Things to Consider

Anyone who reads the news will be aware of the difficult climate that higher education institutions are likely to be facing in the future, given political realities. Although UC resides in a so-called blue state, it will not be exempt from such pressures. Indeed, it may be more of a target precisely because of its location. Moreover, the use of technology in instruction, broadly defined and uncertain as to future developments, raises some unique issues for faculty welfare, as do immediate concerns about the cost of living in the LA area. 

At UCLA, there has long been a north campus/south campus divide as well as a professional school/general education divide. Involved here are standards of evaluation and promotion for faculty and differing remuneration systems and labor market conditions. The various Academic Senate mechanisms that have evolved attempt to deal with these divides. (I speak as a former chair of CAP, the Senate committee that reviews all promotions, tenure hires, etc., across these divides.) But there are budgetary and other pressures that are likely to widen the divisions.

Political pressures at the state level are pushing for ever-increasing undergraduate enrollments. The legislature is sensitive to complaints from constituents about why their kids didn't get into the UC of their choice. They know there is a prestige associated with UC admission. But what produces that prestige is not large enrollments but research. That contradiction is not well understood in the political world. Administrators, pressed to make larger enrollments happen, look to the above-mentioned technology to make it possible. They also increasingly seek to rely on cheaper "temps" - nontenured instructors and graduate assistants - to accommodate more students. 

But since the unionization and major strike of grad students, these substitute instructors are not as cheap as they once were. So teaching via technology becomes the default fix. And with technology comes questions about who owns the "intellectual property" of recorded lectures, for example. Is it the faculty member who produced them? Or the university as employer? Note that Regents often come from the private sector where if you make something for your employer, the employer owns it.

These forces are the long-run, and maybe not-so-long-run, realities that will be affecting faculty welfare in the future. For junior faculty there are immediate issues such as the high cost of childcare and - at UCLA - the ability to access the primary and secondary schools run by the university. At UCLA, the high cost of housing is a major issue in recruitment. (And the current wildfires - by taking much property off the market - will aggravate the cost of the remaining housing stock.) What kind of housing assistance will be available?

As members of the Faculty Association will know, there is currently an election going on for board members. This blog obviously takes no position on individual candidates. But we do suggest that voters consider the issues raised above in making their selections. Who will best address the coming and present challenges facing faculty welfare? Since the Academic Senate has tended to be the forum in which such challenges are handled by faculty - both at the campus and systemwide levels - who will serve on Senate committees, such as Faculty Welfare, despite the time commitments involved? Who will keep up with nitty-gritty issues such as the cost of UC-provided health insurance or the funding of the pension system?

Dealing with the issues above focuses on concerns that unite faculty.