Letter from the Administration About the Action Against Tuition Hikes

The informal "NOTES" are by SDS member Aldo Guerrero


 Dear [Insert Name Here]
During the course of the past year you and other members of the student body have shown an interest in University issues, and it is perfectly appropriate to seek to understand and to express views about matters that have an impact on your life. Until this last Thursday, you and a small group of others often identified as SDS, have with few exceptions expressed your views in a manner that was reasonably consistent with University policy, and the University has been accepting and accomodating *(NOTE#1) of your chosen form of expression. However, on Thursday, July 26, 2012, your actions crossed a line and were in clear violation of University policy because they disrupted an important University activity, the meeting of the Board of Trustees, and because they deprived other members of the University community of their rights.


Differences of view and expression of differing views in a University community are completely acceptable. However, it is never permissable to shout down others when they are speaking in order to prevent them from being heard because that action does not constitute the exercise of free and open expression of views, it constitutes censorship *(NOTE#2). Quite simply you do not have the right to prevent the duly elected representative of the students from performing his role in speaking as a member of the Board of Trustees *(NOTE #3), or to prevent any other member of the Board from participation in his or her responsiblities *(NOTE #4). As Winston Churchill said, "Everyone is in favor of free speech *(NOTE #5). Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage."


I encourage you to take the time to familiarize yourself with the University' "Policy and Procedures Concerning Demonstrations and Aseemblies," *(NOTE #6) and if you have any questions about that policy, you are welcome to contact the Office of the Dean of Students to discuss those questions. Please note that any further violation of the University policy will make you subject to disciplinary action.Sincerely, Karen Pennington Pc: Rose Mary Howell *(NOTE #7)


 *1 Yes, they helped us by bureacratizing the process to have the occupation, threatened us with phony security fees, gave us only half of the quad, and refuse to let students speak at BoT meetings


 *2 Because not letting students speak at BoT meetings totally constitutes "the exercise of free and open expression of views." I bet it's also not "censorship."


*3 This guy voted FOR the tuition increase and did not speak out against it.


*4 I don't quite understand how we PREVENTED anyone from participating in "his or her responsibilites." This is the third time we do such an action and they blatantly ignored us to continue their bureaucratic responsiblities. They also blocked 3 students from participating in the tuition hearings.


 *5 Here we go, administrators pretending to be EXPERTS on free speech. Do they expect us to not be "outraged" by the fact that they undemocratically raise tuition every damn year without having students voice out their concerns in every board meeting? What about raising it over a conference call last year without the full board or even the "elected" student trustees being present?


*6 Perhaps in our response, SDS should encourage them to read a book about democracy or something along the lines of "Who Rules the University." lol


 *7 Dean Howell hasn't had enough of us since the "Town Meeting" and SGA elections huh. lol

SDS Protests against Tuition Hikes

On July 26, the Board of Trustees of Montclair State University unanimously voted to raise tuition (including the so-called "elected" Student Trustee Alex Bychkov) by 3.9%... but not without a fight.


The video includes AFT Union President Richard Wolfson speaking against tuition hikes unless the administration considers "managerial cuts" in the administration aka "Chopping from the Top." This is something that SDS has been advocating the entire year in light of Susan Cole's bonus along with other perks (free housing, free car, free housekeeing, free driver, free credit card, extra compensation after her resignation etc.) The FULL contract can be found here.

SDS members along with supporters shouted "SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!" repeatedly to express their disapproval. And as is standard practice with this Board of Trustees, they completely ignored the students and continued with their bureaucratic meeting.

#M1GS - May Day 2012

By Lisa Grab

Over 100,000 were in attendance

As many of you know, yesterday was an important and historic day for workers and immigrants all over the world. 

I went into the city to represent SDS with Jordan Fullam, Tobias Fox, Jon Husarik, and Greg. Also representing SDS in various parts of the city were Esha Kallianpur, Thea Stelzle, Bob Whitney, and Justin Wooten; and SDS allies Christian McFarland and Cabo Granato.

We began our day by attending the Free University and listing to speakers about student debt and horizontal education. From there were travelled to Bryant Park and prepared for the march to Union Square. By the time of the march, the weather cleared up. We started on the sidewalks like always, but early on we took the streets. The cops tried to stop us at first, but we kept going around us. There clearly weren’t enough of them there--many were probably trying to “control” the other actions across the city--so we won the streets and stopped traffic all the way to Union Square. As usual, SDS-ers were at the front of the march. 

Jordan and I missed the Union Square demonstration and most of the march. But I was able to catch up with the front of the march to Battery Park down broadway. People on bikes and taxi’s were protesting were in front, followed by us and the rest of the march. There was tension when we reached the Wall St. intersection. One person was arrested for sitting down at the intersection. It seemed like most of the crowd was deterred from breaking through the police barrier because they had a line of horses guarding the “sacred “street. 

At the end of the march, some guy from Occupy announced that there will be an unplanned march to the “People’s Assembly” at an unknown location. So of course, we followed him. About a crowd of 100 came as the first wave of people. We began the GA talking about if anyone heard news from across the world--not something I felt like doing considering how we just conquered the streets and 1000’s more were coming, ready for direct action. And of course, no one really said anything productive and used the opportunity to make their own personal announcements. After a while I left and saw that there were at least 1000 people just waiting around. Clearly someone marched them here and they didn’t know what to do now. It would have been a perfect opportunity to take Wall St. or try to reoccupy, but the GA was too focused on something other than planning direct action. And then the crowds began to fizzle and I left disappointed. 

My reflection:

Overall the day went good. It seems like the occupiers are getting more radical with their tactics. There are more anti-police chants (ie: “NYPD, KKK - How many kids did you kill today”) and less “the police are the 99% too.” The police are not the 99%. They are Bloomburg and the 1%’s private bought off army! Also, the marches take the streets far more often then they did last fall. Action will only escalate from here.

All throughout the day, I was wishing that SDS as an organization could be more prepared for marches like this. Instead of just showing up for solidarity like we have been doing for these marches, we should show up ready to flaunt our name, network with other groups, hand out literature, start our own chants, and--most importantly--try to radicalize the action. 

With just 5 people, we can encourage others to take the streets, lead our own marches or organize direct action when there is a crowd hanging around like there was last night. People are willing to do all of the above, they just need several to take initiative and lead them. 

After we conquered the streets while marching from Bryant Park to Union Square

"Hipster Cop" came out for the festivities.

Dis-Orientation Guide

If text doesn't appear, click here

Board of Trustees Tuition Hearing - Aldo Guerrero Statement

To the Board,

            My name is Aldo Guerrero and I am a sophomore majoring in Political Science.

My decision to attend this institution was based entirely on its supposed affordability. SUPPOSED “affordability.”  Now, it is getting pretty difficult to use that as a justification for coming here.  May I remind everyone that this institution has increased tuition over 150% for over the past 10 years?  In fact, tuition overall has increased higher than the rate of inflation.  How can anyone in good conscience call that “affordable?”  Any claim that states that this institution is “affordable” has little to no legitimacy whatsoever no matter what the administration wants the students to think, no matter how much you blame the state for your own financial failings.

I can understand the frustration towards the state of New Jersey for not adequately funding higher education, particularly this institution.  But what YOU have to understand is that it is TWICE as frustrating for the student body since we have to 1) deal with a state that no longer cares about higher education AND  2) deal with an administration that advises its Board of Trustees to raise tuition every single year.  All year long, this Board manages to get away with executing the President’s expensive non-transparent and non-democratic agenda with absolutely no meaningful discussion or dialogue in the face of the public.  When this is all set and done, the students are then asked to foot the bill in the form of tuition hikes near the end of the school year.  How is any of this even fair? 

How is it fair that the students get their tuition raised, the faculty works without a contract, but the president manages to self-enrich herself with a $125,000 longevity bonus which she has outright REFUSED to give back on the grounds that she actually NEEDS this extra compensation?  I can pull up the YouTube video where she blatantly refused to donate it in any shape or form despite the fact that Rutgers President Richard McCormick has donated his bonuses.  How could the President NEED extra compensation if the President’s contract is filled with other lucrative bonuses such as a free house with a free housekeeper, a free car with a free driver, and an American Express Corporate Card all paid for with University funds which can include tuition.  In addition, she is a tenured member of the English Department when she clearly does not teach and there is a clause in her contract that entitles her to an entire year’s worth of a paid sabbatical with full presidential salary should she decide to actually teach.  Even if she decides to not teach, she is STILL entitled to a monetary performance bonus that cannot be less than her current salary ($350,000).  Clearly, she does NOT need a longevity bonus.  I don’t care if these perks are considered a standard.  How can I believe that there is a budget crisis if the President accepts gifts like these and the Board approves of them?  How can I believe that the University needs more money by raising tuition if there is obviously enough money to go around to fund these lucrative, higher privileged perks?  If tuition goes up, I really hope that my money is not being used for self-enrichment purposes.  University money should be money for education and NOT administration.

Thank You,

Aldo Guerrero

Lisa Grab -- An Open Letter to My Supporters

On Wednesday, March 28, I officially lost my bid for SGA president to George Juzdan.  This was a great disappointment for many of us who worked tirelessly throughout campaign week.  We had a vision for a new kind of student government at MSU, one that better represents the interests of students in these increasingly tough times of budget cuts and disinvestment in the common good.  Let us be honest with ourselves: the election results were a victory for the status quo – an indicator of how far we’ve yet to go in our work of bringing progress to this campus. 
 
During my campaign, I tried to get the message out to students that our campus suffers from allowing a fratocracy to dominate the student government.  Of course, I use the term “fratocracy” not as a slight to all Greek organizations.  I have been clear in my support for sororities and fraternities.  I use the term, instead, to shine a light on the fact that one fraternity dominates the SGA e-board, cabinet, and legislature; and I shall continue to use whatever tactics necessary to make apparent the obstacles this situation puts in the way of bringing about changes that our student government needs. 
 
The fact is, the current SGA monopoly – an entrenched power in our little microcosm world of campus politics – goes hand in hand with a status quo that is simply intolerable.  And make no mistake about the fact that the administration favors this monopoly.  Just look at the record of the current SGA.  What have they done to stand up to the administration, the Board of Trustees, and other authorities on issues like rising tuition and student debt, Sodexo, restrictions on free speech, or even the questionable quality of campus events?  What have they done to make our voices heard?  The current SGA’s record on these and other important issues is very poor.  It’s a do-nothing, irrelevant SGA – and the administration loves this. 
 
The circumstances of the election only make matters more disheartening for us.  On a campus of about 18,000 students, only about 25 showed up to see the official SGA debate.  I later allowed footage of my performance at the debate to be posted on YouTube to inform more students of my platform.  But by the time the video received around 300 views, the SGA elections committee notified me that I had lost all online campaigning rights as “punishment” for an action I did not commit: because one MSU professor shared the link for my video with other professors, my online campaign was formally and effectively suppressed; and I was forced to censor my personal website and delete all my campaign activity on Facebook.  In the end, less than 2,000 students voted and I received around half the votes had by the current Vice President and now President-elect of the fratocracy, George Juzdan.
 
Of course, these circumstances provide grounds for a serious challenge to the legitimacy of Juzdan’s victory and of the whole SGA.  Juzdan’s supporters also held the majority on the elections committee; and Juzdan himself even had a chance to offer input when my punishment was being decided.  However, the lack of voting participation among many students who were generally uninformed (or misinformed) about the election is even more concerning to me than these flagrant abuses of power.  So few students saw the debate, far too few voted; and Juzdan and his “bros” are still getting away with using the SGA as a tool for their personal ambition and careerism.
 
These are the facts of the battle lost; and it is important that we remember them and make them clear to inquiring minds.  But more important than that, we have to remember the progress we have made and press ahead.  When I first founded our campus’s chapter of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), it was an uphill battle just to keep a stable base of 3 or 4 members.  Not anymore.  Now we are growing everyday.  I have watched in SDS students making new and lasting friendships, even romantic relationships blooming.  Activism is simply becoming a “happening,” the first sign that it will be sustained over the long term.  And that is damn good news for MSU! 
 
We are also beginning to make connections across a variety of organizations – with political student groups like Spectrums, Femvolution, The Planet, Young Americans for Liberty, Speaking Through Silence, and more – so this is not just about me and it’s not just about SDS.  The work we do together is so important because we are providing a space for political discourse and dissent, and also because we are making that space one where we can be ourselves without having to worry about judgment.  There is a place for everyone in our ranks.  We are an open community where any and all kinds of students can find their niche and apply their talents, be respected and valued, and grow with us.  We are a movement!
 
If we take the results of the election at face value, we have to concede that the MSU community may not be ready for a politicized student government.  And they may not be ready next year or the year after that.  But when they are, we’ll be ready to unseat the fratocracy and turn the SGA into the organization we know it can be – one that is the most persistent and outspoken voice for student rights, one that helps our organizations and our movement thrive.  Let’s pledge together now to keep up our fight, to hold the SGA accountable, to be persistent in our struggles with the administration, and to finally wake up this sleeping giant that is our university!  Vive la revolution at MSU – in solidarity with the global struggle for basic justice – our own mini revolution!
 
 
Your most grateful comrade,
 
Lisa Grab

2/2/12--MSU Board of Trustees Gets Mic Checked

The Spring semester's first Board of Trustees Meeting quickly changed from boring to interesting when students from the audience yelled "mic check" and relayed a communique to the Board members.

Alan Akins, the President of SPECTRUMS--the LGBT organization at MSU-- led the speaking, as members of the audience repeated his words that exposed the undemocratic practices and greed-driven motives of the administration.

The board members completely ignored the mic check and proceeded with their meeting, although no one could hear what they were saying. About half way though the video, you can see Susan Cole pointing to the student trustee, gesturing for him to give his address and not wait for the mic check to end. By the end of the mic check, board members got up to leave the room. The student trustee approached the students and gave his support, explaining that he wanted to wait until we were finished but was pressured to continue.

The action was the result of several incidents involving the administration's disregard for students. The administration's disregard is summarized in their rules against allowing students to speak during the board meetings. Students wrote numerous letters to the board members on this issue, and they were mostly ignored. The one instance where their concerns were not ignored is when Cole wrote back to a student, dismissing her criticism as "hostile," yet ignoring her question. 

The second incident involves recent attacks against the LGBT community at MSU. Cole waited several days before making a statement of condemnation to the student body. She only did so after the incident gained attention amongst the students. Cole's actions imply that she is was more concerned about covering up the story protect the university's reputation than she was about protecting her own students. Not only did Cole wait too long to respond to the hate speech, but she also did not show up to the meeting set up by the administration to show solidarity with SPECTRUMS and the LGBT community. Cole recently hosted a meeting about vandalism in the residence halls, yet she could not make time to meet with a community of students who received death threats because of their sexuality.

Click here to open the mic check video in Youtube.

Students Denied the Right to Speak at the Board of Trustees Meetings

For Immediate Release:

Students Denied the Right to Speak at the Board of Trustees Meetings

Several members of Students for a Democratic Society—the radical activist group that brought Bill Ayers to campus last year and occupied University President Susan Cole’s office last fall--attended the Board of Trustees meetings during the fall semester to demand transparency and accountability from the administration. The Board of Trustees is an appointed decision making body at MSU.

SDS attended meeting in October with the intention of protesting a rule that denies students the right to speak. Interestingly, the student trustees approached the SDS members and assured them that they are allowed to speak at the meetings and can speak at the next meeting if they write a letter 24 hours in advance.

Although SDS was suspicious of these claims, one student—Lisa Grab--followed the student trustees’ advice and sent a letter criticizing the structure and lack dialogue at the Board meetings. Her letter was met with opposition, and she was not granted permission to speak at the next Board meeting. Student trustee, Alex Bychkov responded to Lisa:

“Jon and I made a mistake in relaying the wrong information to you, unfortunately.  And for that, on behalf of Jon and myself - I apologize.  Students are not allowed to speak during the BoT public session, unless it is a special session - i.e. the tuition hearing this past April. What you can do is send your letter to Jon and I, and we will be sure to bring up those topics in the Student Report to the Board.  Your voice can and will be heard.”

Although Alex says he will do what he can in his power to make sure the members of SDS’s voice are heard, SDS is unsure how effective this method will be.

Lisa Grab’s reaction to Alex’s response is skeptical:

“I am not criticizing the student trustees as individuals at all. They have been supportive and polite and offered their help. They made a mistake and gave SDS the wrong information, and that is not a problem. What is a problem is how the board meetings are structured so that everything passes unanimously without discussion and without the public having a clue what is going on. Yes, the student trustees might be able to mention our concerns at a meeting, but is that the same as allowing students to have their individual voices heard? Is that the same as being able to engage in dialogue with the board members? I am skeptical. Students cannot speak at these meetings, and I don’t know why. That’s a problem. Students are allowed to speak at Rutgers Board meetings.”

At the most recent BoT meeting on December 15th, the SDS sat in the first row of the University Hall Conference Center. Several of them chose to duct tape dollar bills over their mouths to symbolize how they are reduced to a source of money for the school and how their voice does not matter. In his address to the board members, AFT President Wolfson said:

“It’s nice to see members of both the faculty and the student body here tonight to observe this meeting. I say ‘observe’ because that’s all they can do … They are being denied what is, in my opinion, a basic right to be heard at a public meeting of a public university. Rutgers allows public participation, and many of the institutions in our sector allow public input. I think the time is overdue for Montclair to allow public input as well … No trustee ever asks a question in public, and there is never any dialog. There are only general, and positive, comments during the President’s report about this sports team or some new residence hall. There is no substantive information presented at these meetings.”

While SDS and the rest of the audience applauded President Wolfson, the board members sat in silence without commenting before moving on to the next item on the agenda.

The next Board of Trustee meeting is scheduled for February 2^nd at 4:30pm. As always, the location and agenda have not been announced yet. For more information, please see the BoT Correspondence.

Written by: Lisa Grab

12/15/11--AFT President Rich Wolfson's Board of Trustees Statement

It’s nice to see members of both the faculty and the student body here tonight to observe this meeting. I say “observe” because that’s all they can do. There are no procedures for anyone besides you, the trustees, to speak on an issue that may be of great importance to one or more constituencies on campus. They are being denied what is, in my opinion, a basic right to be heard at a public meeting of a public university. Rutgers allows public participation, and many of the institutions in our sector allow public input. I think the time is overdue for Montclair to allow public input as well. 

No trustee ever asks a question in public, and there is never any dialog. There are only general, and positive, comments during the President’s report about this sports team or some new residence hall. There is no substantive information presented at these meetings. It would be nice to know, for instance, when we can expect Science Hall or the Business School to be started. Or hear some comments about the fiscal health of our institution other than that the state has not fulfilled its obligations. Substance and dialog would be welcomed by everyone. 

You should know that I don’t take my contractual rights to speak on agenda items lightly, and while I appreciate your indulgence on my occasional diversion, I am well aware that I speak mostly for the members of Local 1904. But there are also other important voices to be heard here in your public session. And I’d like to note that while I get to speak, and ask questions, I rarely get answers, or even acknowledgment. For instance, I still haven’t received a copy of the audit as passed at last month’s meeting. 

But I am encouraged by what I characterize as a new awareness by our students for the social justice issues that plague our country and economy. Many of those students were at your last meeting and are again here tonight. I encourage you to talk to them when you can, and get their perspectives on issues that concern them. You’ll find it’s not only the cost of tuition that concerns them. Or the price of beer. Their issues are significant and real. 

There is another group of people here tonight worth mentioning. You are conferring tenure on 18 faculty members. Some are here to celebrate that vote. Each has undergone 5 years of intensive scrutiny. They are gifted scholars, many have significant grants, they are well published, and all are excellent teachers. They have worked hard for this richly deserved moment that will provide them with job security and protection against summary dismissal. Many of these people have opportunities outside of academia but for various reasons—and perhaps the idea of tenure is one of them—they chose the life of an academic. Tenure does not diminish the flexibility of an institution like ours. It strengthens it, allowing faculty who have demonstrated their academic abilities through rigorous review to enter into areas of inquiry that are not always popular or well-traveled, and they can do so without worrying that such a line of inquiry will cost them their jobs. Their academic agendas can be dictated by their interests rather than the flavor-of-the-month as determined by a Dean. 

You probably know that our state legislature has started a discussion about changing the tenure statutes, something Governor Christie has publicly stated is one of his goals. You all have been appointed by this governor, or a previous one, but if you get Christie’s ear, here are some of the things I’d like you to say. 

Universities are not like businesses, where the employer has a stake in the success of the business. Our administrators work for our students, just as the faculty do. Their jobs are to facilitate the academic mission, not to turn a measurable profit. 

Faculty with tenure have all gone through rigorous vetting, and this current tenure cohort has exceptional credentials. Senior administrators at our public universities undergo no such scrutiny. They get hired, some at exorbitant pay levels, and as I have pointed out here before, with no routine yearly evaluations. Are you aware that both President Cole and Provost Gingerich have tenure in academic departments? And that tenure was granted without peer review, and on an expedited time line? The conventional wisdom is that the President serves at your pleasure and the Provost at the President’s, but if you wonder why faculty should have the protection of tenure, don’t forget that our senior academic administrators are afforded the same protection, but without the rigorous review. 

Montclair State University is known for its excellent faculty. Our ability to attract the best and the brightest, hinges in part on our ability to offer the protections of tenure. Allow the State to erode tenure, and those best and brightest will consider positions at other institutions, or in private industry, where they can make more money and have increased opportunity. Tenure is not broken. There is no need to fix it. 

But if you want to know what is broken here at Montclair, allow public input at these meetings. You’ll hear a perspective that is not sanitized, and not top-down. Sure, some people might be angry, but others will tell you about some great things that are going on. Yes, your meetings will be longer. But it is the right thing to do, and doing the right thing is why you agreed to serve in the first place. 

I wish you all a very merry holiday season. I’ll see you all here again next year. I hope you’ll bring a new, more enlightened, sense of purpose.