And below, please find the official minutes from the report-backs to the larger group. I’m sure you’ll all be proud that poli sci went first, and set the tone for the meeting
Minutes:
At 8:15, after an hour of discussion in department groups, participants gathered for an inter-departmental town hall.
I. Department report-backs
Political Science:
-Major concerns: funding, space, diversity and admissions criteria related to funding.
-Proposals they’d like to see in response to the space issue:
· We should ask for more space in response to the threat of losing the basement library space. We should address our demands in their terms.
· We should appeal to the admin’s neoliberal bias by saying things like “we want people to achieve things and produce things for the university. Who will use the GC space more productively?”
· Students in the dept. are ready to take disruptive actions in relation to the impending removal of library space.
· Departments should survey their own use of space. For example, the political science dept. has an unused office, they don’t want the admin to take it away, but they could put it to better use that would serve students.
· Move the administrative offices to the basement instead of the students, or move the stacks to the basement. Or get people to telecommute to the GC.
· Demand that every level 3 student have their own work space.
· Other proposals:
· There should be no absolute limit to how many new students can start each year. Often nontraditional students achieve more than the traditional students. We should encourage nontraditional students, and be more flexible with alternative funding packages. Departments should be able to make individualized decisions about funding allotment.
Psychology:
-Two sections of discussion: things psychology students are concerned about, things they’ve already started doing about concerns.
-Psychology dept. is already undergoing its own restructuring.
-Psych students are upset about funding: unequal pay for equal work in the new fellowship system.
· Community clinic at Brooklyn College will not have enough grad student labor under the new system to accommodate its activities.
· Cutting down of number of incoming students will affect discipline diversity in the program. The perspectives that will be cut are not the core, traditional ones.
· Complaints about executive committee lack of transparency in terms of publicizing meeting agendas, etc.
· Psychology is divided across 14 subprograms (different PhD programs) that are on 7 or 8 different campuses. Communicating among students across the subdivisions is very difficult.
· Three subprograms are housed at the GC. But the computer labs at the GC are, under the new system, supposed to serve all of the subprograms.
· The reps on the psychology executive committee are currently all from one subprogram.
Theatre:
-Phrased their list as demands:
· Why can’t we move to no students paying tuition? Tuition remission and health care for all students.
· Commitment to close the workload gap and/or to ensure that GC students are the preferred candidates when Pathways class-cuts are implemented, with preferential treatment—first students without any financial aid, then students with tuition remission, and finally students who have the “old” E.O. fellowships.
· Additional supplementary money to attract students from traditionally underrepresented groups.
· If we’re supposed to finish in 5 years, we should get us funding to research (not travel, not visiting archives, money for our time like students in the sciences receive).
MALS:
-They’re trying to show solidarity with the rest of the institution.
-As masters students they get no funding, they are sometimes called the “cash cows”of the GC.
-It’s hard for MALS students to empathize, which is unfortunate because they’re the biggest group in the building. This exemplifies the administration’s “divide and conquer” strategy.
-MALS students could be included in some kind of funding package, however small.
-It would beneficial to this larger movement to include the MALS students in the restructuring conversation, in terms of their demands.
-The MALS students feel like they’re not at the GC for that long (often just two years) ands it’s sometimes hard to convince them to get involved in the larger student body’s conversations and fights.
MUSIC:
-Some music-specific concerns: Music dept. has already been scaling back enrollment, but the restructuring with further this process. The DMA program will suffer from lack of diversity of instruments. They perform a lot for free at GC events but are often not advertised.
-People from nontraditional music backgrounds will be excluded from the program under the new system. This is a serious loss.
-Some demands:
· Why can’t non-funded level 2 and 3 students get at least tuition remission and healthcare. If the admin’s really serious about time-to-degree, they should find ways to accommodate all students.
· Students have heavy student loads in the classes they teach. In Intro to Music at Hunter, for example, you teach 140 students per semester.
· They want workload reduction for current students.
Hispanic and Luso-Brazilian Literatures and Languages
· Much of the student conversation about the restructuring issues is about space.
· They requested space for a conference almost a year in advance and couldn’t get any of the priority conference rooms. They’re on C-level and in the DSC rooms for their conference. There’s speculation that other space was available but wasn’t offered because it could be used for other functions that could bring in money.
Geography:
-This department is divided into Human Geography and Earth Science.
-Has been under pressure from dean of admissions about bringing up GRE scores, about not admitting non-native English speakers.
-Space: There’s some discussion that if the student space is moved to the basement of the library, that it’ll be structured as a free-flowing space without being divided into offices.
-the Geography EO has said the dept. is in conversation about possibilities of evening out some of the fellowship inequalities, possibly by giving students 2-1 course loads (i.e. two classes in the fall, one in the spring).
Sociology
-Issue of transparency around funding and admissions. It’s unclear to the members of the student body on the admissions committee how the admissions process was working.
-Lack of transparency about how fellowships get passed down when students leave the program in the middle of a fellowship.
-Demands: funding parity.
-Some faculty don’t get as many students in their areas…(?)
-The admin is devaluing the extremely bright students who are already here by saying their changing the system to attract better students.
-Nontraditional students will not fit into the new system under funding restructuring.
-Space: there are faculty members in the department who don’t have their own offices, who share offices on the 6th floor. They might be people to approach to build solidarity with faculty around issues of space.
-There is a problem with the language of prioritizing getting students in and out of their programs.
-We could survey faculty, asking them how long it took them to get through grad school.
English
-Unfunded students, prioritizing getting them funding and raising awareness about the different levels of funding.
-They think it’s good that new students will get more money, but why will current students who are unfunded not get more money?
-They have time and space reserved on Mon March 25: ad-hoc committee of the DSC put together a petition to crowd-source the rejection of the restructuring.
-They’re going to collect support for the petition throughout the semester and present it at President Kelly’s open meeting on May 7.
Anthropology
-Discussed how to get more students from their department involved in this conversation.
-What they’d like to do:
· Mobilize faculty support
· But faculty don’t necessarily understand why the new funding is a problem. Many see it as an opportunity to compete with other schools for the most qualified students. Many faculty come from elite universities and might have interests that are different from those of CUNY students.
· Question about the distribution of Grad D fellowships that were then mysteriously discontinued. They identify the problem of lack of transparency of what kinds of funding exist, what funding situations different students have.
· Problematic narrative of “you don’t know how bad it used to be here at the GC”.
· How do we get more people involved?
II. Potential alliances between students and the library:
-A librarian who works with certain departments (the sciences, some others…) reported on her perspective of the space controversy.
-Her focus is to provide library services to the students.
-The library basement is not utilized efficiently. The archive area flooded, can’t be used. We lost a collection that was down there; it went to Columbia.
-Makes sense to include students in the conversation about how to best use the library space.
-Bringing on a new public services coordinator who will have a lot to say about how the basement is renovated. The basement of the library is definitely going to be renovated, but the question is how.
Discussion of what is the structure through which students can give input to the library renovation.
-A DSC committee has been approached. A few students give more information.
Starting at 9:08pm:
Discussion of student perspectives on the question of library renovation:
-CUNY DSC.org has a survey out about students’ experiences with use of space at the GC.
-There is a distinction between student governance space and student-controlled space (i.e. library computer space). These two student uses of space are being conflated by the provost’s office in a very problematic way. How can we retain student government space and increase student-controlled space in the library.
-How can students draw attention to misunderstanding and misrecognition of student need for different kinds of space?
-Does the library have its own vision for the space in question?
-The DSC passed a resolution saying they’re not moving out of their space on the 5thfloor.
9:17
Possible Actions
-Do we want to all go back to our departments and try to build solidarity with faculty?
Comments on stack:
-What can we do about preserving the diversity of traditional vs. non-traditional students in the departments. Could we gather statistics about what kinds of students end up producing the work that departments see as successful? Is it funded or unfunded, traditional or nontraditional students?
-Everyone should read the GC strategic plan. The adjunct project is planning various events. Some departments (English) have decided to meet again on Friday April 5. He encourages all departments to consider reconvening on 4/5.
-Possible future actions: a transparency day in which students advertise what their funding/work situation is. The DSC is doing a lot in terms of putting together resolutions, but we need as much direct, democratic participation and communication with students, faculty and staff.
Upcoming dates:
April 5—re-convergence date?
May 7—community meeting with Bill Kelly
March 25—petition-writing against the restructuring.
-It might be premature to speak to faculty.
-Maybe everyone who’s here can get two or three friends in their department to show up to the next meeting.
-These issues will be bigger to the faculty who are not full time at the GC. Those are the ones we should reach out to as allies.
-We can frame these issues as labor issues. This will help establish alliances with faculty. We need to build alliances as workers, for example among the other instructors who we work alongside. Not just other adjuncts, but also fulltime faculty and staff.
-These are not just labor issues. Especially for MALS students, these are opportunity issues.
Tuesay 4/9 is our preferred date for a reconvening meeting to talk about actions building up to May 7’s community meeting, etc. Before that date each department should meet internally and be ready to speak back.