Recently, I participated in a panel on good government held by the League of Women Voters. What was most intriguing was when the conversation turned to how society as a whole is more interested in celebrity or personality than in the issues at hand. Relate the concept to government and it’s like saying the only reason for governmental dysfunction is because bad and corrupt people have taken over. If this were true, then the throw-the-bums-out mentality would solve the problem and create good government that works for everyone.

I am afraid that this way of thinking fundamentally misses the real problems facing us.

To be sure, there are plenty of examples of public officials who work for themselves and not the public. But that’s not what we should be focused on. The discussion should be about putting together a political system that works. Unfortunately, society’s preoccupation with politicians’ individual peccadilloes stops that from happening.

Here’s another fact: There will never be a perfect political system. Never. Fighting for one means we sacrifice a good, workable system on the altar of the unattainably perfect.

An example I use with my economics students may shed some light here. I call this the M&M problem. One individual gets a bag of M&Ms and must strike a deal with another player, or no one gets any candy. The Pareto optimal economic solution states that a trade is optimal if one person is better off without making anyone else worse off. In this case, let’s say the person with the M&Ms offers one M&M to the other player and keeps the rest. In theory, the second player should accept the single M&M because getting one piece is better than getting nothing. Yet most of the time, the player without the M&Ms will settle for nothing less than a 50-50 split. My point here is how that game is set up matters. Note that if the game changes even slightly (for example, if the bag of M&Ms switches between players), the optimal economic solution is a 50-50 split. I will let you think about why this is true.

In New York, many blame Albany’s troubles on the ethical issues that dog a number of our state senators, when the real problem is that the Senate is split down the middle politically. If either the Democrats or the Republicans held a clear majority, I’d bet we would have a timely budget, ethical issues or not. But by worrying about ethical lapses, we are distracted from important budget issues, like what appropriate funding for SUNY should be.

If we are to succeed in fixing our political system, or fixing SUNY, our discussion needs to focus on the system’s rules, not on the people in the system. The M&Ms scenario shows that if we end up with rules people believe are unfair, they will tend to bring everyone down. We are seeing this in our current election cycle, where many low-income voters have argued in favor of cutting the size of government—and therefore are advocating against the very programs that aid them. We need only recall the “don’t let the government get involved with my Medicare” statement to see how confused the process can become.

Like the M&M problem, more is going on here than simply reforming government to make it more efficient. Remember, fairness and how the rules are set up are what matters. Instead of arguing about the fairness of the rules that dictate governmental process, candidates chose to attack each other. So no matter who is elected, the status quo will reign and the problems will remain.

I would argue that in this election, the throw-the-bums out mentality is actually part of the problem because it gives the bums too much credit for creating the political and financial crises New York finds itself in. It is also a cynical reaction to the hard work that needs to be done—namely, striving to put together the best government process we can achieve, imperfections and all.

Here’s what we can do. We can start by talking to our students about how government works and what we should ask our government to do. This is one sure way we can fight and defeat those who are using cynicism to define the rules in their favor instead of using them in the best interest of New Yorkers and the American people.

Hey, does anyone want an M&M?

Everyone—whether in business, higher education or state, local and national politics—is caught in a whirlwind of talk about reorganizing our economy, our educational system and myriad other policies. The breakdowns in the banking and housing markets have started a trend for reform, not only of these institutions, but of all institutions.

The calls for reform and reorganization in SUNY are part of this wave. Over the past few months, the State Education Department (SED) has proposed reforms to teacher certifications, allowing for alternative certification outside of higher education institutions. The so-called Public Higher Education Empowerment and Innovation Act (PHEEIA) is a University-led reform proposal that has been debated by the Legislature.

In times of stress, our community looks to us to be a stable and well-reasoned voice on the issues. We need to realize there will always be calls for change, some reasonable and others not. We also need to understand that those calling for change are doing so because they believe in the changes they are putting forth.

In some cases, a new leader may come aboard with new ideas. In other cases, old arguments rise up again, bringing with them renewed hopes of success. Either way, there will be a dynamic tension, which is normal and, if not brought to extremes, helpful in moving us forward.

As with SED’s alternative certification proposal or the reorganization of many of SUNY’s nursing programs, too few people are aware these changes are taking place. UUP is working diligently on these issues, but other proposals will pop up, potentially taking us by surprise in the process.

I raise these issues because there is a trend toward moving away from traditional colleges and universities to a vocational model of higher ed. Recently, The New York Times and Time magazine have run stories about this, quoting Richard Vetter and Charles Murray, two leading proponents of the no-need-for-college movement. The question isn’t if some courses should be applied, but rather if theory and method are important at all.

In the current budget crisis, calls for reorganization and reform are inevitable. How should we as a union and university system address these calls?

I believe a number of simple concepts may help in making better decisions. First, history is important. Understanding past decisions is key to understanding if change is needed. Change simply for the sake of change will only lead to more instability.

Next, the changes need to fit the institution, and the departments and their missions. Not every department should have to bring in large grants to survive, or be punished for not doing so. Not all classes should be large if the appropriate pedagogy calls for small lectures or studios.

Another concept is flexibility and decentralization. Any policy that does not allow SUNY faculty and staff to adjust to problems as they become apparent is doomed to failure. SUNY is too complex to have a single set of rules. SUNY needs to empower its faculty and staff to take control of any reforms or reorganizations that affect them. This means strengthening faculty governance and departmental bylaws. It builds communications and gives those closest to the problems a greater say in the solutions. These rules are nothing new and form the basis for decision making, as proposed by Peter Drucker as early as the 1950s, and found in TQM (total quality management).

It is important for all of the players to be at the table when discussing reforms. The costs and benefits from all aspects are important to making correct decisions. This is what we have learned from past crises, and it is what we need to do today.

— VPA Fred Floss

SUNY has more than 2.5 million alumni and more than 80 percent of them live in New York state. How we activate them to protect SUNY is the newest project Phil has asked me to oversee.

The UUP/Alumni Project is simple. We’re starting with UUP members who are SUNY alumni and asking them to talk to other alumni about the needs of the SUNY campuses where they went. Who better than our member/alumni to reach out and explain how the cuts to SUNY have changed life on campus, and not for the better?

As an alumnus of two SUNY campuses, Oswego and the University at Buffalo, I have been struck by how no one from either campus has asked me to fight for more SUNY funding. Calls come from the alumni association for contributions, but they never ask me to fight the cuts. This needs to change. If we could get 1 percent of alumni to write one letter, that would be 25,000 letters for our cause.

So how do we start? Each chapter vice presidents for academics is going to ask if you or a family member is a SUNY alum and, if so, which one. Please let them know who you are because we do not have this information. Once we have the names and e-mail addresses, we will send out more information on how you can help as an alumnus. We might ask you to send a letter to your alumni magazine, the student newspaper where you went to school, or the local newspaper. You may also be asked to send a letter to state legislators and the governor, not as an employee but as someone who is a successful SUNY graduate who does not want to see the system dismantled.

Sometimes we forget how much we know about SUNY and how little contact our former student colleagues have with our campuses. We all have busy lives and if no one mentions what is happening, it flies by at breakneck speed. So when we say that SUNY over the last 18 months has been cut by almost 25 percent of its operating budget, most people are surprised. Asking them to remember the quality education they received at SUNY—and then urging them to fight the cuts so others can get the same quality education—should be easy. But I know it will not be. That is why we are starting the UUP/Alumni Project.

If you would like to help, please talk with your chapter vice presidents for academics or e-mail me at ffloss@uupmail.org and I can get you started. Working together with the 2.5 million alumni of SUNY, we can protect our University and ensure that future students will have the quality education that many of us enjoyed when we attended SUNY.

As with freedom of the press, academic freedom’s basis is in the First Amendment right of freedom of speech. Both have come under fire by those in power who have seen reporters and professors as standing in the way of their prerogatives. The U.S. courts have never looked at freedom of speech as an absolute right, but have looked to balance the First Amendment against other social interests, rights and principles. It is through extra constitutional means that academic freedom and freedom of the press become strong.

The courts have ruled in cases like Miller v. California [1973] that obscenity does not have a First Amendment right, or in Branzburg v. Hayes [1972] that a reporter cannot protect a source under freedom of the press. In both cases, the Supreme Court noted the limits it put on freedom of speech and agreed it might have a chilling effect. But the court noted that protecting children in the first case and ensuring a fair trial in the second are more important.

It took Daniel Schorr standing up for freedom of the press by releasing information in the government’s Pike Report about illegal CIA and FBI activities to put teeth into the First Amendment. But he eventually lost his job at CBS because of it. Alternatively, Judith Miller of the New York Times went to jail to protect her sources.

Until the early 1950s, the courts did not formally recognize academic freedom. Two cases, Sweezy v. New Hampshire [1952] and Keyishian v. Board of Regents [1952] changed this, but only for faculty at public universities. In the private sector, the AAUP 1915 and 1940 Statements of Principles of Academic Freedom are advisory only. The courts have ruled since there is no right to a position as a professor, free speech rights are not at issue. Again, only through collective action in the private sector has academic freedom survived. The Bassett Affair is a good example. Professor John Bassett of Duke spoke favorably about Booker T. Washington in 1903. When the university was about to fire him at the behest of white supremacists, the entire faculty threatened to resign.

The recent Garcetti v. Cebballos [2009] case has threatened to put public sector employees on an equal footing with private sector employees. The case involved an assistant district attorney who spoke out about a sheriff. The court ruled that a public employee speaking in an official capacity does not have free speech rights; therefore, an employer can discipline the employee for his speech. The court makes the argument that the employer has the right to evaluate the performance of their employees. The caveat for higher education in Justice Kennedy’s decision is Garcetti “may” not apply to teaching and research.

If academic freedom as a First Amendment right is under attack, what are our options?

First, the UUP contract and Title I, subsection 1, of the Policies of the SUNY Board of Trustees state: “It is the policy of the University to maintain and encourage full freedom, within the law, of inquiry, teaching and research. In the exercise of this freedom faculty members may, without limitation, discuss their own subject in the classroom; they may not, however, claim as their right the privilege of discussing in their classroom controversial matter which has no relation to their subject. The principle of academic freedom shall be accompanied by a corresponding principle of responsibility. In their role as citizens, employees have the same freedoms as other citizens. However, in their extramural utterances employees have an obligation to indicate that they are not institutional spokespersons.”

Second, campus policies cannot be in conflict with the trustees’ Policies. So we must work together with faculty governance and our administrations to ensure campus policies enhance academic freedom.

Finally, we must be willing to put our positions on the line to support our core beliefs. The courts have noted the important place academic freedom has as a critical public good, but they will not defend this freedom if we do not stand up and make them.

The issue of academic freedom has come to the fore again with the case of the Binghamton basketball scandal. At its heart, the question is whether all students can expect fair treatment or whether those of privilege will get a free ride. This time, it is about basketball players and grades. In Illinois, it was about needing to “know someone” to even get accepted into the university. Each new revelation attacks the basic integrity of higher education and puts all of the work we do in jeopardy.

The importance of academic freedom is not just as an individual member’s right, but rather as a social right, one that ensures basic fairness in the higher education system. By allowing each UUP member to exercise his or her right to teach classes without interference and to speak out on important issues without retaliation, we protect more than an individual’s rights—we protect the integrity of our system.

Academic freedom would be of little importance if our members only spoke-up on noncontroversial issues. It is when difficult issues arise, and when “good people” disagree, that academic freedom becomes the most important. It would be easy to stay quiet and protect our college and university sports teams. It would be easy to stay quiet when racism, sexism or other social injustices take place. Academic freedom takes away these excuses and strengthens civil discourse.

In the Binghamton case, we need to applaud Chancellor Zimpher for calling on Binghamton University to reinstate professor Sally Dear, the contingent faculty member who brought to light the alleged grading problem at that campus (see related story, below). It would have been easy for the chancellor to say that “other issues” or “financial problems” were the reason for the nonrenewal (which one could argue is the standard line in a case like this). Instead, the chancellor asked for an outside investigation.

UUP continues to monitor this situation and work to protect members who might find themselves in a position where doing the right thing puts their job on the line.

Instead of pressuring professors to give the basketball team better grades, would it not have been better for these young men to be given tutors and mandatory study sessions?

When universities attack those who bring up the importance of education, they are letting down all of our students and they are saying that academic integrity does not matter.

We need to applaud those who put themselves forward, and we must stand with them to protect our rights.

The world has changed for many of our students and our colleagues. On our campuses, they may face overcrowded and canceled classes. They will also bring the pressures and problems from the outside world too.

As I watched a television report on a town hall meeting, it struck me that many of those who were most upset seemed to be under a great deal of stress. They were not just upset about the possibility of a national health plan, but found these town hall meetings and their congress persons the only place where they could let off the anger they have about all of the problems in their lives. Many said they had lost their jobs or were about to lose them. Some told how they had lost their nest eggs or learned their houses are no longer worth what they thought. Their worlds have turned upside down.

In our classroom, we—not the congressperson—will be at the podium and may face this anger from our students.

During the summer, I spent time on our campuses presenting workshops on workload to a record number of participants. I believe we are no less susceptible to the same kind of stresses as those in the town hall meetings. I will note my meetings did not have the rancor that I saw on television, and there seemed to be a genuine interest in finding answers to the problems we are about to face. Nevertheless, the stresses we face inside and outside of SUNY are still apparent.

As our students come back from the outside world, they are likely to bring all of the problems and anger so apparent on television. How are we going to react and will we be prepared? How do we fight the Glenn Becks of the world, who abuse peoples’ legitimate fears and work them into irrational frenzies when they enter our classrooms and offices? What will we do to control our own fear and combat the increased stress we would be under?

As any good academic, I asked colleagues who work in the field, searched the Internet and visited the library to do some research.

First, you should know that if you are under a great deal of stress, there are things you can—and should—do. On each campus, there is an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) where you can turn for help. Many campus EAPs are already planning workshops on how to cope with stress caused by the economic recession and the fears that the housing and financial crises have caused.

If you are having a problem on the job, go to your UUP chapter office and talk to your UUP/NYSUT labor relations specialist about your concerns.

Remember, we are here to help. Before we can help our students, we need to help ourselves.

There are also things you can do before stress takes over:

• Prepare ahead of time for students who may have problems because of stress and be ready for their anger.
• Be prepared to deal with students who may have lost their jobs or their homes.
• Know who to contact and what services are available to students with stress-related problems.
• Be realistic about how much students will be able to learn when they have problems at work or home.
• Set up a department and chapter meeting to discuss what is happening on campus and what strategies we might use together to combat the stress that we see in our students and colleagues.

We are only going to be able to get through this difficult time if we are prepared to work together and help each other.

There are also things that we can do to reduce our own stress. Below is a list of Web sites with tips on how to relieve stress. The tip I found most interesting was to make time to clean your house and office—I am sure my wife will like this idea the best.

Web sites of interest

• http://www.stressmanagementtips.com/causes.htm
• http://www.rd.com/living-healthy/37-stress-management-tips/article14565.html
• http://stress.about.com/od/studentstress/a/back_to_school.htm
• http://www.brighthub.com/education/special/articles/38663.aspx
• http://stress.about.com/od/fearandstres1/a/anxiety.htm
• http://www.thestressmanagementguide.com/blog/stress.about.com/cs/a.htm

Taxes are always a hot button issue, and at UUP’s 2009 Winter Delegate Assembly, our delegates unanimously supported a progressive tax increase as the fairest way to share the pain of the current economic downturn. I was asked to take up the issue on behalf of the union.

I was happy to go around the state to make the case for a progressive tax system and the increased tax revenues it would yield to ensure the state’s stability. Of course, this is only half the battle. Now that the Fair Tax Act has been passed, we need to make sure we get our fair share. We must make sure the additional state revenues it will raise will help protect our students’ access to the high-quality public higher education that SUNY provides.

According to most polls, more than 65 percent of people making $250,000 or more supported raising their own taxes through a progressive income tax. Our state affiliate NYSUT, along with other state unions and even groups of economists, pushed for fair tax legislation. Therefore, it is no surprise that a progressive tax increase was part of the solution to the state’s current economic crisis.

So why am I writing a column about our progressive tax agenda? It is not to tout a victory or even to thank those who worked so hard to see the legislation passed, although those are laudatory goals. By passing the Fair Tax Act, it is estimated that $4 billion will be raised this year in additional state revenue and even more next year. But at the end of the third year, the fair tax program is set to sunset. That’s exactly the same time when the federal stimulus funding runs out.  New York state will be back in financial trouble once again.

We need to start now to put stability back into our tax system and, in turn, help to ensure SUNY’s future stability. To do that, we need to make the fair tax system permanent. Over the last 30 years, the state has repeatedly continued a negative cycle by lowering tax rates and making our system less progressive, only to find time after time that rates must be raised if minimum levels of services are to be provided. Then, during each of these cycles as the state runs out of funds, SUNY tuition is raised to fill holes in the general fund portion of the state budget. Businesses make

future plans based on these lower, unsustainable rates, only to find that rates must go up and they are not prepared for the new fiscal environment.  Counties and homeowners expect a certain level of services from the state and set property tax rates to pay for their share of these programs, only to find state funds lacking and their sole recourse is to raise the regressive property tax.

Like homeowners and businesses, parents and students will be better off with a rational tax system with permanent progressive tax rates which stops these “boom and bust” cycles.  Over time, everyone will be better off with these higher tax rates because we can make better predictions about government services and costs which will lead to better decisions and higher economic growth. 

Above are the talking points we used to help persuade the Legislature to pass the Fair Tax Act. We need to take them up again and ask our legislators to make the progressive rates permanent before we find ourselves back in financial crisis with the cycle staring again. Our students and campuses and all New Yorkers deserve better.

— UUP Vice President for Academics Fred Floss