isn't as a politician? You exhibit a lot of their characteristics, such as dodging the answer when proven wrong and changing the subject to muddy the conversation.

My original post, and the only issue I have ever disagreed with you on, was your incorrect assertions about campus facility growth and the contention that IT PLAYED NO ROLE IN FURTHERING UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION.

You can't stay on topic because you've been proven incorrect.

You say Sinsheimer has lab space but that's not teaching.....but that wasn't your original statement or one I refuted.
Are you claiming that lab experience plays no role in furthering undergraduate education?

You say administrative offices isn't teaching. I say those administrative offices are advisers, and advising is a critical role in the education of an undergrad.
Are you claiming that advising doesn't further undergraduate education?

As for my "passion" bout the subject? I like responding to irresponsible, subjective statements. If for no other reason than to counter the bombast.

Case in point, your final line "Everyone at the university knows that teaching is not valued...".

That's not subjective? That's not making personal andupon your own viewpoint? You've done a poll and can back that up?

*smile*..we already know he answers to those questions. So I'll leave you with my final words, which were also my first words:

Time for a visit...cause what you're saying isn't the reality of what's happening.

by Ike Solem
Wednesday Sep 26th, 2007 12:27 PM
Quote from University, Inc.: Corporate Corruption of Higher Education "Since 1980, however, and especially over the past fifteen years, a foul wind has blown over the campuses of our nation's universities. Its source is not the stifling atmosphere of political correctness or the influence of so-called "leftist radical professors" that have received so much attention from pundits, journalists, politicians, and gadflies, but a phenomenon that has gone comparatively ignored: the growing role that market forces and commercial values have assumed in academic life. In higher education today, a wholesale culture shift is transforming everything from the way universities educate their students to the language the use to define what they do. Academic administrators refer to students as "consumers" and to education and research as "products". They talk about branding and marketing and now spend more on lobbying in Washington than defense contractors do. Many have eagerly sought to convert "courseware" into intellectual property that can be packaged and sold over the internet for profit. Others have allowed who academic departments to forge financial partnerships with private corporations, guaranteeing these firms first dibs on the inventions flowing out of their labs." It's pretty obvious that in such an environment, teaching students is not highly valued. Professors are awarded for doing profitable research. Dean Kliger spelled it out in an interview with City on a Hill press a few years ago - funds should be directed to those departments which bring in the most corporate funding. To continue, here's more from Jennifer Washburn's book: "The new commercial ethos in higher education is afftecting more than just the sciences and engineering. It is also changing the priorities universities in ways that raise disturbing questions about what parents and students are getting in return for the increasingly steep tuitions they pay." "On the vast majority of our nation's campuses today, the most valued professors are not the ones who devote their time and energy to teaching; they are the ones who can bring in the most research money, and whose ideas can be turned into lucrative commercial products and licensed to industry. To be sure, universities have long struggled to maintain the appropriate balance between research and teaching. But the new commercial ethos in higher education has tilted the balance further toward the former of these functions. The same universities that now invest millions in high-tech research labs and industrial parks have been whittling down the professoriate, replacing tenured and full-time faculty with part-time adjuncts and graduate students." That is an exact description of what has been going on at UCSC. The University has also directed their faculty and staff not to talk to the press, but to instead direct all inquires to the UCSC public relations office - so taking a poll isn't even possible.