Talks at the
Spring 2005 State Conference Meeting
Slips in Higher Education
Funding
by Frank Mauro (Fiscal
Policy Institute) and Kathleen Maurer Smith (Molloy College)
 The New York State Conference, AAUP invited
two distinguished speakers to address the membership at its Spring 2005 Meeting
at Fordham/Marymount in Tarrytown, N.Y. on April 1st. They were Frank Mauro,
who is the director of the Fiscal Policy Institute, and the Honorable Amy
Paulin (D), Assemblywoman from the 88th Assembly District in New York State.
Both speakers addressed their concerns regarding state funding of higher education
in New York.
Mr. Mauro (right) explained that there were five broad categories
of state government support for higher education:
* the public education systems that include the State University
of New York (SUNY) and the City University of New York (CUNY)
* direct government assistance to private colleges (including Bundy
aid)
* Tuition Assistance Programs (TAP) for college students
* funding for programs to develop a relationship between universities
and businesses
* member items, which are special line items for university projects.
All of these areas have experienced cuts or have been threatened
with reduced funding.
He pointed out that, while Governor Nelson Rockefeller was a great
advocate for monetary support for higher education, subsequent governors
have been less supportive, and the current governor, George Pataki,
has consistently attempted to implement deep cuts during his term
of office. Mr. Mauro credits the State Legislature with restoring
many of Governor Pataki's cuts, but the result has been that of "treading
water." He believes that in the coming years the challenge for
Albany will be to break out of this pattern. This would involve actually
expanding funding for higher education instead of having to constantly
fight cuts.
 Assemblywoman Amy Paulin (right)
echoed Mr. Mauro's concerns. She pointed out that higher education is not a
high priority in New York State and that the legislature spends too much time
fighting cuts instead of expanding existing programs and exploring the need
for others. She informed the audience that tuition and fees have risen 75%
at SUNY and CUNY since 1995, which indicates that Governor Pataki does not
share Governor Rockefeller's goal of keeping state college tuition very low.
New York ranks 36th among the 50 states in funding for higher education. Consequently,
families in New York State devote a larger share of income to pay for higher
education than those in most other states, and economically disadvantaged students
cannot afford higher education without available resources to support them.
Many of the students attending college today are not the typical
18-to-22-year-old. Colleges now offer programs for other populations,
such as single parents who are trying to better their lives by pursuing
further education in fields such as technology, business, teaching,
and nursing. In addition, night and weekend classes are being offered
in order to accommodate these students, and lifetime learning opportunities
are being made available to students of all ages, all walks of life,
and diverse populations.
Ms. Paulin emphasized the importance of assuring that higher education
be affordable to all who want it. This benefits not only the individual,
but the common good as well.
Spring 05 Meeting
Summary
History of the National
Labor Relations Board (1935) as a part of FDR's "New Deal"
by Arnold Cantor, Former
Executive Director of the PSC
The NLRB is
a 5-member board divided 3 and 2 politically depending on the party
in the White House. For many years the Board was respected as a
reasonably non-partisan adjudicator.
 In 1980 The U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that the tenured faculty at Yeshiva University are managers and therefore
not protected by the National Labor Relations Act. The NLRB was over-confident
in defending its decision to the contrary before the Court and did not do a
competent job of protecting the Yeshiva Faculty. Yeshiva became a verb as in
the faculty union at Boston University was "Yeshived" and the Yeshiva
decision brought the union movement in the private sector of academia to a
halt.
But a major factor in destroying the integrity of the NLRB by turning
it into a political arm of the administration was the impact created
throughout the country by Reagan's firing of the air controllers
in 1981 who were on strike with their union PACOT. That act emboldened
employers to toughen their stance in dealings with unions and began
a stream of decisions by the NLRB favoring the employer over the
employee or union. It became so extreme that union leaders stopped
bringing cases to the NLRB because of the predictability of the outcome.
When Clinton became president and the Democrats were the majority
on the Board they overturned some fifty-five decisions made by the
Reagan Board. Now, under Bush every decision I can find made in the
last few years has been in favor of the employer. Most notably for
higher education they ruled that the graduate assistants at Brown
University are students and not employees and not protected by the
NLRA, thus overruling the Clinton-era decision which allowed NYU
and others to develop a Graduate Assistants union and to bargain
collectively. They also overturned a ruling that an employee who
is summoned to a meeting with management which is expected to be
of a disciplinary nature may bring another employee or a representative.
They also charged a union with an "unfair labor practice" because
it went on strike a few hours later than they had announced they
would to the employer. They upheld the termination of an employee
even though she was engaged in "protected activity" because
the Board decided she was only trying to benefit herself rather than
to "achieve some greater good." They also refused to hold
a new election in which the union lost by two votes even though the
company had admittedly an illegal statement in its personnel handbook
and the hearing officer had recommended a new election be held.
I cited seven such cases and could not find a single case that was
decided in favor of the union or the employee. Currently we are back
to the Reagan era where unions are loathe to take any case to the
Board or to ask the Board to hold a representation election.
Spring 05 Meeting
Summary
Preserving the Promise of Higher Education
by Irwin Yellowitz, City
College/CUNY
Chair, NY Conference Committee A
 Mark Smith (left), the AAUP's Director of Government Relations,
spoke about the crisis in funding for higher education at the Spring meeting
of the New York Conference on April 3, 2005. His conclusions were somber. There
have been serious short-term losses in the funding of higher education, and
the outlook long-term is also negative without corrective action. This situation
has led the AAUP to create a task force to examine the funding of higher education.
The task force published its report, Ensuring
the Nation's Future: Preserving the Promise of Higher Education in an Era of
Fiscal Challenges, in the January-February 2005 issue of Academe.
Smith focused most of his attention on the States, which have the
primary responsibility for supporting higher education. The short-term
drop in funding results from several factors that have reduced State
revenues without a commensurate reduction in expenditures. Revenues
available to State governments fell because of the impact of the
economic downturn of 2001-2002, the loss of sales-tax revenues from
sales through catalogues and the Internet, cuts in Federal taxes
that often trigger reductions on the State level, and some cuts in
State taxes intended to stimulate business. State expenditures for
major items such as Medicaid, K-12 education, and prisons, have increased,
in some cases dramatically. The result has been fiscal crises in
many states. Higher education was never a major item in State funding
priorities, and budget problems have increased pressure to hold down
spending in this area. Accordingly, students now pay an increasing
proportion of the cost of higher education through tuition and fees
rather than receiving support from government, either directly, or
by the State's support of colleges and universities.
On the Federal level, there also have been changes in the tax structure.
Coupled with increased expenditures, much of it related to defense,
security, or the war in Iraq, this has led to a squeeze in domestic
spending. Even with increased dollars for Pell Grants, these awards
cover less of the cost of a higher education. The emphasis in Federal
aid to college students has shifted from grants to loans. This policy
is a major change from the past, such as the landmark GI bill following
World War II.
The AAUP Task Force examined all these matters and concluded that
States must first recognize the necessity of a college education
for today's economy. The public support of the K-12 system was based
on the adequacy of a high school diploma in a manufacturing economy.
In today's technological and service-based economy, a college education
is what we require. The benefits accrue to the individual and the
society.
To accomplish this, the Task Force recommended a campaign to convince
the public of the value of higher education; called on higher-education
groups to work with the business community to highlight the importance
of a college degree to meet global competition; and stressed the
need to convince all levels of government to support higher education
through tax-driven funds rather than by shifting the burden to students
through higher tuition and fees (often paid for by loans). The resulting
debt burden on students creates negative social results that work
against the positive values of higher education.
The Task Force also addressed the revenue issues. It urged the States
to update their taxation systems to provide adequate revenue for
public needs including higher education. This is a monumental task
that will require concerted political action, and that even optimists
must view as a long-term objective. Along with changes in taxation
systems, the States should reappraise the priority of higher education
so that it receives a fuller share of current revenues. The federal
government should restore the buying power of Pell Grants, and reemphasize
grants rather than loans as the primary means of supporting students.
Finally, the Task Force urged colleges and universities to improve
their procedures so that students can complete their education as
efficiently as possible. One important recommendation is that the
transfer of credits by students be made easier and more uniform to
reduce redundancy. It is important that colleges and universities
take such steps voluntarily to avoid governmental action.
Copies of the Task Force's report are available on the national AAUP's
website, www.aaup.org, or as a booklet from the national AAUP office
at 202-737-5900.
Top
|
