THIS STATEMENT BY TERRY JONES, STATE PRESIDENT OF CFA, IS A CLEAR AND VALUABLE REJOINDER TO THOSE WHO MIGHT SEE CFA'S CONCERNS ABOUT CETI AS ANTI-TECHNOLOGY. CFA IS NO MORE ANTI-TECHNOLOGY THAN OUR OWN ACADEMIC SENATE, THE CSU ACADEMIC SENATE AND ABOUT SIX OTHER ACADEMIC SENATES AROUND THE SYSTEM.--- Warren Kessler, President, Fresno State CFA Chapter
I am being bombarded with E-mail message and
telephone calls castigating CFA for our
"anti-technology" position and for our hostile "us
against them" attitude toward the CSU administration. My
first reaction is to disregard the callers as people who just do
not understand the situation in which we find ourselves. However,
on further reflection I realize that, if some of our collegues
believe a situation is real and behave as if it is real, it
becomes real in its consequences. With this in mind, I believe
that it is important that we stop and make CFA's position on
technology perfectly clear, pending action by the Board of
Directors.
The California Faculty Association and its members are not anti-
technology or anti-CETI, we are pro-faculty, pro-students, and
pro-learning. We are also pro technology, as long as it's done
right.
Most importantly, we believe that the faculty is the heart and
soul of the university and, therefore, should be integrally
involved in all decisions impacting teaching, learning, and
support for teaching and learning in the university. Furthermore,
we believe that it is not unreasonable to expect that the faculty
be adequately consulted in any and all decisions that could
potentially have impact on the terms and conditions of our work,
e.g., teaching, learning, and research in the university. A
"heads up" on a major move such as CETI/SIP should not
have been to much to expect from a responsible and trustworthy
administration.
For whatever reason, CSU administrators chose to keep CFA in the
dark as they launched the CETI/ SIP initiative. When we
vigorously protested the process and procedure, we were branded
as anti-technology and anti-CETI/SIP. These accusations are
patently untrue and unjust, and we believe deliberate attempts to
shift the focus away from the wrongs of an administration that
may be out of control and onto a union attempting to get answers
to some tough and possibly embarrassing questions.
For example, why wasn't CFA given some early notice about
CETI/SIP and the possibility that there could be some "terms
and conditions of employment" isues to be addressed? More
importantly, and much bigger than a labor-management issue, is
the question of what potential impact does entering into a
relationship with corporations like Microsoft anf Fujitsu have on
access for low income and minority students? Is involvement in a
CETI/SIP partnership a move toward privatizing the univerity?
When and how should the public be involved in such a major
decision as privatization and CETI/SIP? If we were to be
successful in getting private enterprise to fund our
technological needs, what impact might this have on our need for
public funding in other area? In otherwords, might legislators
reduce public support for higher education in direct proportion
to the amount allocated by private sources? How might our private
ventures with CETI/SIP relate to the UC and the commuity colleges
demands for public funding? Is CETI/SIP the "camel's nose
under the tent" in terms of privatizing the university and
driving the cost of a college education beyond the means of low
income and minority students? These, and other questions are in
need of firm answers before CFA can come anywhere close to
endorsing CETI/SIP.
However, as tough a these quetions may be, they in no way imply
that CFA or its leadership is anti- technology or anti-CETI. To
the contrary, these questions are what a responsible organization
such as CFA, concerned about its membership and the quality of
higher education, is compelled to ask.
No, CFA is not anti-technology or anti-CETI/SIP. It is, however,
concerned about what could be an attempt to change the
fundamental nature of public higher education. We believe that
any attempt to privatize or change the potential for access to
public higher education for any segment of the California public
is a decision that should rest with the public and not a few
isolated bureaucrats in Long Beach. If this makes us
anti-technology or anti-CETI/SIP in the eyse of some, then so be
it.
However, we believe it is our responsibility to get answer to
these tough questions before moving ahead. We know that funding
for higher education is problematic, but we also know that we
should not panic and "sell our souls to the company
store." Now is a time to consider rationally our options,
not to panic. Now is the time to include CFA, not exclude it. Now
is the time to determine what role technolgy should play in
higher education, not to foist it on us as the "be-all and
end-all to our economic problems." Now is the time to search
for meaningful way to involve the private sector in higher
education, not to turn over control of the ship to it.
Given the emotional tenor of the times surrounding CETI/SIP, I
call on you to be careful as to how you engage in discussions
about this topic. I know I should not have to ask this of you
and, I know that it might do no good whatsoever. However, I do
not want to give anyone the excuse to brand CFA as
anti-technology or anti CETI/SIP. We know that technology has a
role in higher education and that we are vigorouly working to
determine that role. Furthermore, we believe that there is a role
for the private sector in higher education and, we welcome the
opportunity to work with univerity administrators, private sector
representatives, students, and community leaders to determine
that role.
I hope you will join me in setting the record straight, CFA is
not, has never been, and probably never will be anti-technology
or anti-private sector involvement in higher education. CFA is
for high quality, affordable higher education for all who qualify
or are qualifiable for admission to our campuses.
Keep the Faith,
Terry Jones