In our sarcastic attempt to turn lemons into lemonade, we will focus on the steep patriotism and bland creativity the California State University board of trustees practices in its quest to destroy — or privatize — public higher education.
This seems to be the easiest way to swallow both the lack of leadership and nearly invisible outrage over student fee increases, enrollment cuts and program abolishment in our bucolic little system of “almost 450,000 students” — as it is listed on the CSU Web site.
It serves no purpose to place all of the blame on Chancellor Charles Reed for the rapid deterioration of our university system because any criticism directed at him seems to roll from his shoulders like rain off of a duck. It’s better to load the proverbial scattergun and aim for the entire board.
At its meetings last week, the board made some sweeping commentary that needs addressing. The first is entirely laughable. As the Daily 49er reported on Wednesday, Nov. 18, the board is “calling for an increase of $884 million in the 2010-11 budget from the governor and the Legislature.”
It’s been noted that the state faces a likely $21 billion deficit next year. Who does the board think is going to hear the CSU system when it comes “calling” for restored funding? Anybody who thinks that Sacramento can even hear the CSU begging now is an utter moron. That bullet has left the rifle.
The truth is, the tragically comical announcement to ask for $884 million was little more than a safe ploy by the board. The governor won’t be weighing in on the next budget until January — when he will assuredly laugh his ass off. Cal State Long Beach students won’t start spring classes until Jan. 25, the day before the next board of trustees meetings.
What better time to catch students in the throes of apathy and complacency than to hold a meeting about their fate while they’re still standing in lines at the bookstore? It’s one of those “timing is everything” plans.
The board should be hailed for patriotism in its ultimate goal to reduce enrollment to 310,000 students, though. The human surplus of approximately 140,000 non-admitted students could be better invested by filling military uniforms in Afghanistan and Iraq — with enough wannabe students left over to start a brand new war somewhere else.
Having sufficient numbers of young people to sustain two battlefronts is a difficult task in and of itself, so consider the board’s enrollment cut strategy as doing California’s part in the war effort.
Why stop there? The board could relieve the burden of the entire country’s military obligation by incorporating an enrollment cap of 23,000 — 1,000 for each campus — of the state’s wealthiest students. That would free up almost another 300,000 bodies to lubricate the military machine. It would certainly save some butts in Congress by eliminating any talk about needing to reinstitute the draft.
We’ve had our chance to rebel against the assault on our universities and failed miserably. While the board was mulling over its tactic to block low-income and minority students — the nexus of the military investment — from attaining a college degree, hardly any protestors were around. Maybe a whopping 100 students showed up on the second day of the board’s meetings.
Explaining CSU student apathy is at best like trying to grab a slippery eel with bare hands. Perhaps we’re lazy, too busy social networking, or just don’t care. Whatever the reason, the silence speaks volumes about our commitment to the next generation of students.
The board of trustees isn’t interested in figuring out the reasons for student apathy and it appears neither are we.