In response to President Armstrongs remarks about SQEs May Day Action:

President Armstrong and many other administrators have played a pivotal role in raising our
campus-based fees by 62% since 2010. SQE agrees with President Armstrong that the State has
not provided adequate funding to the CSU. And one can argue that President Armstrong was
forced to raise tuition in the face of budget cuts. However, he could be doing so much more to
win back State funding lost during the recession. Our institutions leaders have lost sight of the
core tenets so central to the CSUs successthat is: quality education, a tuition-free (or close to
that) operating model, and to maintain accessibility. Our President openly rejects the idea that
California could EVER return the CSU to its former mission. In fact, he believes our goals are
not situated within reality. We want to counter that notion, and offer a transformative
perspective on what California Higher Education could look likeand, what SQE sees as
California Higher Educations future.
Our administrators claim to value public higher education, and maybe they do. But their version
of valuing the CSU is to hand the system over to the market, and let the private sector take over.
This is not our vision for the CSU. President Armstrong also seems to have overlooked the fact
that 40% of Cal Poly students voted NOT to raise feesand if we have learned anything from
the past year at Cal Poly, its that the opinions of the other 40% matter just as muchespecially
in regards to decisions that affect people differently based on their familys income level.
Instead, as laid out in the Sustainable Financial Model and the Cal Poly Master Plan, President
Armstrong is complacent and active in the CSU's and Cal Poly's transformation into profitseeking institutions, who rely on private partnerships to fund our programs. As we increasingly
rely on private sponsorships and partnerships, the market dictates the ways in which funding is
allocated.
At Cal Poly specifically, we see a vastly disproportionate amount of private monies given to
Engineering and Agricultural programs. Over 60 percent of Cal Polys financing now comes
from private donors. We understand that Cal Poly has historically been a polytechnic and
agriculturally focused institution, but the 21st century has launched Cal Poly into a position
where there are comparable numbers of Art and Science students to Engineering and
Agricultural students. Put simply, Art and Science programs deserve more funding than they
have been given in recent years. This bias against Arts and Science, however, remains because of
the way grant money is distributed through the CSU.
The results of this are increased student tuition due to a lack of private sponsorship and a
complacent and neutral stance with regard to pursuing state funding--which in turn reifies the
Legislature's stinginess towards public higher education in California. For example, in the
Sustainable Financial Model market based tuition is proposed; which, could up to double fees
and would disproportionately and unnecessarily affect undocumented students living in
California and not recognized under AB540.
In addition, we see the continual, systemic, and habitual defunding of Liberal Arts programs.
This isn't to say that the University is defunding those programs per se--but that in the face of
rising costs to maintain faculty, the maintenance of infrastructure, and loss of purchasing power,
these programs lack the adequate resources they need to develop, maintain themselves, and

advance without increases to their budgets, operating costs, and hiring allowances.
Private sponsorship hands power over to the private sector; which oftentimes has its own agenda
that may not be in line with what Cal Poly, as a public higher education institution, ought to be
pursuing. Instead of public accountability and oversight, there would instead be the possibility of
corrupted research and curriculum, favoritism in allocation of resources, and controversial or
even damaging academic agendas.
Regardless, the Sustainable Financial Model sets the precedent that the CSU does not need
support from the State Legislature.
In his closing paragraph, President Armstrong asked Students for Quality Education to support
the rights of others to review all the facts and make a decision based on a holistic view. We do
support this philosophy; here are a few facts (from the Chancellors and Cal Polys own data) we
ask students and supporters to consider:
From 2010 to 2015,
The number of students at CAL POLY increased 14%
Total student fees increased 45%
Cal Poly campus based fees increased 62%
The net number of faculty increased 16% BUT read the next line!
The number of professors decreased 2%; temporary (mostly part-time) lecturers increased
41%.
v The number of administrators increased 51%.
v The total spent on administrators per year increased 55%.
v
v
v
v
v

Fees have been increasing at a breakneck pace ever since 2000, far exceeding the rise in inflation;
now is not the time to further increase tuition.
We need CSU leadership that proposes solutions to a systemic defunding of public higher
education. We need CSU leadership to pursue statewide initiatives like prop 30 to gain new
funding sources for the CSU. We need leadership that values the core tenets of the CSU, who
will fight for their realization in 21st century California.