Letter writing campaign: Thank Former AS President for Trying to Influence Our Election

Former AS President and UCSD alumnus Utsav Gupta has sent out a mass email to a UCSD-wide listserv from his personal email address[1]. While the illegitimacy of this act is unclear, it is offensively unscrupulous for anyone to use such a strong tool to try to influence a vote on undergraduate student-fees after graduating.

Gupta would really appreciate it if you checked your ucsd.edu email and responded to him with something like the following courteous message:

Dear Utsav Gupta,

Thank you for trying to influence my vote for a referendum whose outcome poses no risk to you, but will cost students an additional $495 a year. It is heartening to know that alumni support a sports team in thought. I would prefer it if they supported sports financially, rather than making struggling undergraduates pay for alumni’s sense of legacy, but I understand how times are hard.

Thanks again.

Signed,

[your name]

PS: Why don’t you do your job by sending a mass email to the 150 alumni the UC pays you to ask for money, and ask them to support DI instead? [2]

He deserves the flood of community support.

Between February 27 and March 9 UCSD undergraduates will vote on a referendum that will raise the Athletics student fee 134%, to a total of $854 per year, in order to fund a move to D1 in the event that UCSD receives a bid from a D1 conference.

Don’t forget to vote!

____________________________________________

[1] https://reclaimucsd.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/guptas-letter.png

Screen cap for the wary:

[2] http://www.linkedin.com/in/utsavgupta

Open Letter to AVP Athletic Relations

[This letter was sent to Aurora Lopez, AVP Athletic Relations, on February 26th. It is intended to address the entire athletic community.]

Dear Aurora,

I am personally writing to you about March 1st because I have been quite vocal against the DI referendum, and because I am sure that the athletics community feels that March 1st is not for them. I entreat you to support March 1st by encouraging athletes to attend, by forwarding this email to your athletics contacts, and by attending yourself.

I want to emphasize to you, and to the athletic community in general, that March 1st is a day for education first and foremost, and that there are problems with our public education system which directly affect athletes. The loss of state funding has seriously harmed athletics programs at UCSB, UCI, UCR and UCD to name just a few. Increased system-wide mandatory fees harm athletes just as they harm other students, if not more because athletes already have such full schedules.

Unfortunately, for many students the fight is against any increase in fees for which they perceive no benefit. Many of the organizers for March 1st fall within that group, and so the issues of state-wide fees (which affect us all) and campus fees (like DI) have been run together. The reaction against the DI referendum is a product of the current atmosphere of fee escalation. If the regents and UCOP were not facing the possibility of raising fees by 16% annually, the D1 referendum would be far less contentious than it has proven to be.

I believe our athletes deserve to advance to DI. We are the largest school in DII and we already have three sports in DI. That being said, all students have been made to suffer through cut backs, and fee increases, not just athletes. We all deserve a better, more affordable education, and while we will have different priorities I believe we can all agree there are problems within our system which are unacceptable to everyone.

Athletics are an important part of a college experience, and neither I, nor anyone I have spoken to, is against DI in and of itself. It is part of the tragedy of our system that many students feel they cannot support program improvements they would otherwise love to have.

Please show your solidarity.

Sincerely,

Kevin Quirolo

CALL TO ACTION: March 1st

[Please share this call to action with your friends, professors, colleagues, TAs, PIs, roommates, and who ever else you think should read it]

Students, instructors and staff you have a stake in the future of the UC. The public nature of the UC is under threat, but on March 1st we are coming together to defend it.

Students, mandatory fees set by the regents have more than doubled since 2001 adjusted for inflation.[1] At the same time, UCSD’s average debt at graduation increased 20%.[2] In 2009, 48% of UCSD students graduated with debt at an average of $18,757.[3] Since 1990 expenditure per student has fallen over 19%.[4] At the same time state support per student fell 60% while tuition support more than tripled.[5] The UC shifted from public funding toward personal, private funding. This shift was not and is not inevitable. Students: the ability of many of your qualified colleagues to attend a UC is threatened by this shift,[6] but you can help.

Instructors, between 1995 and 2010, while positions for teaching in the UC system increased 48%, positions in senior management increased 182%.[7] In 2007, a retired UC Berkeley professor estimated the excess growth in senior management to cost the UC $603 million annually.[8] As instructors retire they are not replaced,[9] and some of your colleagues at UCSD were recently recruited to a private institution.[10] The UC is moving from academic to entrepreneur. This movement is not inevitable. Instructors: the priority for the UC to attract, retain and support your colleagues has been misplaced, but you can help.

Staff, starting in 1999 the UC regents began to funnel pension fund money into riskier investments. Since 2004 billions of dollars have been invested through private investment firms which are non-transparent, lightly regulated, highly risky, and which have charged the UC tens of millions of dollars so far.[11] The UC’s pension and investment portfolios lost $23 billion in the 2008 financial crisis, some of which were made against the advice of a former treasurer[12] and in full awareness of the risk.[13] The UC is now asking for workers to pay into the pension system as they cut benefits to absorb its losses.[14] The UC privatized and jeopardized its investments. This was not and is not inevitable Staff: The risks taken by the regents promise to harm you, your families, and your colleagues, but you can help.

D-1 Pro Statement (Annotated)

[The official publication of this statement is available here]

The Division I and Student Scholarships Referendum does more than just move our athletic community and our student life to the next level. The Division I and Student Scholarships Referendum will raise nearly $8,000,000 per year in scholarships, $3,000,000 of which will go to student grants and aid, not just to athletes.

[If AS wanted to increase scholarships they would not have tagged $14 million dollars of D-I to it. The goodness of D-I is ambiguous and complicated so pairing it with something ‘inherently good,’ like scholarships, improves its chances of passing. While financial aid will be adjusted for the fee increase, much of financial aid is loans which must be paid back. Debt on graduation has increased 20% since 2000, this will not help. [1]]

This Referendum WILL:
+ Increase UCSD’s exposure and visibility.

• We will play against, and have rivalries with, schools that are more familiar and similar to us Instead of playing against “The Academy of Art,” we’ll be playing against schools like UC Irvine, UC Santa Barbara, UC Riverside, and UC Davis.

[Since the 2008 financial and economic crises UC Irvine has cut five sports entirely, UC Davis has cut four sports entirely, UC Riverside has cut athletic spending by 8.4%, and UC Santa Barbara has cut its sports as well.[2]

Athletics at other schools have not been spared from the general cut in support that has resulted from poor state governance, and system-wide mismanagement. Why would we more than double our support for sports when all divisions and departments of our school have had to cut back?]

AS Resolution Endorsing March 1st

[This resolution was passed by AS on Wednesday February 8th]

Resolution to Endorse the March 1, 2012 Day of Action

WHEREAS, The California Master Plan for Higher Education called for a
tuition free University [1]; and

WHEREAS, Tuition has been consistently increased since the creation of
the California Master Plan, with a 68% jump between 2007 and 2011
alone [2]; and

WHEREAS, students now contribute more into the UC than does the state
of California [3]; and

WHEREAS, the University of California, San Diego, has been greatly
impacted by tuition hikes; and

WHEREAS, CLICS Library, the IRPS Library, and the Medical Center
Library in Hillcrest, have all been shut down due to budget cuts; and

WHEREAS, since 2009, UCSD has reduced its workforce by over 5.5% [4]; and

WHEREAS, current workers have had pay and benefits significantly
reduced [5]; and

D-1 Con Statement (Footnoted)

[This statement was submitted to AS to appear on the ballot for the special election occurring between February 27th and March 9th. Footnotes have been added for the skeptical or curious. The official publication of this statement is available here]

Even if you want and can afford D-I, this WILL price some students out of a UCSD education. This will hurt middle-class students struggling to pay for school and who won’t receive more financial aid to cover a new fee.[1]

AS’s D-I Feasibility Study said football IS NOT feasible at UCSD.[2] This new fee will not fund a football team.

There is no hard evidence that D-I would provide employment advantages for UCSD graduates. UCSD already has an INCREDIBLE reputation. Last year, we had the second highest number of applications in the UC system, higher than Cal.[3]

US News, the most recognized ranking system, does not even consider sports in its rankings,[4] and a 2004 study of nine D-I conferences found that D-I basketball is not correlated with increased alumni giving.[5]

Non-student funding for D-I is possible. Most of UCLA’s athletics funding isn’t from student fees.[6]
The move from D-II to D-I is EXTREMELY RISKY. In a 2007 NCAA study all eight programs that moved from D-II to D-I suffered MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR FINANCIAL LOSSES.[7]

Remember to vote!

Publication: Report on the Profitability of Education

The “Report on the Profitability of Education and the Exploitability of Students” was compiled by two UCSD students, based on the ‘Teach the Budget’ curriculum developed by graduate students at UCSC. It contains detailed sections on the cost of UC tuition, the regents, the state of California, student activism, and much more. It is fully footnoted with emphasis on primary sources.

It is available in a digital format, as well as a printable format, which folds into a booklet. References and Appendix are published online as well.

DIGITAL

PRINTABLE

REFERENCES AND APPENDIX

UC to Borrow Money FOR California

The UC is going to borrow $200 million for the state after the state took away $100 million dollars from the UC over winter break. [1] The state still owes the UC $1.7 billion dollars from previous loans. [2]

The California government is fiscally self-destructive: it is designed to be unable to fund itself. Proposition 13 requires a two-thirds vote to raise taxes, but allows a simple 50 percent majority to lower taxes and introduce loopholes. [3] Proposition 13 caps the tax-rate on corporate property at 1%, the revenues from which are allocated by the state government rather than local municipal governing bodies. [4]

UC spokesperson Dianne Klein: “The university is in a better position (than the state) to do that [borrow money], frankly because we have a better credit rating. The university is able to secure a better interest rate for that money” [5] In 2011, Fitch rating agency cited “Continued tuition and fee setting flexibility” as a key factor for the UC’s strong AA+ credit rating. [6]

THE UC IS NOW BORROWING MONEY, IN PART BECAUSE IT IS BETTER ABLE TO TAX STUDENTS THAN THE STATE CAN TAX CITIZENS AND CORPORATIONS.

WE SHOULD NOT PAY FOR A DISFUNCTIONAL STATE. WE SHOULD DEMAND AN END TO PROP 13s VOTING REQUIREMENTS.

———————————————————-

[1] http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/13/MNFV1MBVNN.DTL#ixzz1gX6X2RwB

[2] http://www.dailycal.org/2012/02/06/state-looks-to-borrow-from-uc-due-to-predicted-cash-flow-shortfall/

[3] Shrag, Peter. Paradise Lost: California’s Experience, America’s Future. London: University of California Press, 1999. p. 156

[4] http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2011/calfacts/calfacts_010511.aspx#zzee_link_2_1294170707

[5] http://www.dailycal.org/2012/02/06/state-looks-to-borrow-from-uc-due-to-predicted-cash-flow-shortfall/

[6] http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110708005988/en/Fitch-Rates-University-California-General-Rev-Bonds

CLICS: A Recent History

[A skeptical and critical take on the CLICS Reclamation from a conservative, outside perspective can be found at http://skepticconservative.com/2012/01/11/ucsd-clics-break-in-a-story-untold/%5D

What was once CLICS, was opened in 1965 as Humanities/Undergraduate Library, UCSD’s first central library. Ironically, the building, and now the new lecture hall which will replace CLICS, was named after Chancellor John S. Galbraith in 1988 for his “lifelong interest in libraries.” [1]

On January 27th 2011, the UCSD Libraries reported that it had sustained a permanent budget cut of $5 million, and one time cut of $3 million. The libraries objected to Academic Affairs Office’s formula for allocating budget cuts because “1) it bears no discernible relationship to the size of the Libraries’ budget vis-à-vis the campus’ budget and 2) it’s in no way consistent with a stated intention to ‘protect the academic core.’” [2]

In February 2011, it was announced that CLICS, along with the Medical Center Library, Science & Engineering Library, and Scripps Library, would be forced to close due to a $60 million dollar cut to the UCSD budget, which had entailed the $3 million dollar cut to UCSD libraries. The estimated cost saved by closing these four libraries was $1 million annually. [3]

D1: Not Now

[A libertarian opposition to the referendum is available here]

A new referendum proposing to fund Division 1 sports with student fees will be open to vote between February 27 and March 9th. The referendum will charge students $165 per quarter. This amount is based on the recommendation from an athletics consultant. That consultant said an extra $5 million per year was the bare minimum needed to get into D-1 (our men’s water polo, volleyball and fencing are already D-1), but an extra $13 million to be “competitive.” Here is A.S. President Allyssa Wing on being competitive:

“We don’t want to be a university that is only in D-I but is not competitive,” Wing said. “We want to be able to provide scholarships [for] top-notch talent [that we] want to come to our campus. The number is a little higher than the projection, but that is to maintain our program and ensure that we don’t have to keep going back to students with more referendums” [1]

ast year, Wing and A.S. Council killed a referendum to fund the re-opening of CLICS with an $8 dollar quarterly fee. [CORRECTION: no referendum was actually voted on, it was a casual suggestion which never came through and which Wing did not support] Here is Wing on that issue:

“If A.S. came to students for fees, it opens up a lot of doors for the future of how A.S. is seen,” Wing said. “It’s a dangerous direction.” Wing said that creating the position of vice chancellor for equity, diversity and inclusion suggests that there is money to fund the libraries. “If there is money to create a [new administrative] position, why are we closing down libraries?” Wing said. [2]