SUNY has long been one of the best and most affordable systems of public higher education in the country. In the midst of a deepening NY state fiscal crisis, Governor Paterson has proposed a new bill—the “Public Higher Education Empowerment and Innovation Act,” or PHEEIA—that would ostensibly revitalize SUNY, allowing for hundreds of new faculty in the next decade.

PHEEIA in fact contains one or two potentially positive aspects, such as guaranteeing that tuition revenue would stay within the SUNY system. But rather than promoting a meaningful debate within the SUNY community and then passing the good aspects as piecemeal legislation, which could easily be done, the Governor and SUNY administrators are trying to shove a bundle of major reforms down our throats all at once. The core reforms are highly problematic. First, the promised extra revenue would come from perpetual tuition hikes of at least 6-10 percent each year, even higher tuition rates for certain campuses and certain majors, and ambiguous “public-private partnerships” involving private corporations. Second, the bill would all but eliminate legislative oversight and place the power to set tuition and make other crucial decisions in the hands of the SUNY Board of Trustees, a body that is appointed by the governor, composed largely of business executives, and completely unaccountable to SUNY students. Most importantly, the bill would open the door to the further privatization of the SUNY system by shifting more of the burden for sustaining SUNY onto students, and further relieving the state government and its wealthiest taxpayers of their obligation to fund public education. Instead of taxing the wealthy to save SUNY, the bill would essentially tax students and parents. (Historically, tuition hikes have roughly coincided with reductions in state funding for SUNY: the state has slashed SUNY’s budget repeatedly in recent years, and the percentage of the SUNY budget provided by the state has declined from 75 percent in 1990 to just 51 percent a few years ago.)

President Stanley, Chancellor Zimpher, and Provost Kaler have all been lobbying tirelessly in support of PHEEIA. The leadership boards of the Undergraduate Student Government and the Graduate Student Organization have compliantly parroted the administration’s misleading rhetoric about the bill, despite not having polled their constituencies in any meaningful way.

What about Stony Brook professors? Where do they stand? Several were quoted in the March 10 issue of the Press, in which journalist Najib Aminy had asked them to comment on the March 3 rally of several hundred Stony Brook students against impending state budget cuts, tuition hikes and the fact that the administration had been lobbying for PHEEIA without consulting students. Arie Perliger, Visiting Professor in Political Science and History, gave the following smug assessment: “These are students who protested because they are concerned about their pockets; it’s not about the violation of civil rights, human rights or any political evil…They don’t want to have to pay for these changes in the educational system.” Apparently for Perliger, the desire to maintain access to quality, affordable education immediately invalidates the protesters. Because the protesters are supposedly driven not by any noble ideals of “human rights” but instead by base and despicable self interest, they merit nothing but scorn. One of Perliger’s colleagues, Professor Albert Cover of the Political Science department, likewise suggested that since tuition hikes are not “a matter of life and death,” they are essentially a trivial issue.

We got your solidarity right here, Perliger! — Photo by Najib Aminy

Perliger teaches in the History department, so perhaps what is most surprising is his fundamental misunderstanding or distortion of past struggles for “civil rights” and “human rights,” whose participants were driven not just by noble ideals but also by their own self-interest. Also surprising is Perliger’s dismissive sneer about how “few students” participated in the March 3 rally as he “compared the couple hundred students who came out to the more than 20,000 students at Stony Brook.” As Perliger the historian must know, all movements start small and must overcome the barriers of inertia, disinformation, and widespread feelings of futility—barriers which Perliger’s comments seem intended to reinforce.

Perliger’s arrogant statements also distort the motives of Stony Brook students, many of whom believe that their struggle is about the “human right” to education. In this regard the students’ perspective coincides with that of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26 of which declares that “higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit [i.e., not income or wealth].” But apparently in his lifelong study of history Perliger has never stumbled upon one of the foundational documents in twentieth-century human rights discourse and practice.

Professor Cover likewise dismissed the protesters as stingy for not resigning themselves to what he called “marginal tuition hikes.” Now, the definition of “marginal” is bound to be subjective, but most working-class and middle-class students would agree that a 6 to 10 percent increase in tuition each year—meaning that tuition will double within 7 to 12 years—is not marginal. Cover, with his comfortable annual salary of nearly $72,000, according to figures from 2007, evidently has a different view. That view coincides with the view of the Stony Brook administration, the SUNY Board of Trustees and wealthy taxpayers and large corporations in New York who want to shift the burden of paying for SUNY even further onto students and parents.

Are Perliger and Cover representative of the faculty as a whole? Unfortunately some signs suggest that they are. Although the leadership of the faculty union, UUP, has presented well-researched critiques of PHEEIA, many professors seem to agree with Perliger and Cover. The Executive Committee of the University Senate, which is composed mostly of professors, just passed a resolution strongly supporting PHEEIA. At the very end of the resolution were just three suggestions about how “PHEEIA could be improved”; the primary suggestion—to include a provision in the law to “insure [sic] that the State of New York will not use the revenue stream generated by the tuition increases to reduce the State’s funding of SUNY by a comparable amount”—is naïve and completely toothless, and was probably only included to placate critics of SUNY’s privatization. Since the Governor’s proposed budget was released in January, neither the University Senate nor the Stony Brook administration has done much of anything beyond issuing token denunciations to fight the proposed cuts of $118 million to SUNY.

Many Stony Brook professors presumably took jobs at a public university at least in part out of a moral commitment to providing quality, affordable and accessible higher education to all New Yorkers regardless of wealth or income. Their support for PHEEIA is usually couched in those same terms—“this is the only way to preserve SUNY,” etc. But it’s hard to reconcile those sentiments with the sinister realities of PHEEIA. Those who support PHEEIA’s basic provisions, while doing little or nothing to resist budget cuts, are either suffering from serious delusions about what PHEEIA is or are callously promoting a bill that would hurt the population they are supposed to be serving. An administration and faculty genuinely committed to serving SUNY students would be organizing rallies, lobbying days, and acts of civil disobedience right alongside the students who protested on March 3.

Luckily PHEEIA is expected to tank in the State Assembly, at least this year, because of legislators’ opposition and the outcry from unions and students around the state. The state budget cuts, however, will probably go through, in part because the administration and faculty have refused to lead any firm resistance to them. And PHEEIA will most certainly resurface in the future, perhaps under a new name, using current or future economic crises as a justification for sweeping changes (the current bill is in fact a rebranding of past privatization schemes that have been defeated). As the pioneer “disaster capitalist” Milton Friedman knew so well, “Only a crisis, real or perceived, produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around.” Now and in the near future, there will be two options for us all, corresponding to two competing views of what higher education should be. One says that education is a privilege, and that the state has no real responsibility to fund it; the other is the view expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and shared by most of the world’s people.

Billionaire Warren Buffet called Wall Street’s market turmoil an economic Pearl Harbor. With twenty percent of New York State’s budget cemented on the rollercoaster ups and downs of Wall Street, Dan Melucci, Stony Brook University Associate Vice President for Strategy and Analysis, has called the SUNY budget cuts “lunacy.”

Due to the Wall Street economic disaster, New York Governor David Paterson has called upon statewide agency cuts to remedy the projected loss of revenue. In early April, SUNY was cut a total of $50 million, or roughly 3%. Taking its share, Stony Brook was to cut $7.4 million from its operating budget of the fiscal 2008-2009 year. Following the April decision, a second round of cuts will be underway, of which SUNY will suffer a total of $96.3 million. At that point, SUNY would have a net cut of 146.3 million. Stony Brook University, along with the other sixty-three SUNY institutions, are still waiting for their share in the $96.3 cut. Melucci predicts that Stony Brook may be looking at a budget cut in the ballpark of $9.5 million.

About a week ago, Carl McCall, Chair of the finance and administration committee of SUNY trustees, said that SUNY will absorb anywhere from $20 to $50 million of the $96.3 million cut leaving the rest to be dispersed among campuses. However, Melucci said that he believes SUNY will take a $20 million cut leaving $70-plus million to be distributed among the campuses. 

Now with both the national and global economy taking a turn for the worst, Governor Paterson has called for the NYS legislature to convene after the upcoming elections on November 18 to discuss the financial crisis looming over the NYS’ budget and economy. It is highly anticipated that this special meeting will result in further cuts. According to Melucci, the Governor is faced with a $1.2 billion shortfall in revenue. In order to assess this financial dilemma, the Governor is looking to propose another state-agency cut to the tune of $2 billion.

In this proposed $2 billion cut, SUNY anticipates a third round of cuts as well as a possible tuition hike. Stony Brook has had only one tuition hike in the past thirteen years, which was five years ago. The latest tuition hike spiked to 28%, a number that may seem alarming to current Stony Brook students. A 28% increase of today’s tuition would result in an in-state student paying $5,568 from the original $4,350, and $13,580 from the original $10,610 for out of state.

A proposed alternative to a dramatic hike in tuition, supported by Melucci and Stony Brook distinguished Sociology professor Norman Goodman, is a rationalized tuition that increases steadily and allows students to predict how much they would have to pay for their education. Goodman, also the Vice President Secretary of the SUNY-wide Faculty Senate, is a supporter of free tuition, but deems it as “politically infeasible.” According to the 45-year Stony Brook Sociology professor, “the most intelligent and politically wise thing to do is raise tuition to a reasonable level and tie that to a commitment to a rational policy in the future.”

It seems that the question regarding the tuition hike is no longer “if” but rather “when?” “It would be crazy if it doesn’t happen,” said Goodman. Melucci, who would also be surprised if a tuition hike did not occur, is worried about students who rely on the Tuition Assistance Program (TAP). This program funds up to $5,000 for students who are the most financially needy. Melucci is worried that an unreasonable tuition hike may force students to chip in the amount of tuition not covered by TAP.

In terms of total cuts, SUNY projects to subtract a total of $210 million by the end of the year, according to SUNY spokesperson David Henehan. Under this projection, SUNY is looking to receive a $64 million cut in the November emergency meeting. According to Henehan, SUNY is looking into long-term solutions to the chronic problem of under-funding. Solutions mentioned by Henehan include the proposition of a rational tuition plan and the revision of personnel classification allowing SUNY to hire with flexibility. This would permit SUNY to lease or sell property to generate revenue, and allow SUNY to relieve its regulatory restrictions, such as pre-audit approval of contracts.

Currently advocating for additional flexibility and a tuition plan, Henehan said about SUNY, “[it] provides tremendous benefits to New York in the form of an educated citizenry, economic development, cultural enrichment and social mobility and therefore merits investment by the state.” New York State Assemblyman Michael J. Fitzpatrick (R) of Smithtown stressed the severity of the current economic crisis. “The dust has yet to settle,” Fitzpatrick said, “[this is] the end of a consumption culture and living beyond our means.” When discussing the SUNY cuts, Fitzpatrick said that higher education was of top priority, but sees the “state has been spending beyond its means for so long.” As a result, cuts across the board are going to be seen, including SUNY.

The Bundy Aid, untouched by any of the cuts, aids independent and privatized universities in New York and financially supports 105 private institutions. When asked, Fitzpatrick said that the mere pointing of fingers and questioning why one group receives more than another is expected, also stating that “private institutions are equally important as state.” Yet, Fitzpatrick mentioned numerous times, “a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.” Fitzpatrick believes that such a crisis can result in legitimate oversight and reduce unnecessary expenditure and create a successful economy in the long-term picture.

In terms of investing in higher education, the majority of State Assemblyman and Senators interviewed relayed the message that, due to troubling times, SUNY, along with all other State Agencies, are to feel some pain. State Assemblyman John McEneny (D) of Albany said that neither SUNY nor any other agency is “a sacred cow” that can be protected from cuts. When it comes to tuition, “judgment comes in a vacuum,” meaning that it would be hard to vote against a tuition hike if, alongside the bill, there is a proposition ensuring heat to a New York town over the winter, as McEneny put it.

One of the few State politicians that was clear in voicing his opposition against a proposed hike in tuition was Assemblyman Steve Englebright (D) of Port Jefferson Station. A former Stony Brook graduate himself, Assemblyman Englebright emphasized the importance of public higher education, saying “state universities should be given preferred status with cuts in other agencies.” Referring to the domino effect, Englebright explained that investing into public higher education would create a long-lasting stability and build up the economy. “[Protecting SUNY] would pull us out of the recession and give confidence back to Wall Street.” With a strong belief in preserving both TAP and the SUNY tuition, Englebright sees higher education as a platform worthy of investment and amidst these cuts sees a so-called “millionaire’s tax” as a probable solution.

Marissa Shorenstein, spokeswoman of Governor Paterson’s office, said that Governor Paterson is not looking to raise taxes, but rather to cut spending and invest wisely. Shorenstein mentioned that the November meeting was called on such a date not because of the elections but because, “it was simply the first date that made sense given all of the recent holidays, etc.” Shorenstein added, “while the Governor’s commitment to higher education remains strong, difficult choices will need to be made across state spending to protect the state’s fiscal integrity, and every area of state spending will need to find ways to operate more efficiently.”

As a result of the latest cuts, Stony Brook has recently enacted a hiring freeze. “We had to do something to slow down expenditures and to get people’s attention that this is a serious issue. It makes no sense to be hiring new people now,” said Melucci. He added, “we don’t believe the failure of the state should be put on the back of the students in large dollar amounts. I am really worried about the health, financial health of this institution.” Further cuts could result in significant and highly visible changes for both Stony Brook and SUNY students alike. According to Goodman, the number of classes would dwindle due to a decreased number in professional staff. This would mean larger class sizes, which would result in a longer time to graduate and further raise student expenses.

“When Wall Street catches a cold, the NYS budget gets pneumonia,” said Assemblyman Englebright. As a result, SUNY and its students end up being affected. An increased tuition hike can remedy only so much. With potentially more cuts on the way, it leaves administrators like Melucci crunching the remaining numbers, hoping for the best. “We run some numbers that scare the hell out of us very honestly,” said Melucci, “the numbers are so scary that they are absurd.”