Monthly Archives: September 2017

CSUN faculty take a stand

[Here is the note I sent to the campus and other stakeholders announcing and contextualizing the Senate’s decision.]

Colleagues,

CSUN has led the CSU with an innovative GE program that makes cross-cultural competence an essential area of study for all students, exactly on a par with the natural sciences, arts, humanities, and social sciences. Our program was approved, with praise, by the Chancellor’s Office in 2005. We have similarly taught thousands of FTES in upper-division Lifelong-Learning (GE area E), with nary a peep from the Chancellor’s Office.

In two extraordinary moves this summer, the Chancellor upended the curriculum at every CSU on an impossible timeline given campus curricular processes and the multiple responsibilities of every faculty member. With our innovative curriculum, CSUN has been hit particularly hard.

As a Chancellor’s Office staff member admitted on the floor of the ASCSU plenary, there is no pedagogical justification for the changes in EO1100 (revised). The demand for homogeneity between every CSU GE program from Humboldt to San Diego is based in the belief that it is unfair to require a transferring student to learn anything extra when they arrive from a different part of the state.

It is against this background of extraordinary behavior by the Chancellor’s Office that I report the Faculty of CSUN have chosen an extraordinary response.

At its September 28th meeting, the CSUN Faculty Senate, which is the only official voice of the Faculty at CSUN, passed the following motion:

The Faculty Senate of CSU Northridge and its Standing Committees will not participate in the implementation of Executive Order 1100 (revised) and Executive Order 1110.

Any changes to curriculum, including GE, must be approved by the Senate. Proposals to alter the curriculum must come to the Senate from the Standing Committees (including any task forces created under Bylaws V.1.2). Therefore, this decision prevents any action by the Faculty in implementing these Executive Orders.

However, a procedural motion was introduced which effectively freezes the implementation of this decision until the next Senate meeting (on October 26th). At the next meeting, the above motion will be reconsidered as a regular agenda item. If it passes then, the decision is locked in —it cannot be reconsidered during this academic year.

Sincerely,

Adam

To Hell in a Handbasket: GE and Other Fiascos

[The following is a commentary by Professor (nee Provost) Harry Hellenbrand]

To Hell in a Handbasket: GE and Other Fiascos

IS THERE A THERE, THERE?

Since the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) published its first “declaration of principles” in 1915, it has been generally understood that, in a university as opposed to a proprietary school, faculty have primacy over academic matters because of their expertise.1 This primacy, of course, is not exclusive. Legislators, trustees, and the administration share in the governance of academic matters. But if faculty consistently lose the last word on major academic matters, the university forfeits its ethical, if not technical, status as a university.2

The California State University (CSU) is far down the road to such forfeiture. (This argument applies to many public universities.)3 Faculty on term-limited appointments far outnumber the tenured and tenure-track faculty.4 By and large, contingent faculty are managed in ways that the tenured and tenure-track are not. They are hired to teach specific courses in specific ways. Often, they have little say in designing the curriculum. Their academic freedom is limited.

But then, how much self-determination do the tenured and tenure-track have as a faculty? Many of the courses that they teach must conform to the transfer templates for general education (GE) and for the major. These templates prescribe 50% of the courses for a baccalaureate degree. Pre- professional accreditations prescribe many of the other courses that tenured and tenure-track faculty teach. Perhaps no more than 25% of all courses express local faculty’s creation of a body of knowledge. Standardization has become the norm, as the CSU system has become more like a chain of franchises. It packages uniform skills for markets that determine those skills. In turn, the tenured and tenure-track faculty become more like the contingent faculty whom they help to manage.

COMPLIANCE SHERIFF

As faculty authority withers, campus self-rule in a system decreases. Central management moves in. In public comprehensive systems, central management tends to govern by enforcing compliance with a standard. Think, for instance, about the brouhaha that mods to PeopleSoft raised. Why is this so? Uniform practices eliminate the need to negotiate differences. Think of conversion from quarters to semesters. They provide administrators with a common denominator for decision-making.

Executive Order 1071 on tracks, emphases, and concentrations is an example of compliance thinking.5 It is a small beachhead in the current invasion into faculty and campus rights and responsibilities. Now, a specialization in a major cannot exceed 50% of the total credits in that major. There was no such rule previously. If its size persists, it must be presented as an entirely new program. The language that explains this change is revealing. A campus/president must get a “Chancellor’s certificate of compliance” with the new 50% rule before acting on specializations, tracks, and etc. This rule is necessary to meet “CSU policy and applicable law.” Without the rule, CSU will not conform to “reporting” standards in the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), the federal collection of higher education data.

These claims are mistaken. CSU policy (excepting this policy!) does not require such a rule. No federal or state law requires the campus rule. IPEDS warns that users should not view its data as “regulatory.” IPEDS leaves the definitions of emphasis, concentration, specialization, and etc., to the campuses.6

I am sure that CSU did not set out to misuse IPEDS. But it has. Now, I am not arguing against the sense of the rule; I am arguing against the way in which the rule was established. If the consultation with campuses claimed that law and reporting required this change, then the discussion was flawed. The thinking behind the rule also misunderstands how data should be used. Reporting requirements are more important than academic practices, the Executive Order implies. That implication does not bode well for relations between faculty and staff on the campuses and administrators in the Chancellor’s Office (CO).

MISSION

Frequently, rule-makers in central offices in higher education ignore the “loosely coupled” structure of university systems.7 In the CSU, campus mission statements respond mainly to region. That is why California State University, Northridge (CSUN) developed and the CSU approved (2005) area F (cross-cultural studies) in its GE program. The CO recently struck that category, however. It allegedly impedes student transfer from and to other campuses, especially within the CSU.

However, few students transfers from and to other CSUs.8 If there is a record of such complaints at CSUN, faculty were not told. Also, there is no obvious history of such complaints for transfers from the community colleges. The CSU Academic Senate does report that a student complained to a legislator about differing CSU requirements in GE.9 Shortly after that, Coded Memorandum 2016-19 asked that the campuses report requirements in GE that were in addition to A-E.10 That probably was when F was targeted. Sensitiveness to legislators’ complaints ignited this call for compliance in the CO. Complaints by a legislator often trump campus governance.

CONSULTATION

The CO could have consulted with CSUN before killing the category. Even if only a few students were affected, the few matter. No such communication occurred. This is unfortunate. There are many solutions that can preserve campus GE and mission, if indeed there is a problem. They all turn on the same strategy: put the student first. If a student transfers in with area F incomplete, evaluate that student by applying the GE scheme (CSU GE Breadth, IGETC, CSUN, or host/target campus) that is most favorable to the student.

The solution should be proportional to the problem. If 500 students are inconvenienced each term, then data justify a reconfiguration of CSUN GE. If 50 out of 4,000 transfers each term are affected (@1%), remedy but not reconfiguration is called for.

THE THRILLS AND SPILLS OF BASIC SKILLS

Inadequate consultation already has caused big problems in revamping CSU entry requirements and courses in basic composition and math in GE (Executive Order 1100). The Academic Senate is trying to stop the train, due to inadequate consultation.11 Consultation between the CO, the CSU Academic, the Senate’s GE Task Force (GETF), and the General Education Advisory Committee (GEAC) was adequate until spring, 2017. Then, GEAC asked the CO to extend the time for feedback on the emerging executive orders.12 Instead, the presidents were asked for their opinions on May 16, just as faculty were de-camping. The Executive Order was issued on August 23, just before faculty returned.13 But The GE committees had not yet made a recommendation to the Senate. The Senate had not yet consulted widely. It had not yet voted. It looks like the CO was avoiding having to make a data-based argument and conduct a campaign to win faculty’s hearts and minds.

That is too bad. There is research to justify the change.14 CSU must have supportive data, although the CSU Outcomes Report in 2016 did not make this recommendation.15 Nor did the “Quantitative Reasoning Task Force.”16 And you cannot get “there” from any of the reports on Early Start.17 The CO has not shown that its solution is proportional to the problem.

What is the alleged problem?

The problem with the current approach to remediation seems to be that it does not eliminate “equity gaps.”18 It delays the graduation and, in many cases, discourages the continuation of the very students that the graduation rate project is supposed to help. It is not entirely clear, however, that this is the case.19 But let’s assume it is. We then must ask whether the CSU is equipped to assume accountability for ending gaps that have been caused by the preceding twelve years of education, as well as by ongoing social inequity? Can the CSU reasonably be expected to make up for gaps in a multi-leveled educational system that funds the education of a graduate student in the University of California (UC) at many times the rate that it funds a K-12 pupil in Southwest LA? Are we confident that by retailoring remediation in the extreme, we are not opening other gaps inadvertently? We do not need a full answer now. But we do need a testable theory, methodology, and evidence plan to build confidence in the proposed changes.

The CO implies that there will be committees to develop something like this (Executive Order 1110).20 But how will that be done before fall, 2018? In fact, the entire timeline is too compressed. The C0 says that “implementation” begins in 2018, with the introduction of new or modified courses.21 That ignores all the background changes that must be implemented beforehand. By my clock, we already are two years behind. If programs require something like the “Chancellor’s certificate of compliance” in 1071, the time can be much longer.

How are faculty to configure new courses before the CSU develops and publicizes new placement standards? These changes will take . . . how long? And how will these standards tie into Common Core in the schools?22 Is the California Department of Education (CDoE) on board, so that our multiple measures correspond with theirs? Do we plan to continue co- programming with K-12 in the junior and senior years? Will all this be worked out before fall, 2018? How long will these considerations take?

I am concerned particularly about the fate of the lecturers, who work so diligently in remediation/ developmental courses. When we dissolve developmental courses and attach pieces of them to credit-bearing courses that fulfill GE, we affect employment. Unless we are thoughtful (and consult with CFA, too), we might craft courses—and thereby job descriptions— that freeze out many of the lecturers inadvertently. Will entitlements be wiped out or carried over? This transition must be done carefully; it cannot be done hastily. And it must be down after we know what the curriculum changes are and, of course, sufficiently before we advertise for, (re)hire, and (re)train faculty.

How will budgets be accounted for? CSU spends over $60,000,000 on remediation.23 Do we project these funds staying in basic skills? Planners need to know before they craft a different curriculum. Are campuses prepared for the Klondike onslaught of new claim-diggers in math?

WHAT IS TO BE DONE WITH GE?
  1. The CSU should approach the revamping of GE as a massive change project.24
  2. The CO and the Academic Senate should appoint several “eminence grise” (previousfaculty trustees, retired presidents) who can serve as advisors on process.
  3. The parties should agree on a route through governance for reviewing related proposals.
  4. The CO should prepare a data-based argument; it ought to request other groups, like the Quantitative Reasoning Task Force, to present their data and reasoning.
  5. The CO should make public any outcomes projections and methodologies.
  6. The CO should explain the ties to Common Core, Smarter Balance, and the junior and senior years.
  7. The CO should consider a phase-in that begins, say, with treatments of students, as cohorts, in the junior year in high school.
  8. The CO should begin to identify labor issues and solutions.
  9. The parties must agree on a reasonable time.
  10. The CO, GEAC, and GETF must identify a logical sequence for setting entry qualifications, course perquisites and content, outcomes, and assessment as a feedback loop.
  11. At the appropriate time, before submitting proposals for review, the CO and campuses will account for existing costs and projected costs.
    Notes

1 The Redbook, https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/RedBook%20Contents.pdf.
2 In particular, see the AAUP resolution in support of faculty control of the curriculum under similar circumstances in 2013, https://www.aaup.org/resolution-support-faculty-control-curriculum-city-university-new-york.
3 See for detail How the University Works: Higher Education and the Low-Wage Nation.
4 See Human Resources for 2015 in Statistical Tables in IPEDS, https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/Statistics.aspx.
5 See Executive Orders in CSU, https://www.calstate.edu/eo/EO-1071-rev-1-20-17.html.
6 Introduction to the Classification of Educational Programs, https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cipcode/Files/Introduction_CIP2010.pdf.
7 Weick, Karl, “Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 21 (1976), 1-9.
8 See Table 28.13 on transfers in Academic Reports, Analytic Studies, CSU, http://www.calstate.edu/as/stat_reports/2016-2017/rfnse28.htm.
9 See for December, 2016, http://www.calstate.edu/acadsen/Newsletter/December_2016/resolution_summaries.shtml.
10 https://www.calstate.edu/AcadAff/codedMemos/ASA-2016-19.pdf an

11 See https://www.calstate.edu/eo/EO-1100-rev-8-23-17.html; and the Academic Senate’s resolution at http://www.calstate.edu/acadsen/Records/Resolutions/2017-2018/Documents/3304.shtml.
12 GEAC minutes, http://www.calstate.edu/app/geac/documents/2017/GEAC-March-2017-Minutes.pdf.
13 See the Coded Memorandum for May 16, 2017, http://www.calstate.edu/AcadAff/codedMemos/ASA-2017- 14.pdf. And see the Executive Order, https://www.calstate.edu/eo/EO-1100-rev-8-23-17.html.

14 For instance, see The Campaign for College Opportunity at http://collegecampaign.org/remedial-education- redesign/ ; and Carnegie Math Pathways, https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/in-action/carnegie-math- pathways/. See, too, Gleason, Barbara, “Remediation Phase-Out at CUNY: The ‘Equity versus Excellence’ Controversy,” College Composition and Communication, Vol. 51, #3 (February, 2000), 488-91.

15 See, for example, the regressions in CSU Outcomes Report (2016), 28ff, http://asd.calstate.edu/doc/CSU- Undergraduate-Outcomes-Report_FINAL.pdf.
16 http://www.calstate.edu/acadsen/Records/Resolutions/2016-2017/documents/3265.shtml.
17 http://www.calstate.edu/acadaff/earlystart/index.shtml.

18 See the Coded Memorandum, May 16, http://asd.calstate.edu/doc/CSU-Undergraduate-Outcomes- Report_FINAL.pdf.
19 The CSU Outcome Report, 11-13, shows similar graduation rates for black and white students who enter CSUN, needing remediation.
20 https://www.calstate.edu/eo/EO-1110.html.
21 See previous reference to Executive Order 1110.
22 http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/.
23 Derived from “Overview of Remediation at the States’ Higher Education Segments,” (Sacramento, CA: Legislative Analyst’s Office, March 1, 2017), 6, http://www.lao.ca.gov/handouts/education/2017/Overview-Remedial- Education-State-Public-Higher-Education-Segments-030117.pdf.
24 See, for instance, Kotter, John P., Leading Change (Cambridge: Harvard Business School, 2002).

More articles on developmental ed/ remediation

 

For a slight change of pace, these concern some of the issues surrounding EO1110:

Improving the Quality of Education
Derek Bok (Inside Higher Ed)
By concentrating so heavily on graduation rates and attainment levels, policy makers are ignoring danger signs that the amount that students learn in college may have declined over the past few decades and could well continue to do so in the years to come.

Cal State is doing students no favors by getting rid of remedial math and English
Reader letters (L.A. Times)
Being placed in a remedial class should not be seen as a delay to graduation but rather an opportunity to learn and grow. Why the rush to graduate?

Here’s an interview with Senior Strategist James T. Minor: https://evolllution.com/attracting-students/accessibility/moving-away-from-non-credit-developmental-education-to-support-student-retention-and-success/

ASCSU Chair Miller at the BOT

 

Here’s the video of ASCSU Chair Miller’s presentation to the Board of Trustees this week. She does a great job of communicating the ASCSU’s views on EO1100 and EO1110.

[I’m having trouble getting the video to start at the right spot. Her report is at 01:06]

 

 

Here is a slightly modified version (to fit without the visuals) of her remarks: ASCSU Chair’s Report to Board September 2017

EO1100 resolutions media coverage

Here’s an article in the LA Times discussing the Statewide Academic Senate resolution (AS-3304) which calls for EO1100 (revised) and EO 1110 to be put in abeyance and the implementation deadline be extended to Fall 2019:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-cal-state-trustees-meeting-20170919-story.html

Here’s another article in EdSource:

https://edsource.org/2017/csu-faculty-rebel-against-changes-in-remedial-and-math-education-calls-for-delay/587650

I’m glad that the LA Times article picked up on this part

That fact that administrators were moving so fast, the resolution said, suggested that they are “more attuned to the pressures of outside forces than to the needs of its students and continuing faculty efforts to meet those needs.”

That’s the real issue with all this. Well-meaning state officials pressure the Chancellor’s Office. They could politely respond

We trust our campus faculty to design curricula which meet the needs of local employers and reflect the campus and community’s values and needs. California is a big state; artificial uniformity is superficially attractive but risks lasting harm to the state and its workforce.

But instead they make broad and sweeping changes to the entire system in order to demonstrate good faith progress on these officials’ well-meaning, but naive priorities.

That’s the calculus we must find a way to change.

Trustee Stepanek’s request to the BOT re EO1100 and EO1110

At the beginning of a Board of Trustees (BOT) standing committee session Faculty Trustee Stepanek (and CSUN Professor) made the following statement:

Faculty and campuses have been expressing concerns about the impact of EO 1110 and revised EO 1100 on their academic programs and courses. If you are not aware, EO 1110 pertains to changes in developmental programs for math and English, and the revised EO 1100 was intended to provide clarification of the parameters of General Education but has resulted in the need for significant changes to general education on some campuses without sufficient time for appropriate academic review. Both of these executive orders are closely tied to Graduation Initiative 2025 and also have connections to language in the 2017-2018 State Budget Act requiring the CSU Board to adopt several specific academic policy changes by May 1st, 2018.

I am requesting that an informational discussion be agenda-ized for the November 2017 meeting of the Committee on Educational Policy regarding the intent and impact of these executive orders and other activities being considered that relate to the policy changes the Board must approve by state statute by May 1st.

In the packet you received as part of Wednesday’s ASCSU report is an ASCSU resolution passed last week summarizing the concerns of CSU faculty and campuses regarding EO 1110 and the revised 1100. I highly recommend you read through this resolution.

As a bit of context, the BOT cannot discuss issues which weren’t on the publicly announced agenda. His statement should ensure that the discussion occurs at the November BOT meeting.

Statewide Academic Senate resolution on EO1100 and EO11100

At last week’s plenary, the ASCSU passed the following resolution.

On the Development and Implementation of Executive Orders 1100 (Revised) and 1110

AS-3304-17/FGA/AA/APEP


RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University (ASCSU) object to the severely time-constrained and flawed shared governance process and consultation surrounding Executive Order 1100 (revised) and Executive Order (EO) 1110 and insist that the practice of joint decision-making mandated in HEERA be respected and adhered to; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the ASCSU urge Chancellor White to immediately put EO 1100 (Revised) and EO 1110 into abeyance and defer their implementation date to, at earliest, Fall 2019; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the ASCSU request that, before any future implementation, the Chancellor’s Office engage in data-driven and genuine consultation with faculty, with the goals of refining both EO 1100 (revised) and EO 1110 and then implementing them on a mutually agreed upon timeline; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the ASCSU request that the Chancellor’s Office work with the campuses to develop an analysis of the costs of wholesale modification of the General Education (GE) and academic preparation portions of the curriculum and share that analysis widely; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the requested analysis specifically focus on resource allocation mechanisms on the campuses and the potential deleterious effects on student success and programs, such as ethnic and cultural diversity studies, resulting from implementation of EO 1100 (revised) and EO 1110; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the ASCSU requests that the Chancellor’s Office ensure that the multiple measures approach called for by EO 1110 assess foundational quantitative reasoning proficiency (as outlined in the Quantitative Reasoning Task Force Report, page 17, Recommendation IIC); and be it further

RESOLVED: That the ASCSU urge Chancellor White to reinstate the recently lifted moratorium on changes in Ethnic Studies programs and departments1 until at least Fall 2019 to ensure that Ethnic Studies programs, departments, and faculty are integral to the fair and regular academic planning process of each campus; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the ASCSU request that the Chancellor’s Office collaborate with the ASCSU in developing a plan for monitoring the efficacy of the changes in General Education and academic preparation curricula, and that the details of this  plan be communicated to campus stakeholders early enough to be considered in campus curriculum planning; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the ASCSU distribute this resolution to the CSU Board of Trustees, CSU Chancellor, CSU campus Presidents, CSU campus Senate Chairs, CSU Provosts/Vice Presidents of Academic Affairs, CSU campus articulation officers, California Faculty Association (CFA), California State Student Association (CSSA), CSU Emeritus and Retired Faculty Association (ERFA), California Community College Chancellor, California Community College Academic Senate, CSU Ethnic Studies Council and Chairs, CSU Math Council, CSU English Council, and CSU World Language Council


RATIONALE: CSU faculty and campus constituents have expressed serious concerns about the adequacy of the consultation, the content, and the timeline of revised Executive Order 1100 and newly released Executive Order 1110. The two require vast curricular changes, which bring into question the need for the hasty release of these Executive Orders during the summer break, a time when only a handful of ASCSU faculty representatives were available. The insistence by the Chancellor’s Office that the CSU needed to move forward at such a pace suggests
that the administration is more attuned to the pressures of outside forces than to
the needs of its students and continuing faculty efforts to meet those needs.

When an Executive Order (EO) is issued, time is needed to understand and interpret the changes and engage in clarifying conversations. Campuses also need time to discuss changes and develop appropriate curricular and pedagogic responses. CSU faculty are experts and researchers in their fields who must be relied upon when the system contemplates major changes in curriculum design. We contend that the revision to EO 1100 and the newly released EO 1110 did not arise from the fulsome shared governance process needed to reflect faculty expertise, and therefore the Senate and the faculty it represents are compelled to reject changes in curricula that do not originate through such a fulsome process.

Changes to basic curriculum policy need thoughtful consideration informed by a nuanced understanding of the rationale and impacts of proposed changes on the quality of education that CSU campuses provide and that our students deserve. In the case of EO 1100 (revised), those impacts include the consequences of acceptance of all online courses, reciprocity of all upper division GE courses, and the implications of allowing all GE courses to be double counted (EO 1100 Section 2.2.6.1).

Further, some of the unintended consequences of a rushed and poorly designed implementation can be illustrated with Ethnic Studies courses which affect students who benefit from exposure to the diverse perspectives that these courses provide. Campuses need time and resources to determine how best to proceed without damaging these courses, the programs that offer them, and the students who benefit from exposure to the diverse perspectives that these courses provide. If these courses are overlaid on GE requirements, switching the overlay may require a new course and/or new learning outcomes and also assumes the needed expertise to teach a cultural competency course. Other content areas also need thoughtful campus attention.

Therefore, implementation of the two Executive Orders must be put into abeyance until at least Fall 2019, and a data-driven, collaborative analysis of the impacts of these Executive Orders must be undertaken in concert with ASCSU and campus senates. Such analysis should focus specifically on cost, resource allocation, and the impact on departments and programs. Moreover, specific attention should be paid to defining foundational proficiency in the use of multiple measures for assessing quantitative reasoning, and to reinstating the moratorium on changes to Ethnic Studies departments and programs. The Chancellor’s Office should partner with ASCSU to develop a plan to monitor the efficacy of changes to General Education and to academic preparation.

Approved – September 14-15, 2017

1Excerpt from letter from Chancellor White to CSU Community (https://www.calstate.edu/AcadAff/ethnicstudiesreport.pdf): “The second set of recommendations (Recommendations 10.1-10.3) focus on maintaining the moratorium that has been in place for the past 2-1/2 years with respect to changes in ethnic studies programs and departments, particularly faculty reductions. I accept the task force recommendations to maintain the moratorium during AY 2016- 17 for review, discussion and response to the report, and lift the moratorium effective July 2017. I also expect that any campus decisions regarding the status and administrative design of ethnic studies departments and programs will take the report’s contents into consideration. But the ethnic studies report should not constrain the regular academic planning process of each campus, rather it should be one factor that informs the planning.”

 

Here’s the link to the resolution itself: https://www.calstate.edu/acadsen/Records/Resolutions/2017-2018/Documents/3304.shtml

GEAC letter to Chancellor White regarding EO1100 and EO1110

The following is a letter from the Chancellor’s General Education Advisory Committee (composed of faculty and administrators from CSU and community college [CCC] campuses) to the Chancellor

Dr. Timothy P. White, Chancellor

The California State University, Office of the Chancellor
401 Golden Shore, Long Beach, CA 90802

Dear Chancellor White:

The General Education Advisory Committee (GEAC) is charged with offering you advice regarding the General Education Breadth requirements of the CSU. I write as Chair of that committee to request that implementation of Executive Orders 1100 and 1110 be delayed for at least one academic year.  This request has the unanimous support of the voting members of the committee.

At its meeting on Tuesday, September 12, 2017, the committee heard from numerous members that the time-line for implementation of these Executive Orders (EOs) is simply too short.  EO 1110 was issued on August 2 and EO 1100 was released on August 23.  That leaves only a short time for faculty to modify existing courses and programs or create new programs if implementation remains as fall, 2018.

While the specific concerns raised by GEAC members is too long to recount here, please allow me to identify some of the major issues discussed.

First, all EOs create some confusion.  Language that appears clear to those who spend their time in GE policy discussions can be confusing to campus committees and faculty.  This was evident at the GEAC meeting where many questions were raised.  Dr. Alison Wrynn, State University Associate Dean, Academic Programs, worked diligently to clarify September 18, 2017 the EOs, but the sheer number questions illustrate the difficulty of interpreting policy changes without sufficient guidance.

Second, the EOs call for the elimination of remedial mathematics.  This may be a laudable goal, but the California Community College (CCC) members of GEAC made clear that they not only had questions, but serious concerns about the ability of mathematics departments in their system to make the changes necessary to implement these new requirements by fall, 2018.  The CCC faculty first want to see what the CSU campuses choose to do, then will use that information as guidance for their own actions.  In addition, one CSU Articulation Officer stated that over half of the CSU’s Articulation Officers believe that there is not enough time to make these changes successfully on CSU campuses.  The Mathematics faculty at some CSU campuses have made the same arguments.  The was a “Mathematics Summit” last spring, and another is planned for later this fall, but the curriculum changes are due to campus committees prior to the second summit.  Finally, it is planned that CSU mathematics courses for first-time freshmen will build upon what is achieved in Early Start, but changes to Early Start will not be implemented until summer of 2019.  CSU Mathematics faculty claim it would be better to implement these simultaneously.

Third, EO 1100 specified that campuses cannot require more than 48-units (or 49 if there is a lab).  In addition, all upper division GE units must occur in Blocks B (Scientific Inquiry and Quantitative Reasoning), C (Arts & Humanities), and D (Social Sciences). Currently, many (well over half) of CSU campuses exceed the newly permissible number of units and many also have upper division units outside of Blocks B, C, and D.  Forcing CSU campuses to modify their General Education Programs to meet these two requirements has created great confusion and concern on CSU campuses.  Many of the courses currently outside of the B, C, and D blocks are offered by Ethnic and other Cultural Studies Departments. Campus faculty fear that moving these courses will endanger the programs, the faculty they employ, and most importantly, the students they serve.  Perhaps, given time, changes can be made without adversely impacting these programs, the faculty and the students, but such campus conversations require time.  The current implementation date does not permit such conversion.

I apologize for the length of this correspondence, but wish to make one final point.  GEAC did NOT call for the rescinding of the Executive Orders.  It requested that you delay their implementation.  Given time, the orders can be implemented as they are or modified through additional conversation within the shared governance processes.  No members of GEAC disputed the desirability of ensuring that GE requirements are clear and equitable to both first-year and transfer students.  Nor did the members challenge the idea that changes can facilitate graduation and help to close or eliminate the achievement gap.  Our values coincide.  We just do not want to rush these changes and make mistakes.  We want to get it right the first time.  Providing CSU and CCC faculty with at least an additional year for implementation will enable us to more successfully pursue this goal.

We believe that the Executive Orders have made it clear to internal and external audiences that the CSU is committed to changing its placement and GE requirements.  Delaying implementation will make it clear to CSU and CCC faculty that you have heard their reasoned voices.  We hope that you agree.

Respectfully submitted,

Kevin Baaske, Chair
General Education Advisory Committee
Member, Academic Senate California State University
Faculty, California State University Los Angeles

September BOT

As if there wasn’t enough going on, the Board of Trustees is meeting September 19-20.

A link to livestream the meeting will appear here: https://www2.calstate.edu/csu-system/board-of-trustees

The ASCSU Chair will present the resolutions on recent executive orders during her address. I will update this post if I get advance notice of the time (the BOT schedule is pretty fluid so it’s hard to guess in advance).

The Chancellor’s Office view on compliance with executive orders

At the last ASCSU plenary, I asked Executive Vice Chancellor Blanchard* what would happen if a campus refused to comply with an executive order so that I could respond accurately if am asked during Senate deliberations.

Here is the email he sent to the ASCSU in response. Obviously, caveat lector:

Decisions regarding curricula and required general education courses are specifically excluded from the scope of representation under HEERA, so implementing a change to general education requirements does not give CFA standing to claim a violation of the collective bargaining agreement. The Board of Trustees maintains the power to establish curricula, and may authorize a campus to establish curricula (Ed. Code 40100). The Board has delegated to the Chancellor the authority to establish and oversee all academic programs and issue degrees (BOT Standing Orders). Although we frequently consult with the Academic Senate CSU and the campuses on curriculum issues, there is no requirement to obtain the approval of the Senate prior to implementing changes to general education requirements. Nevertheless, in this case, ASCSU and Academic Affairs Division agreed to the consultation process that was carried out for EO 1100.

Loren J. Blanchard, Ph.D.
Executive Vice Chancellor
Academic and Student Affairs
CSU

For context, a correspondent from the CO sets out their thinking a bit more:

Title 5 gives the Chancellor the authority to establish policy requirements, and faculty create curricula within policy framework. This is a very separate issue from our governance practices, which do involve regular consultation with the senate on ongoing issues and especially in curricular policy development. A strong relationship between Dr. Blanchard and the senate resulted in an agreed-upon consultation process this past March, which you can see in the enclosed memo [ 17-03-15 LJB to C. Miller re EO1100 Memo-1] and in the Chair’s report

In fairness to EVC Blanchard, it is true that they did engage in consultation with members of the ASCSU during the summer prior to issuing the executive orders. Here’s Chair Miller’s report which discusses this: http://www.calstate.edu/AcadSen/Records/Chairs_Reports/documents/ASCSU_Chair-Summer_2017_Report.pdf

Thus it is not fair to say that there was no consultation; the appropriate charge is that it was insufficient. Indeed, during the Plenary EVC Blanchard himself said something to the effect that the exigencies of the situation necessitated moving forward with less consultation than he would’ve liked.**

* His position is analogous to the Provost of the CSU system.

** I won’t speculate on what these perceived exigencies were since I don’t have any direct evidence to proffer.

Teach-in on EO1100

Passing this along for those who are interested :

EXECUTIVE ORDER TEACH IN

September 19th, 2017

Aronstam Library (MZ 240) 6pm-8pm

Our goal is to discuss the Executive Order 1100/1110 and their implications for CSUN Students, Faculty, and CSUs. To commit to a strategy for the September 28th Faculty Senate meeting and how to further mobilize this issue.

Here’s the flyer: EO FLYER 2017

(Just so it’s clear: the Senate isn’t formally involved with this event. I’m going to try my best to attend; I encourage anyone who is interested to do the same. )

A statement on the moral status of GE Category F and the demand to discard it

The following is a statement by Dr. Brian Burkhart, Director of CSUN’s American Indian Studies program

Why is Category F so important and why is comprising with a G.E. structure sans Category F a comprising of CSUN’s values and integrity?

To understand Category F, we must understand the history and structural reality of Ethnic Studies, Gender and Women’s Studies, and Queer Studies. First, these areas of study exist because the structure of the U.S. academy is white-centric, settler colonial, patriarchal, and heteronormative. The very existence of Ethnic Studies, Gender and Women’s Studies, and Queer Studies is a daily reminder to all so-called “traditional” departments and to the institution itself of this fact, a reminder of the fact of its inadequacy to some or the fact of its properness even being called into question in the first place to others. There is a structural reality within the academy and individual institutions regardless of individual intent and understanding that wants to rid itself of these special “diversity” subjects. The push is always either toward a supposedly diverse enough future where the so-called “traditional” departments will once again be enough or a push toward a past before the academy was forced to consider the realities of white supremacy, settler coloniality, patriarchy, and heteronormativity as flaws in its structure. This reality creates a certain kind of continual struggle against the academy and even the individual institution of higher learner for every Ethnic Studies, Gender and Women’s Studies, and Queer Studies department, a struggle that has no end except in the eradication of this departments all together.

This is why these department were always born out of struggle. In the 1960s there were some Native scholars trying to make it in the academy. They spoke as loudly as they could in their Anthropology departments that Native people were human beings and should not be study as artifacts, as bones on a laboratory table. They spoke as loudly as they could in their History departments that Native people were human beings and should be able to tell their stories with their own voices. No one listened! And they had no real power in the structure of the academy that did not want its intentions and values questioned. Native people just like everyone else in Ethnic Studies, Gender and Women’s Studies, and Queer Studies had to take to the streets. They occupied Alcatraz, The Bureau of Indian Affairs, Wounded Knee. They put their lives on the line, where people bleed, died, and spent life in prison. What they were asking and American Indian Studies continues to ask is simple. We want to be treated as human beings. We no longer want to be treated as objects of study, as artifacts. We want our ancestors remains kept off the laboratory tables. We want to be able to tell our own story, to speak about our history and values with our own voice. American Indian Studies (just like every other Ethnic Studies, Gender and Women’s Studies, and Queer Studies) helps us to move this request forward. It pushes open a space where we have the freedom to create our own curriculum in relation to our communities, values, and histories.

Category F at CSUN was created with a clear understanding of this history. Ethnic Studies, Gender and Women’s Studies, and Queer Studies must be free to create their own curriculum within the G.E. in the relation to the so-called “traditional” disciplines. Ethnic Studies, Gender and Women’s Studies, and Queer Studies must have the power of being on an equal level with so-called “traditional” A-D departments in the G.E. Category F was created at CSUN with a clear understanding of the history and continual struggle of Ethnic Studies, Gender and Women’s Studies, and Queer Studies within an academy and institution that is structural antagonistic to those programs and their very purpose, which is to upset and even possibly change the narratives of the so-called “traditional” departments. Any capitulation to the removal of Category F from CSUN’s G.E. is a comprise of CSUN’s integrity. For CSUN to say that we will bring Ethnic Studies, Gender and Women’s Studies, and Queer Studies on to an equal line with so-called “traditional” A-D departments in the G.E. was an expression of moral courage. To say now that we are willing to comprise that decision and once again bring Ethnic Studies, Gender and Women’s Studies, and Queer Studies under the so-called “traditional” A-D departments at the request of the Chancellor will be an act of moral cowardice. We have to have the strength and courage to stand behind important and deeply moral decisions that we have made. I believe that the decision to create Category F was one of those absolutely important and deeply moral decisions that CSUN made with a clear understanding of what that decision meant. Now is not the time to lose our courage and conviction. Please stand against any compromise of the value of Category F in the light of how absolutely important it is a marker of what CSUN has been able to accomplish in creating real structural and intellectual change in General Education at a University

Brian Burkhart
Director/Associate Professor
American Indian Studies
California State University, Northridge

Statement on EO1100 by the Chairs and Coordinators in Africana Studies, American Indian Studies, Asian American Studies, Central American Studies, Chicana/o Studies, and Gender and Women’s Studies

Statement on the Revised Executive Order 1100

The Department Chairs and Coordinators of Africana Studies, American Indian Studies, Asian American Studies, Central American Studies, Chicano/a Studies, and Gender and Women’s Studies at California State University, Northridge (CSUN) emphatically reject the revision of the Executive Order 1100 (EO 1100), which was released by the California State University Chancellor’s Office (CO) Wednesday, August 23, 2017.

EO 1100 eviscerates CSUN’s unique and exemplary Section F “Comparative Cultural Studies/Gender, Race, Class, and Ethnicity Studies, and Foreign Languages,” denying CSUN students an education based on cultural competency and respect for diversity. It flagrantly undermines the autonomy of CSUN’s Faculty Governance and demonstrates disdain toward the democratic consultation processes, as well as contempt towards our Departments and Programs that are deeply affected by EO 1100. The rationale provided by the CO was General Education (GE) consistency across the CSU system and CSU portability to respond to the alleged high transfer rates of students within the CSU system. No hard evidence was presented that such high rates of transfer exist making EO 1100 drastic and unjustifiable.

We collectively resist and reject this violation of Faculty Consultation and Governance. These proposed changes reinforce the already profound divisions that exist in our society. Whereas K- 12 education recognizes a need for “cultural competency” amongst its students and moves to implement “diversity requirements” (AB 2016 Ethnic Studies in 2016; FAIR Education Act in 2012), and whereas other CSU and UC campuses are also considering adopting similar requirements for taking critical race/ethnicity/gender/sexuality/deaf/disability studies courses, the CO moves us backward. EO 1100 also contradicts the findings of the CSU Task Force on the Advancement of Ethnic Studies (2016) that recommends to Chancellor White:

  • Establish a system wide GE requirement in Ethnic Studies (which includes Gender and Women Studies and Queer/LGBT Studies), to better prepare students as democratic global citizens.
  • “Aid in fostering and creating a climate conducive to reaffirming ethnic studies’ central role in diversity and equity initiatives as they relate to people of color.”
  • Build on and expand best practices by providing and supporting appropriate resources, policies and programmatic initiatives.
  • “Maintain the moratorium on any negative changes to ethnic studies departments and programs during the period of review, discussion and response to this report.”

More blatantly, EO 1100 thwarts the CSU 2025 graduation initiative. The graduation initiative’s data demonstrates that student graduation rates are higher when students feel a sense of belonging, and when the classes being offered reflect their own personal experiences and histories. EO 1100 undermines all the current efforts being implemented on our campus to achieve higher graduation rates. While the administration on the CSUN campus has negotiated with the CO, without the participation of faculty, a mechanism whereby we shift all the Section F requirements (138 courses) to Sections C or D, we are not persuaded by this concession because it still will have negative effects on our departments.

Given our current social and political climate and the demographics of California, we need to continue to resist attacks on historically excluded peoples on the basis of race, gender, sex, and sexuality, and to support departments and programs that protect and empower our communities.

We choose to fight to maintain Section F of the GE Requirements because CSUN’s Section F Requirement recognizes and makes visible and tangible the interdisciplinary character of our academic fields, as well as its indispensable contribution to a democratic and culturally diverse society. Section F makes CSUN a leader in diversity and social justice issues at a time when ethical and critical thinking is most desperately needed.

  • We demand the repeal of the revised EO 1100, dated August 23, 2017, to prevent unnecessary harm to our students, departments and programs.
  • We demand the implementation of recommendations made by the CSU Task Force on the Advancement of Ethnic Studies (Crucially, the GE diversity requirements that can be taken in ethnic studies, gender and women’s studies, LGBTQI+ studies, deaf studies, and disability studies), and the adherence, and continuation of the moratorium that protects us from harmful policies.
  • We demand that the cost/benefit analysis that was used to rationalize the revised EO 1100 be transparent and made public.
  • We demand that CSUN’s GE Requirements, Section F remain intact and become the model for the rest of the CSU System.
  • We demand that the College of Humanities and the College of Social Behavioral Sciences defend our departments and programs in our efforts to keep Section F intact.
  • We demand from the President and the Provost of CSUN to stand behind us and be consistent with the Mission, Values and Vision of CSUN, and to keep Section F intact.
  • We invite others to join us in the fight against this revised EO 1100.

The Original Co-Authors:

  • Africana Studies Department Chair Theresa White, Ph.D.
  • American Indian Studies Coordinator Brian Burkhart, Ph.D.
  • Asian American Studies Department Chair Gina Masequesmay, Ph.D.

The Co-Signers:

  • Central American Studies Department Chair Douglas Carranza, Ph.D.
  • Chicano Studies Department Chair Gabriel Gutierrez, Ph.D.
  • Gender and Women’s Studies Department Chair Breny Mendoza, Ph.D.
  • Kathryn Sorrells, Ph.D., Communications Studies Department Chair
  • Vicky Jensen, Ph.D., Criminology and Justice Studies Department Acting Chair
  • Flavia S. Fleischer, Ph.D., Deaf Studies Department Chair
  • Kent Baxter, Ph.D., English Department Chair
  • Susan Fitzpatrick Behrens, Ph.D., History Department Chair
  • Jane Bayes, Ph.D., Institute of Gender, Globalization and Democracy Director
  • Jody Myers, Ph.D., Jewish Studies Program Director
  • Ranita Chatterjee, Ph.D., Liberal Studies Director
  • Nayereh Tohidi, Ph.D., Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies Director
  • Tim Black, Ph.D., Philosophy Department Chair
  • Kenneth V. Luna, Ph.D., Linguistics/TESL Department Chair
  • Rick Talbott, Ph.D., Religious Studies Department Chair
  • Mary-Pat Stein, Ph.D., Queer Studies Program Coordinator
  • Eli Bartle, Ph.D., Social Work Department Chair
  • Karen Morgaine, Ph.D., Sociology Department Chair

Supporters:

  • The College of Humanities Academic Council

Here it is in pdf form: ES&GWS StatementSept16

Chicana/o Studies statement on EO1100 and petition

The following is from Dr. Gabriel Gutiérrez, Chair of Chicana/o studies

It has become evident that each CSU campus is affected in varied ways by the recent Executive Orders (EO 1100 and EO 1110) released by the CSU Chancellor’s Office over the summer.

I am writing to ask that you 1) please share the CSUN Chicana/o Studies Department statement …with your students, staff, faculty and community members to help spread the word about the fight at CSU Northridge. The statement is also available at the following link: https://www.csun.edu/sites/default/files/CHS_EO100_Statement_Sept12-2017.pdf

I also ask that you 2) please sign and share the petition to Repeal EO 1100 as widely as possible. This petition was started by Gina Masequesmay, Chair of Asian American Studies at CSUN.

The petition to Repeal EO 1100 can be found at the following link: https://www.change.org/p/12243754/preview

Thank you once again for your solidarity. There will be more to come.

President Harrison’s statement on DACA (with resource links)

Here is President Harrison’s statement on the likely elimination of DACA. It contains several useful links to resources, FAQ’s, and policy.

To the Campus Community:

In my statement to the campus community last week, I advised that I would provide you with updates on DACA as appropriate. Today, we learned that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program will be eliminated within six months unless Congress acts to institute new legislation. I want you to know that I have joined leaders of colleges and universities across the nation in urging Congressional representatives to help forge a legislative solution that, at a minimum, sustains the existing provisions of DACA.

At CSUN, we are keenly aware and proud of the strength and resilience of our DACA and undocumented students who have found ways to achieve their educational goals in the face of unrelenting adversity. We understand that our institutional identity and vitality depend upon preserving a sense of belonging for all in our community. As I shared last week, CSUN is committed to educating, supporting and protecting all students regardless of immigration status. Today’s action does not diminish that support and commitment. Indeed, as is currently the case, qualified applicants who are undocumented will continue to be admitted to the CSU, and the provisions of AB 540 and the California Dream Act will continue to apply for all eligible students.

I want to once again share important resources. This California State University student website and Frequently Asked DACA-related Questions include vital information on financial aid, work eligibility and legal resources. CSUN has also compiled additional resources and information on this website.

Just last week we officially opened the CSUN Student Legal Support Clinic, which is located on the third floor of the Oviatt Library. In addition to other matters where students may need legal assistance, the free legal clinic is especially prepared to address the unique issues confronting undocumented students. I continue to be grateful for the powerful work being done at the CSUN Dream Center. The Center opened in 2016, and it continues to support the success of our undocumented students while providing resources that are particularly helpful during these challenging times.

I want to reiterate that we do not undertake efforts with federal immigration enforcement authorities to investigate, detain or arrest individuals for violations of federal immigration law. Please remember, any and all inquiries from federal, state or local officials received on campus regarding immigration status should be immediately referred to CSUN’s Department of Police Services (DPS) at (818) 677-2111. DPS will act as a liaison with the on-site officials and will coordinate with the CSU Office of General Counsel to provide guidance, references and resources as available. Please review the document FAQs for California State University Employees about Federal Immigration Enforcement Actions on University Property for further guidance.

Thank you to those of you who have written to me to express your support as we continue to reaffirm our unwavering commitment to maintaining an accessible, safe and welcoming institution for all. I am encouraged and inspired by the many ways you find to support all members of our Matador Family.

Sincerely,

Dianne F. Harrison, Ph.D.

President

EO1100: A perspective from Gender and Women’s Studies

 

Here’s a powerful piece from the Chair of our Department of Gender and Women’s Studies.

EO 1100 and the Downfall of CSUN Faculty

By Breny Mendoza, Ph.D., Chair of the Department of Gender & Women’s Studies

The stunning announcement of the Executive Order 1100 just two days before classes started which mutilated Comparative Cultural Studies GE requirements at CSUN with absolutely no faculty consultation revealed at least three sets of issues: 1) faculty governance is dead, faculty disenfranchisement has come full-circle and administrator rule is modeled after authoritarian forms of government 2) ethnic studies and gender & women’s studies departments can disappear with just a stroke of a pen at the whim of administrators with flawed conceptions of the humanities and are negotiable in exchange for a few concessions 3) faculty acquiescence and fatigue are part of the problem.

None of these revelations should come as a surprise. The US American university has been undergoing deep transformations since the late 70s which is when neoliberalism began its march through the institutions. By now dozens of books have been written about the privatization and corporatization of the university. Private and public universities all have come under the aegis of administrators and staffers that have no respect or understand the value of research and education. They serve only the interests of trustees, presidents, provosts, and deans. Most of us are aware that there is such a thing as administrator bloat in our universities. They by far outnumber and outearn the faculty now. A new report shows that the CSU system has hired administrators at twice the rate of faculty. Contingency faculty or so-called part-time faculty (an ironic name to call faculty who are teaching at least 5 courses a semester to stay afloat) now compose 75% of the faculty at US American universities. Many of them are on welfare. There should be no doubt in our minds that the profession has lost its power and prestige. It is at the verge of extinction and losing its last vestiges of dignity.

The degradation of the faculty at a so-called Hispanic-serving institution like CSUN and the evisceration of its ethnic studies and gender & women’s studies departments has its own particularities. Their students belong to the most marginalized sectors of US society and many of their faculty share their status. Disenfranchising faculty that are already socially disenfranchised because they belong to the wrong gender, race, ethnicity, national origin or perhaps are not even US citizens is a no-brainer. Dumbing down the mission of the Hispanic-serving university and the mission of these disciplines comes easy to administrators that have never understood the purpose of gender and women’s departments and ethnic studies nor have held high expectations of the students they serve nor the faculty they hire.

The purpose of EO 1100 was never to improve the undergraduate education of underserved students by enlarging the number and variety of courses that can address emerging fields and new concepts in the humanities that can make a difference in their lives. Curricular needs are largely unknown to administrators, boards of trustees and legislators. EO 1100 is a top-down intervention that with surgical precision removes the most important advances in the humanities and the social sciences from the curriculum. Portability of GE courses across campuses is a pretext of administrators to gain even more control of the curriculum. They are not interested in curriculum content (how can they?), they are only interested in bringing the numbers down, not of their salaries, but of the number of students that are unable to graduate because of the especially difficult circumstances in which they acquire a degree. The goal is a profound reorganization of the CSU that begins with the drastic reduction of the number of students, faculty and the debasement of academic life. Under the cover of student success, a complete reorganization of the GE requirements is now being imposed on the faculty that never had a say in it. An already embattled faculty with an excessive work load now have with lightning speed to comply with a GE reform that is against the interests of their departments and their students.

The combination of decades of erosion of faculty governance, the social fascism that neoliberalism has produced and the rise of an authoritarian regime based on an ideology of white male supremacy conspire against a revolt of the faculty. For too long faculty have been spectators of their own demise. Today we either dig in our heels or dig our own graves. What shall we choose? Wake up CSUN!

EO1100: Justifying a rushed timeline

If ‘favorite’ meant ‘most enraging’, I’d be torn, but probably vote for #2 in the FAQ’s distributed with EO1100 as my favorite frequently asked question.

Q: Can we delay implementation until fall 2019 to give us more time for the curricular changes we need to carry out?

A: It would be difficult to justify delaying the benefits afforded by these policy changes, which increase opportunities for student success and facilitate efficient degree completion. Student- supportive policy changes include:

  •  Intermediate Algebra is no longer required as the uniform prerequisite for all courses in CSU General Education Breadth Area B4 Mathematics/Quantitative Reasoning.
  • Approved GE Area B4 courses may now include non-algebra intensive courses such as game theory, statistics pathways, statistics for majors, computer science and personal finance, for example.
  • Major courses and campus-wide required courses that are approved for GE credit shall also fulfill (double count for) the GE requirement.
  • To facilitate efficient degree completion systemwide, 48 semester units1 is set as both the minimum and maximum for total GE units. Stand-alone one-unit GE laboratory courses may increase the maximum to 49 units. (See question #17);
  • To ensure efficient completion of lower-division certification and transfer from CCC campuses, coupled with efficient degree completion at the CSU, this policy clarifies that the nine units of upper-division GE courses are taught only in Areas B, C and D.

Maybe “it would be difficult to justify” just leaves some wiggle room for the Chancellor’s Office to magnanimously grant more time down the road after it’s clear that campuses have dropped all their current student success initiatives and other priorities to focus on curriculum.

But that wouldn’t be the, ahem, bold and audacious leadership we’ve come to expect. Thus I’m reading this literally: The folks behind EO1100 genuinely struggled but could not come up with a justification. Despite their best efforts, the benefits just…seemed…too….great.

Fortunately, I teach ethics and value theory. The structure of these kinds of justification is right up my alley. So, I’m happy to help:

To justify an action based on its consequences, one needs to look at both the expected harms* and expected benefits. It is indeed difficult to justify anything if one only tots up the expected benefits.

Oh, and remember, we are talking about the imposed timeline. In this instance, it is not the changes that you need to justify, it’s the speed with which they are made. Sloppy, rushed curricular processes can lead to patchy or incoherent curriculum. That’s bad in itself. It’s particularly bad when accredited programs depend on GE to cover certain content.

See how useful consultation is? If anyone at the CO would like to share the models and projections they used to make this decision, I can be even more helpful….

In fact, here’s a bonus pro-tip: efficiency is a property of systems. Individuals can benefit from efficient systems. But switching back and forth between the two sorts of values in justification is a recipe for moral travesty.**

* Note that in this value system, students are harmed by learning things that aren’t required by the curriculum.

** See Part IV of Derek Parfit’s Reasons and Persons, or at least some of the explainers on Repugnant Conclusion, the Mere Addition Paradox, and, IIRC, Hell III.