Privileged

What does it mean to be privileged? I come to this post thinking about an exchange I recently had with another parent at my child’s elementary school. The school is a study in contrasts. There are very few students in the middle class – kids either come from fairly well-to-do families, or they come from the migrant camp down the road. In other words, there is a pretty solid bifurcation in student privilege.

I really believe that most parents at the school care about kids who might come families different then their own. But sometimes the privilege they enjoy makes it hard for them to see how their actions affect the very kids they would say they care about.

Today, I received an email from the parents organizing the yearbook asking for ‘high resolution’ photos for the 6th grade yearbook. I wrote an email to the teacher (I thought) saying that perhaps not all under-privileged kids would have access to ‘high resolution’ photos, or maybe even photos at all (e.g., adopted kids, kids in foster care, migrant worker families). I wrote that if someone would collect hard copy photos I could at least take these to a photo place and have digital images made (at my expense).

As luck would have it, I inadvertently sent my email (which also complained about the lack of awareness) to one of the parents, who responded with a scathing email about how much time was being spent on the yearbook and how the parents doing it should be commended. I was also reprimanded for my “tone.”

The real kicker though was this part of the second email from the parent:

“…I am sorry that some children do not have access to photos of themselves as babies, [the email] does state the photos can be from early school years, which would include kindergarten. But you can not penalize those who do have photos, and you can not expect [the organizers] to stop asking for them…”

Embedded in this response is the assumption that privilege lies with “permanent, intact” families, a theme I’ve seen before. Last year, there was a parent meeting in which we were asked to describe our our ideal community/school. On one list, someone wrote “permanent, intact families.” Preferably, those with baby pictures.

Posted in Life in Davis | Leave a comment

Fighting ‘pseudoscience’ with UC admissions

The LA Times reported yesterday that “climate change skepticism” was increasingly being taught in the classroom with, of course, big oil Texas leading the way. A watchdog group, the National Center for Science Education, will announce today they will be monitoring the teaching of climate change in the classroom. This same group was instrumental in defending the teaching of evolution in classrooms.

What I found really interesting though was a comment posted last night,

The University of California (and the CSU system as well) should step in and nip this in the bud.   UC and CSU should put school-boards (in-state and out-of-state) on notice that science classes that fail to present the scientific consensus (or present pseudoscientific denial arguments) regarding global warming will not fulfill UC/CSU admissions requirements. Science classe that present material from web-sites like wattsupwiththat and other sources of pseudoscience should absolutely not be counted toward UC/CSU admission.   

Posted in Academic Life, Climate Change | Leave a comment

The NYT’s Public Editor

Yesterday the NYT Public Editor posted a blog with the following headline:

image

As you might expect, the term ‘vigilante’ garnished a good deal of response, with most people advocating a dope slap. This morning, Mr. Brisbane returned with a follow up post saying he was misunderstood and giving two examples of what he meant to ask.

I’ll just talk about the first (but the second is worthy of a dope slap as well),

To illustrate the difficulty of it, the first example I used in my blogpost concerned the Supreme Court’s official statement that Clarence Thomas had misunderstood the financial disclosure form when he failed to report his wife’s earnings.

If you think that should be rebutted in the text of a story, it means you think a reporter can crawl inside the mind of a Supreme Court justice and report back. Or perhaps you think the reporter should just write that the “misunderstanding” excuse is bull and let it go at that. I would respectfully suggest that’s not a good approach.

This is such a feeble example. These are not the only two solutions. Is Clarence Thomas the only supreme court justice that has ever had to report his wife’s earnings (he’s not)? What did others report? Justice Thomas’ wife made nearly $700,000 and he checked “none” on the disclosure form. He said the mistake was “inadvertent” and not for just one year – for 5 years. Is he the only justice to have made this “inadvertent” mistake 5 years in a row? Does he have a lawyer? An accountant? Who advised him? Thomas held government posts before the Supreme Court – how did he report his wife’s income then?

It’s this last bit where the NYT (and most other news agencies) really screwed up. They left the most important fact finding up to Common Cause and the Alliance for Justice. Rep. Louise Slaughter then used their information as the basis for submitting a letter to Chief Justice Roberts. Guess what? Thomas actually reported his wife’s income correctly for the first 5 years he was a justice.

The problem isn’t that the NYT has to “crawl inside” Justice Thomas’ head (that’s a pretty scary thought), it’s that they don’t actually do much digging anymore…

Posted in Transparency | 2 Comments

I wonder what they were thinking when they picked these photos

Actual Header (Sent Jan, 11, 2011)

image

Posted in Academic Life | Leave a comment

Fly to Durban or drive a year in a Lincoln Navigator

In the last few years, it’s become very trendy to fly to different places either for investigative purposes (e.g., CPUC to Europe for energy efficiency; honestly, it’s really not that hard), or to brag (e.g., the state contingency that flew to Copenhagen a few years back).

The Pace Law Blog just published this piece with good advice on how to gauge the benefits of your attendance at these events:

Each participant ought to ask themself the question: is my participation going to lead to the equivalent of one Lincoln Navigator being taken off the road for the next year?

Posted in Climate Change, Sustainable Business Practices | Leave a comment

Universities should be bigger than their chancellor

I just returned from the academic senate meeting (this is the representative body of faculty at UC Davis). There were a predictable range of opinions about the paper spray incident. But in some ways, despite all the protestations in support of the students, I feel there is a shared responsibility for what happened that is not being acknowledged.

Let me explain with an example. A colleague in physics has argued that it doesn’t matter what the Chancellor said in terms of removing the tents that day, or even who she said it to. She should have personally been out there on the quad, talking to the students.

Perhaps. Or perhaps the Provost should have been there. Or perhaps all of us, the faculty, should have been there, maybe especially those who were keeping track of the events at other campuses. While I do not agree with Nathan Brown’s calls for resignation, in some ways he speaks with greater credibility than most of the rest of us.

We are a public institution, and as a great university, I would argue that we are bigger than any given administrator. Berkeley has seen many good, and some not so good chancellors come and go, and yet it maintains its prestige. Yale? I don’t even know who the president of Yale is, or Princeton for that matter. The University of Washington? I know who their Provost is, but their president? A guy.

My point is that we, the faculty, are what give a university its stature. Sure, some decisions are beyond our capacity to directly manage, but none are not beyond our capacity to influence. We share accountability; perhaps we also share responsibility.

Posted in Academic Life | 2 Comments

The dilemma of Dutton Hall

I’ve gotten some email and a number of phone calls this morning about the Dutton Hall shutdown, from students trying to pick up financial aid checks. I didn’t know the building was part of the occupied space, but according to at least one source, a vote was taken last night to shutdown Dutton because that’s where the student fees come in. I received this short video this morning. Doesn’t anyone in the occupy group get a financial aid check?

Short video of Dutton Hall activity
Posted in Academic Life | Leave a comment

Open Letters, Petitions in support

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

UC Davis Budget: A Concrete Proposal

Despite the wide range of opinions expressed in various media outlets, I suspect that most of us pretty much agree on the big things: the alarming privatization trends of the university, tuition increases that are shutting students out of higher education and the inequitable distribution of funding across campus (which, in my mind, is related to the privatization trends).

If this seems a reasonable assumption, then it’s time for action. Here’s a concrete proposal to get the juices flowing:

Create a campus committee. Give them 90 days to develop a budget framework, all state and tuition revenues and all possible cuts on the table. The committee should include equal parts senate faculty, students, and staff. If the budget committee can’t come up with a consensus budget framework, then the campus agrees to take the cuts proportionate to current expenditures, holding revenues constant.

To see how this might work, let’s say we decide this year’s budget (2011-2012) is up for debate. The shortfall for this year is $132m. Just for the purposes of this example, let’s use the expected tuition revenue ($39m) coming from recent increases and the savings the campus accrued from last year ($26m) to create one relatively straightforward scenario:

  • The committee doesn’t achieve consensus on an overall framework (we’ll call this the Congressional Scenario), but it does decide to rebate student fee increases back to students using campus mechanisms. This leaves a shortfall of $106m ($132m minus last year’s savings). According to the agreement – the cuts will be proportionate to the current expenditures.

image

So what does approximately $40m in faculty salary cuts look like?

  • eliminating the faculty salaries for the entire divisions of math and physical sciences and social sciences, or
  • eliminating the faculty salaries for the School of Agricultural and Environmental Science (~338 FTEs), or
  • we could eliminate the faculty salaries for the School of Engineering and the College of Biological Sciences (more or less).

Of course, there’s no guarantee that the faculty will stay if they’re not being paid. We could instead consider eliminating all of Graduate Studies, the Library, and the Office of Research. That will only total about $33m, but we can probably pick the difference up in efficiencies as departments take over the critical functions of these offices.

What about cuts in staffing? We need about $27m. Every college runs about $5-$6m in staffing costs, so we could just eliminate staffing for 4 colleges or spread this proportionally as well. (We’re already making our own copies so what’s the big deal).

Student financial aid gets cut $13m (you might think that it’s only fair to keep this whole, but then the cuts have to go somewhere, and of course without a consensus, we don’t know where). Of course, we might not need as much student aid, with the faculty gone some of the students in those majors will probably pick other schools, but then revenues will fall…

I drafted this scenario tongue in cheek, but tuition increases reflect our tragically limited range of available options to counter the cuts in revenues coming from the state coffers. Where the protesting is most needed is in the state capital, or we need to convince the boomers who protested at the UC campuses 40 years ago that this generation deserves an affordable education as much as they did.

Caveats/Sources: I used the budget information provided on these pages (1, 2) to estimate the cuts. If I made a mistake, don’t take me to task; I’m an engineer, not a finance wonk. I did not include the Vet, Sch of Medicine, Law School and Graduate School of Business because these professional schools have budget mechanisms that firewalls them from the general campus budget, although they do get about ~$14m in state funding.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Calls for deliberation, apologies

I am receiving a number of links to open letters and calls for fact-finding. As I get them, I will post them here. Please send me any that you would like posted as well.

Posted in Academic Life | 3 Comments