The SDSU University Senate passed a resolution expressing a vote of no confidence in California State University system Chancellor Mildred García on Nov. 4, alleging a series of grievances, including a “lengthy history of financial mismanagement and budget nontransparency,” and limiting the CSU’s ability to serve its own students.
The resolution follows two letters that were sent to García in September and one sent to the CSU Board of Trustees in October, calling for corrective action.
The first letter stated that two conceptual proposals for independent Ph.D. programs submitted by the College of Engineering were denied by the Chancellor’s office in an Aug. 28 email.
The letter alleged that García failed to provide any substantial rationale for this decision, but conveyed in a directive to Interim State University Dean of Academic Programs Dr. Caron Inouye that “conceptual proposals for independent Ph.D. programs in the CSU are prohibited at this time.”
Proponents of the letter stated that this lack of rationale “raises significant concerns regarding the principles of shared governance and negates faculty primacy in academic matters.”
AB 656
Further, they also alleged that García is prohibiting them “from exercising the rights which are explicitly afforded to them under California Assembly Bill 656.”
California Assembly Bill 656 authorizes the CSU to offer professional or applied doctoral degrees that do not duplicate University of California doctoral degrees and follow certain requirements through a review by the Chancellor’s Office and approval by the trustees.
Faculty alleged that the addition is to “Ph.D. degree types, at this point in time,” creating an “unnecessary and misplaced barrier” that is unjustified and contradictory to the CSU’s stated mission.
The letter to the Board of Trustees stated that the Chancellor’s Office had dismissed the first letter as well as the repeat request, allowing the proposals to advance through the review process. It urged the CSU Board of Trustees to intervene.
Faculty claimed SDSU is the only R1-designated university that is “forbidden” to have independent doctoral programs, claiming this “undermines the accomplishments of our faculty and contradicts SDSU’s standing as a national leader in research.”
Additionally, the resolution made the following claims against the Chancellor:
Financial Priorities
The resolution claims that the Chancellor’s Office has a history of prioritizing CSU executive pay over the quality of student education. The resolution cited two California State Audit Reports from 2007 and 2016, which found that the salaries for CSU executives, including the chancellor, have been increasing at a far higher rate than those of tenured-track and other faculty.
Currently, García’s compensation includes a salary of $795K with $80K deferred and an additional $96K set aside for “housing.”
For reference, SDSU President Adela de la Torre has the next highest salary among CSU executives and campus presidents with a salary of over $53K. De la Torre’s housing is listed as “provided,” with previous reporting valuing the residence at $3.7 million.
Additionally, the resolution cited data from the California Faculty Association, specifically increases in spending on state appropriations, campus police budgets, management personnel salaries, cash in investments and capital spending (for growth/new facilities), as well as a decrease in spending on instruction funding.
Artificial Intelligence
The resolution also expressed concern around the CSU’s AI Initiative, which was announced on Feb. 2. The AI Initiative cost $16.9 million according to the resolution, and “exacerbates the trend of increased reliance of the public CSU on private, for-profit corporations, furthering our move away from the CSU’s core mission as a public institution.”
The resolution claims that Garcia did not consult with faculty or ethicists about the Initiative or employ shared governance, asserting that it was a unilateral decision.
Free Speech
The resolution alleges that García “has failed to protect its students, faculty and staff from recent anti-democratic initiatives and has failed to protect free speech on campus,” citing instances including the recent submission of personal contact information of CSU Los Angeles employees to the United States Equal Employment Opportunities Commission following a subpoena from the commission.
The CSU stated that it is required by law to cooperate with an EEOC investigation. Still, cooperation does not mean that CSU accepts the allegations as true or automatically provides everything that is requested.
What they want
Below is a list of what proponents of the resolution are asking for from García and the Board of Trustees:
Reform CSU labor relations practices
Protect faculty rights to propose and develop Doctor of Philosophy, professional, and applied doctoral programs
Reinstate systemwide shared governance processes to ensure faculty consultation and consent in major academic and fiscal decisions
Reevaluate the CSU AI Initiative
Reevaluate the Time, Place, and Manner policy and policy on responses to federal agency requests for employee contact information
The Daily Aztec will continue monitoring this story and has reached out to the Chancellor’s office, the CSU, proponents of the resolution, as well as the California Faculty Association.