The 10 to 4 vote by the New York State Board of Regents on the 2000-2004 CUNY Master Plan today shows that board members recognize that there are serious problems with the Master Plan. Regents have asked CUNY to establish a “constant reporting mechanism” and they acknowledge that the Plan could have a damaging effect on CUNY and the community we serve. In accepting the plan, the Regents said that the faculty must be replenished and student access must be guaranteed. 

In response to criticism that the Master Plan is largely silent on the need for resources for CUNY’s community colleges, Carl T. Hayden, Chancellor of the New York State Board of Regents, specifically said that an effort must be made to give more attention to the University’s two-year institutions. 

Regent Ena Farley, who voted against the plan, said: “We need to recognize that good teaching and access to good teaching is not restricted to students who are already prepared for this challenge.”  

Supporters of the Master Plan say it is a blueprint for raising standards. But a demand for higher standards without the resources to attain them is nothing but a plan for exclusion—and ultimate failure. 

The Professional Staff Congress—the union that represents 17,000 faculty and staff members at CUNY—urged the New York State Board of Regents to delay approval of the Master Plan. The American Federation of Teachers, the American Association of University Professors, the New York State United Teachers and the United University Professions of SUNY joined the PSC in its call.  

The reason for this extraordinary level of response is that the Plan, despite its self-congratulatory rhetoric, is a sham. There is almost no data to support any of the sweeping proposals it makes for core curricula, exclusive colleges, or choice of flagship programs.  

PSC President Barbara Bowen commented: “The Master Plan uses the language of reform to cover an attack on the right of people in this city to higher education and on the principle that faculty and staff are best qualified to set academic policy. The Plan substitutes the illusion of improvement for the bold vision CUNY really needs: it’s time for a serious investment of funds in public higher education and a commitment to rebuilding this great urban university.”

The Plan does little to improve the academic experience of the majority of CUNY students. The only proposal for replenishing full-time faculty is for “cluster hiring” in flagship programs, which are largely selected because of their potential for making a profit. There is no plan for across-the-board renewal of faculty or of hiring throughout the liberal arts—the foundation of an academic experience.

The unprecedented opposition to the Master Plan by national and state higher education associations put CUNY on the defensive. The University launched a media blitz to herald some achievements while downplaying elements of the plan that shortchange the majority of CUNY’s students. Despite this campaign, the Regents gave only mixed assent to the Plan and called attention to its flaws.

CUNY Chancellor Matthew Goldstein and his staff promoted the plan as the only way to restore the University’s academic luster. He cited an increase in freshman enrollment as proof that higher standards would attract more students to CUNY. The day before the vote an $80,000 full-page advertisement appeared in The New York Times. It was purchased “with the assistance of members of The CUNY Business Leadership Council,” which was established by Goldstein to strengthen the University’s ties to business. Members of the Council include Richard S. Fischbein, a law partner of Herman Badillo, chairman of the CUNY Board of Trustees and a primary architect of the Master Plan. Finally, the day of the Regents’ vote, news stories appeared in all the New York City newspapers announcing a rise in the percentage of CUNY teacher education program graduates who pass the New York State teacher certification exam.

The PSC applauds the successes of our graduates and welcomes the new students to our University. But issues not raised by the Chancellor or addressed by the Master Plan temper our celebration.

Despite claims of raising standards, the PSC fears that CUNY is bending its admission rules to bolster freshman enrollment in the senior colleges. Some colleges have reported that a substantial proportion of their enrollment gains were due to an increase in SEEK students.

As The Times reported: “While the SEEK students will not be taking remedial classes, their academic background is considered roughly equivalent to those admitted as remedial students in previous years.” A critical difference—now these students are at senior colleges that lack support mechanisms to help them succeed.

CUNY’s Schools of Education deserve even more credit than they have received for the gains in certification by their graduates. The lack of full-time faculty is such that the University cannot currently meet the Regents’ minimum mandated requirements for full-time staffing of teacher education courses. The PSC did its own survey of seven of CUNY’s teacher education programs. The results: to serve current enrollment in CUNY’s teacher education programs, the University needs conservatively an additional 108 full-time faculty. This translates into an immediate budgetary increase of $8 million.

The PSC is pleased that the Chancellor of the Board of Regents supports a meaningful role for CUNY faculty and the union in future discussions about the University’s curriculum. The PSC is always ready to work constructively with the CUNY Trustees and the State Board of Regents to rebuild the University.