Introduction: Student Power in the 1990's

For as long as anyone can remember, student leaders and activists at UMass/Amherst have been complaining about having to constanly ‘reinvent the wheel’ when it comes to learning how to be an effective and successful student advocate. In spite of many attempts, there has been no successful effort to create continuity, no permanent mechanism to transmit history, and no way to find out what was done before and/or whether or not any of it actually worked.

Every few years or so, a new cohort of student leaders gains a certain level of knowledge, hopefully achieves a few victories, and then graduates - leaving little or no permanent record about what they 'knew', what they did, or how they did it. Then the next group comes along -ends up just as isolated and in the dark as their predecessors, and are are forced to relearn everything all over again.

It is a maddening cycle, and one that serves no one and nothing but the status quo.

But now - with the state of technology being what it is - maybe we can change this dysfunctional cycle, if even just a little bit. Maybe now, with the internet, and technologies like blogs, Facebook and YouTube we can create a complete record that is easier for today's student leaders to access. We can do this without having former student leaders intrusively insert themselves into the affairs of today's student leaders. And we can do it without today's student leaders intruding in the lives of former activists who have moved on to other endeavors (ie. new careers, raising families, etc.,)

In other words, I believe that we can and should collaborate virtually, and this blog is a modest attempt to do just that. It is intended to (hopefully) be the beginning of a collaborative effort - not the last word. It is my sincere hope that, eventually, other cohorts and individuals will publish the stories of their successes, and that we either combine them into one central location, or all link to a central location where today's student leaders can access a wide range of input and support.

If you are a current student leader or activist on campus looking for guidance, history, or information - then hopefully you will find what you are looking for here. If it isn't here, hopefully you will be able to use this blog as a link to connect with someone who can help you or answer your questions.

With regard to the history that is covered here, the entries that are written by me the focus mostly on a particular period of extremely successful student organizing that occurred during the early to mid 1990's. This was a period when the SGA, SCERA, and GEO wielded about as much power and influence on campus and at the State House as is possible for any student organization to wield. Hopefully, others will submit comments and/or postings about other successful initiatives and periods of student activism as well. Such submissions are absolutely welcome.

Which brings us to an important point. This blog is not a 'history' per se. It is not an attempt to document every event and person who played a part in student activism at UMass/Amherst. Instead, it is more of a case study about how a smal group of student leaders - possibly as few as a dozen - worked together to create a successful plan and then put that plan into action. Then once that plan was in place, a new generation of talented student leaders - again, led by maybe a dozen people over two years - were able to execute this plan with tremendous success.

As a result, during the 1990's the students, both graduate and undergraduate, enjoyed a string of unprecedented victories both on campus and on Beacon Hill. Using a very specific organizing model (which will be discussed at length on this blog) student leaders accomplished the following:

• For the first time ever, the students initiated and led a grassroots coalition of faculty, staff, students, parents, and administrators that succesfully lobbied for a $23.5 million increase in the University's budget ($12 million of which went to the Amherst campus).
• After nearly 8 years of budget cuts and tuition and fee increases, the students succesfully pressured the administration not to raise tuition and fees for the 1996-97 Academic Year (or might have been the 95-96 academic year).
• In just four short years, the GEO forced the administration to do a complete 180 degree turn around on the issue of Agency Fee (one of the issues that had led to a Grad Employee strike just a few years before).
• The student successfully killed Tuition Retention (the cornerstone of the administration's legislative policy and which would have almost certainly raised students costs even more).
• After one of the most bizarre incidents in the anals of student life, and after a very heated, and personal battle that lasted for more than 12 years, the students used their new found legislative power on Beacon Hill to force the administration to reinstate partial litigation rights for the Student Legal Services Office. What was particularly striking about this victory is that the students were so skilled and effective that they actually succeeded in having a bill reported favorably out of a legislative committee over the objections of the administration.
• And a few other victories to boot.

Each of these victories will eventually be covered in a separate case study/posting here.

But the important thing to remember is that these victories did not happen by accident or coincidence. Instead they were the result of a very specific organizing model that was put into place around 1991 with the re-creation of SCERA (the Student Center for Educational Research and Advocacy). This organizing model became the official policy of the SGA - AND IT WORKED EXTREMELY WELL. The point of this blog is to explain the how and why.

If you are a current student leader, organizer or activist on campus then you should definitely read the postings on this blog. After reading this, you may agree or you may disagree. Certainly, it is up to you as to how you conduct yourself in the advocacy work that you do. But if you are hoping to be successful and effective, I think you will be hard pressed to find a model for organizing and advocacy that works better than the one presented here. And if you disagree I challenge you to outline another model that will be just as or more effective then this one.

But either way, please feel free to submit comments and questions, and offer feedback and criticism. The title of this blog includes the word 'converstion' for a very specific reason. The point of this blog is to promote YOUR success, to support YOUR efforts - to help you be the most articulate, most intelligent, most thoughtful, most reflective, most effective and successful advocate that you can be.

This is not a vain attempt to showcase the victories of the past and then rub them in your face. I am not trying to sanctimonously hold up "our" achievements as if to say "See what we did? You could never possibly hope to be as good as we were."

Remember, I am part of Generation X....... so I've spent a large part of my life listening to a small segment of baby-boomer 'activists' lecture me and my cohorts about how worthless and socially unconscious we supposedly are. And I've had just about enough of that, thank you very much.

I've come to the conclusion that there is nothing more grading or irritating then the embittered or self-congratulatory veteran who believes that their generation 'invented' organizing and activism and that their achievements will never be matched by succeeding generations.

That's complete and utter, unadulterated....nonsense.

You can be successful, and you should be. Actually, you need to be - that is if we are going to successful on those issues that belong to all of us - as students, alumni and citizens of the Commonwealth. We all care about protecting UMass from budget cuts, and keeping UMass affordable and accessible. We all care about making sure that the state and the administration do not abandon their obligation to preserve the mision of UMass - that mission being to keep UMass open to people of all races, colors and socio-economic classes. And we all care about making UMass into the world class University that we, and the citizens of the Commonwealth, deserve.

These are all incredibly important issues that are played out not in the 'sandbox' of the 4th Floor or the SGA Senate, but in the halls of the State House and at the highest levels of state government. They require your participation and success - not just on campus - but on a statewide stage. If you commit yourself, take yourself and your work seriously, you are going to have the opportunity to deal with some very serious and complicated issues that will affect the lives of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of lives and families. You are going to help determine policy for one of the largest bureaucracies in state government - one with a budget that is now approaching $1 billion. And you are going to interact with policy makers and decicion makers at the highest levels of our state government.

And you shouldn't be expected to learn and do all of this by yourself, with no experience, no training, and no one to answer your questions and/or provide support. So read, study, ask questions, push back, read again, argue, debate, express your own thoughts and ideas, make your own mistakes. But stay involved, don't fall for the 'myth' of apathy, and do not get discouraged. Your work on behalf of the University and the families it serves is incredibly important, and you are joining a community and network of other talented, intelligent, thoughtful, passionate, accomplished students and alumni that stretches as far back as the 1960's and 1970's.

And last but not least, remember that your efforts are honored here and your success is paramount. How could it be any other way? For we are you, and you are us.

In solidarity,
Ted Chambers

Excerpts from Globe Article re: October Rally, 1989

On October 18, 1989 students from all 29 public colleges and universities descended on the Boston Common and Beacon Hill for the largest rally on the Common since the Vietnam War. The police said that the crowd numbered only 10,000, but other tallies put the total over 15,000.

Below you will find a series of excerpts from the article and fter that you will find a few comments and observations. But one comment I will make up front. I am starting with this rally because, in spite of its size, it was ultimately a failure. I will explain my reasoning further in the next posting "Dude, where is my revolution?"

But as a result of this important failure, we began to analyze our mistakes, rethink our strategy, and get organized. We got educated, made a plan, and eventually went back to Beacon Hill. But we didn't go back with 15,000 angry protesters. We went back with maybe 20 or 30 trained, thoughtful, reflective, informed student lobbyists who dressed the part and learned the processes and the etiquette and social norms of Beacon Hill. Many of these student lobbyists by the way, worked for SCERA, which means they were either paid or received credit. (IF MEMORY SERVES - I NEED TO FACT CHECK THIS) In other words, fighting for students was their job.

And it wasn't just a one shot deal where we show up for a day, yell and scream and go home. We organized a sustained campaign - with a game plan and a message that everyone agreed to stick to. And our efforts were supported by phone calls, letters and post-cards from parents and rank-in-file students.

In short, our winning effort looked entirely different then what you are about to read about:

STUDENT PROTESTERS POUR INTO STATE HOUSE
Author(s): Anthony Flint,
Contributing Reporter Date: October 19, 1989 Page: 1 Section:

"METRO More than 10,000 students from state colleges and universities swarmed over Beacon Hill in the cold midday drizzle yesterday to protest budget cuts, and several hundred stormed into the State House, resulting in four arrests, several minor injuries and an estimated $20,000 in property damage.

"The students confronted lawmakers in their offices and protested in front of the governor's executive offices. At one point, with some 200 state and local police at the ready -- many wearing riot helmets and carrying clubs -- a crowd of students tried to push their way into the House chamber, disrupting the session and drawing a rebuke from Speaker George Keverian. One lawmaker, Rep. Jacqueline Lewis (R-Bridgewater), was knocked down as she tried to get through the crowd.

"When it was over by 5 p.m., the lawn and flowerbeds in front of the State House were trampled and strewn with litter; officials estimated that $20,000 in damage was done to doors, windows, drainpipes and landscaping. Meanwhile, downtown traffic was tied up for hours because the police had to close off sections of Beacon, Park, Boylston and Charles streets.

"The demonstration, which Capitol Police Capt. Frank Tucker said was the largest march on the State House since the days of the Kent State deaths and the Vietnam War, began peacefully.

"Students bused in from nearly all 29 state campuses -- from Pittsfield to Cape Cod - assembled on the steps of the Capitol, signs and banners aloft. Many had been given permission to skip classes and were encouraged to attend the rally by faculty and administrators, most notably Joseph Duffey, chancellor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

"Student leaders estimated the turnout as more than 15,000, but the police estimate was 10,000.

"Led by student government leaders and student trustees, and cosponsored by the State Student Association of Massachusetts, AFL-CIO, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Massachusetts Teachers Association and Service Employees International Union, the protesters walked from the State House to Boston Common just after noon.

"There, student representatives and union speakers decried recent multimillion-dollar budget cuts in higher education and proposed increases in tuition and fees. The cutbacks have resulted in canceled classes, enrollment cutbacks and staff layoffs.

"What we have is a leadership crisis," said David Varela, one of 14 speakers to address the crowd, standing on a makeshift stage flanked by stacks of speakers. "Our future has been compromised for a few dollars."

"After the speeches, with the UMass-Amherst marching band leading the way, the students paraded along Beacon Street back to the State House, where several hundred demonstrators had remained.

"They were welcomed back with cheers and chants and when they drew closer, some began to run toward the doors of the State House, trying to get in. One group pounded on the doors at the west wing entrance and broke through; other groups found other ways to get in, while most of the protesters stayed outside.

"The corridors of the normally sedate Capitol were filled with students for several hours, and Capitol Police officers equipped with walkie-talkies struggled to keep track of the crowd. One group gathered in front of Gov. Dukakis' office and sparred verbally with Robert Schwartz, the governor's education adviser. Others -- some with appointments, some not -- went into lawmakers' offices to demand an end to budget cuts.

"Be careful how you conduct yourselves," warned Paul E. Tsongas,
chairman of the Board of Regents of Higher Education and a former US senator,
who used a bullhorn to address the crowd outside.

However, Tsongas was generally supportive of the demonstration, and praised the students for showing their concern through boisterous activism. "I love this," Tsongas was heard to say as the crowds of students swarmed around the State House.

Franklyn G. Jenifer, the chancellor of higher education, also addressed the students with a bullhorn, and also was generally supportive. He asked the students to support
initiatives that would bring in new revenues.

"You can't leave here thinking there's a printing press downstairs, churning out money. What we need is new revenue," Jenifer said.

"Many students interviewed at the protest said they had a sense of being cheated.
"We're not getting what we were promised," said Kirsten Nottleson, 23,
a senior at UMass-Boston. "We won't pay for a budget crisis we didn't
cause," said James Linthwaite, a junior at UMass-Boston. "And we can all vote.
They should take that into consideration."

"Much of the debate was clouded, however, by the unruly behavior of some protesters, and several officials scrambled to distance themselves from a protest they initially had encouraged. I think the rally on the Common was successful," said Joseph Langis, executive director of the student association. "But we certainly don't condone that kind of destructive behavior. It was a minority of students that acted up and got overzealous. We think it's wrong and it has probably hurt the cause."

Jenifer said he "certainly does not condone the destruction of state property."

Keverian called the students' behavior "disgraceful." Dukakis said he supported the students but was "not pleased" with the rough behavior.

"Col. William McAuliffe of the State Police, which sent in troopers from several barracks, said that the situation "got a little dicey" when the students tried to storm the House chambers but that "we don't think it ever really got out of hand."

"Arrested were Richard L. Page, 24, Jonathan Leavitt, 22, and Geoffrey B. Feldman, 27, all on charges of disorderly conduct; and Michael Currier, 23, on charges of assault. Police said they are all UMass-Amherst students.

"Officers from the State Police, the Capitol Police, the Metropolitan Police and the special operations division of the Boston Police Department were on hand for the protest.

A few comments on this article/event:

1. You will notice that nearly the entire power structure of the higher ed system was involved in organizing and promoting this event (from the Chancellor of Higher Ed, down to the campus Chancellors. to the unions, to the SGA Presidents and Trustees). That was the critical factor that created the massive turnout.

2. Unfortunately, the rally had little if any long term positive effect. In spite of the best (and most noble) efforts of the Student Trustees to build an effective event and message, the crowd was too large, unfocused, and untrained in the ways of Beacon Hill. The other thing is we were pissed off. Many of us weren't there to negotiate or make nice with state reps and senators. We were there to let them know that we were angry. We were "unorganized" in the sense that we had not all been part of a planned message and strategy.

3. Because we were there to protest, and not necessarily lobby - some of us thought that we needed to take the protesting to another level. There was one group of students who succeeded in getting themselves arrested, though I can't remember specifically what for. Then there was another group who thought it would be a good idea to storm the House floor and stage a sit-in. Neither of these tactics worked or were appropriate for the circumstances. And they only added fuel to the already hostile and negative press.

4. Sometimes, no matter how strong your legislative game is - if the circumstances are lined up against you - there is little you can do stop a budget crisis.

Dude, where is MY revolution?

This blog is going to cover a very specific model of organizing that was implemented to great success by student leaders during the 1990's. Certainly, there were probably other efforts in the past (during the 70's) that were based on this model as well, though so far, I haven't seen any definitive accounts of this.

At any rate, the model that goes something like this:

1. Instead of arguing with administrators on campus, student leaders start their advocacy efforts by organizing a lobbying presence on Beacon Hill. They focuson 'big picture' issues such as the University budget and financial aid.
2. Students support this lobbying by mobilizing some of their grassroots base (ie. parents and other students who are registered to vote). They get them to make phone calls, send emails, post cards or letters at the right time.
3. Students work in coalition with other groups (ie. alumni, staff and faculty unions, and maybe even the administration - assuming that all of these groups can come to a consensus and what to ask for and how to ask for it).
4. Eventually the students influence on Beacon Hill increases, and they use that as leverage to force the administration to negotiate or concede on local issues.

So instead 'crawling' your way up the food-chain of public higher education, you go outside the system and around it - start directly at the top and work down. Why? Because that is how the power in the system flows.

So if you are anything like me, then at this point in our discussion about student empowerment and student activism, you are probably wondering why we are only talking about lobbying and why there hasn't been one single word about protesting. Or rallies? Or demonstrations? Marches? Pickets? Sit-ins? Or how about building take overs? When are we going to talk about building take-overs?

How could we possibly be having a discussion about student activism without automatically including these so called time tested tactics? Or using them as the starting point of the discussion about student power? What about MLK? Ghandi? The Students for a Democratic Society? The anti-war movement? Weren't all of those movements successful and built on protesting. Well, actually - the answer is no they weren't all successful, and no they were not all based on solely on protesting. But that is getting a bit off topic.

Or as one of my good friends likes to say: "dude, where is my revolution?"

I know when I first arrived on campus and got involved, I was under the general impression that student movements and protesting were virtually synonymous. And there were a lot of things and people who reinforced this assumption:

• the main stream media and news organizations;
• historical accounts and documentaries about other student movements (ie. the anti-war movement, the Berkley Free Speech movement, etc.,);
• a substantial and vocal minority of the UMass faculty;
• a substantial and vocal minority of the Student Affairs staff;
• and of course, Amherst being Amherst, a seemingly endless supply of 'professional protesters' (many of whom it seemed hung around UMass but were not even students - at least not at UMass).
  

I should also mention that my first couple of years of being involved did little to dissuade me of this assumption as well. In the Fall of 1989 there were two HUGE events that occurred that were based on the assumption that protesting and direct action were and should be the primary means of mobilizing the student community.

First, in the Fall of 1989 the students of 29 public colleges and universities in Massachusetts staged the largest rally on the Boston Common since the Vietnam War. More than 18,000 students showed up to the rally. Nearly 8,000 of them came from UMass/Amherst alone. How did this happen? That will covered in more depth in a separate posting - but a bried explanation is necessary here. Well, in the weeks preceding the rally, the administration and unions encouraged the faculty and grad ta's to talk about the rally during classes. They used a 'primary' means of communication (always more effective than secondary or tertiary communications like posters or ads) by talking with students in small group settings.

As a result the students came out in droves (a very powerful lesson to be learned there!). The Chancellor actually paid for 80 buses to transport students from Amherst to Boston. So many students showed up that literally thousands of them were turned away. Instead of going back to their dorm rooms and watching tv, they got into their cars and car pooled to Boston.

And while we were there protesting, a group of 300 or so of us gathered inside the state house and actually tried to storm the House floor while it was in session. We were going to stage a sit-in on the floor of the House of Representatives. We naively believed that the legislators would simply step-aside and allow us to just walk right out on to the House floor. Instead, they rushed the door and engaged in an intense physical struggle to keep us from getting into the chamber. The legislators literally fought us off with their bare hands until the State Police came in and started kicking ass and throwing people around.

It was bedlam. It was craziest thing that I/we - any of us who were there, had ever seen in our lives. Here we were, Generation X - the 'lost' generation, the apathetic generation, the loser generation as the media and baby boomers were more than happy to label us. We had grown up under Ronald Reagan as President, and according to popular lore - we supposedly didn't care about anything. Especially not social activism.

Well, apparently in spite of all the propoganda that tried to convince us that we were 'too conservative' or that we didn't care and that we were 'too apathetic', we managed to pull off the largest protests the state of Massachusetts had seen in decades. And yes, we trampled the flowers on the front lawn of the State House, and the legislators and the Boston Globe and the rest of the media portrayed us as a bunch of rowdy, immature, inarticulate, buffoons, drunks, and morons who came to Boston to party and whatever - like it was one big Mardi Gras event (instead of the most successful grassroot mobilization/ demonstration the state had seen in a generation).

The second huge event occurred just a few weeks later when the students on the Amherst campus followed up that rally with a massive student strike by the undergraduates and graduates on campus. Classes were called off for nearly a week straight. It was crazy. It was unorganized. It collapsed in a fit of infighting, factionalization, finger pointing and accusations of every -ism in the book.

But it was a student strike nonetheless. The first one on campus since Nixon bombed Cambodia in the early 70's (or so I was told at the time). There were literally two thousand students picketing in front of classroom buildings, and no one holding or attending classes.

So if there was all this 'amazing activism' and mobilization that occurred in the 1980's, then here are a few simple questions:

• why the isn't this blog about the 1980's?
• Why hold up the 1990's as some kind of 'Golden Age' of student power when all of this amazing stuff happened at the end of the 1980's?
• Isn't this what student empowerment is all about? Mobilizing people? Getting them out on the streets? Kicking ass, and fighting with the cops?
  

These are good questions, and there is a very simple answer to all of them: none of it worked.

In spite of all the hoopla, energy, excitement, romance, the massive crowds, the rousing speeches, the chants of tens of thousands all at the same time - it was all an utter, and unquestionable failure. Don't get me wrong. It was amazing to watch. It was amazing to be a part of, and to help organize. It also taught us some extremely important lessons (see the posting: Lessons Learned from the Rally and the Strike of 1989)

But it was also, without question, an abysmal failure.

This is not to say that protesting and direct action are automatically a failure. Sometimes direct action works, and often times it doesn't (especially if it is used haphazardly, unplanned, fractured or leaderless). Sure we learned some amazingly important lessons, and sure, many of us were transformed by the events we witnessed and helped organize.

But in the end, none of it worked. The budget cuts came, and they kept coming. And the irony is that in spite of all of the energy and activism on the part of the student body, the Univeristy was incredibly vulnerable and remained so until the student leaders of the 1990's took it upon themselves to empower both themselves and the University.

One of the most important things about these events is that there were is a direct historical connection between the failures and mis-steps of the late 1980's and our successes of the early to mid 1990's. The connection exists because there was a core of us who were determined to learn from these failures. And when I say "us" I am only referring to a group of maybe a dozen or so people, most of whom were SGA officers, Area Gov't Presidents or Committee Chairmen.

We were angry that so much potential energy and activism had been squandered. So, we spent a few years studying and seriously analyzing the problems facing the University - and from those lessons we created a new plan. A plan that we were pretty sure would work. And we made that plan the basis of the newly recreated and reconstituted SCERA.

In 1991-2, we fought to regain control of the SATF from the administration. Then we fought to make sure that SCERA was included in the SGA budget. (Since there was no SCERA staff at the time to testify in front of the SGA Budget Committee, I represented the non-existant agency and laid out for the committee much of the information/model presented here.) We also had to get the administration to approve of the SCERA director's position.

Finally, after months of work, interviews were held and a SCERA director was hired - I think it was the Spring of 93? But I can't remember. I will have to ask some friends.

At any rate, by 1994 and 1995 SCERA was up and running hard. And for the next few years, it laid the ground work for a string of incredibly impressive victories

Understanding the Limits of the SGA

One of the first steps toward becoming an effective and successful advocate for students and the University is that you have to recognize the limits of the Student Government within the over all structure of the public higher education system. The SGA is a creation of the administration, and as such it is not designed to empower students or provide them with influence over policy and decision making. Instead, the student government is intended to provide a 'voice' with little or no legal authority to enact policy or enforce its positions.

The SGA is simply a vehicle. It is an imperfect and flawed vehicle, but it is the only one that the students have, and as such it has to be the starting point from which all successful and effective organizing starts. This is because, in spite of the SGA's limitations, the administration will ALWAYS turn to the elected student leadership as the only legitimate voice of student concerns on campus.

But in and of itself, the SGA cannot and will not provide power. As the official elected representatives of the students, it is absolutely necessary to have the active support and involvement of the President and/or Trustee in order to make lasting changes. (And it is also helpful, but not always necessary to have the support of the Senate).

But unfortunately, simply getting elected to any of leadership the positions does not guarantee that you will have any influence or success at all. In fact, in my experience many (if not most) of the people elected to these positions accomplish little that isn't competely undone within a few years after they've left. This is not a criticism of the people who hold the positon - rather a statement about the limitations of the officer positions themselves.

Back in the 1980's the SGA employed a full-time receptionist. Her name was Fran, She was close to retirement age and if I remember correctly, she had been a long time employee of the University and the SGA. One day around 1988, apropos of absolutely nothing, Fran said to me and a few other people standing within earshot: "As far as I can tell, the SGA President doesn't do much of anything at all." And she had seen quite a few of them.

This criticism is probably a bit unfair, but it is testament to the fact that if you come into the SGA not understanding its' limitations then you are unlikely to be very effective or successful. It is kind of like the old saying about voting, that "if voting changed anything it would be illegal." A simliar statement can be made about the SGA. If the SGA actually did empower students, then the administration would abolish it or find a way to crush it. Or gut it until it resembled something approaching what it actually it is.

Power and success won't come from the institution. Instead, it has to come from individual student leaders and organizers who educate themselves and learn to work together. Power comes from individuals who understand the hierarchy of the system and then learn to organize outside of it and around it. And by organize, I mean mobilize students and other grassroots constituencies to help pressure decision makers at various levels, but particularly at the top.

So, it may sound trite, but it is true nonethess. The first step toward creating successful change is realizing and believing that you are the key to that change. It is up to you to educate yourself. Learn as much as you can about the structure of the public higher education system and the policies that govern it. Learn about the political landscape within which the University operates and the challenges this poses for everyone within the system - from the students all the way to the President and the Board of Trustees. Learn how to manipulate the power structure and maneuver within it, and learn how to effectively mobilize and organize others to support your progressive vision and agenda.

In short, during your time on campus make it your goal to become a thoughtful, educated, insightful, savvy and articulate advocate for the University and the families and students it serves. If you accomplish this, then not only will you affect lasting and meaningful change, but everyone - the students, the University, the Commonwealth, and especially you - will be better off for it.

The Recreation of SCERA and Student Lobbying on Beacon Hill in the 1990’s.

In the early 1990’s a group of student leaders (including a series of SGA Presidents and Trustees, as well as SGA committee chairs and area government Presidents) committed to working together to recreate the Student Center for Educational Research and Advocacy with the specific intent of making SCERA the legislative organizing arm of the Student Government.

The how and why of SCERA’s previous demise will not be covered in this post. Suffice to say that after 8 years of extreme budget cuts, massive tuition and fee increases, and some of the craziest infighting ever witnessed in the SGA Senate, by the early 1990’s student leaders recognized the need to recreate SCERA and retool it’s mission.

SCERA’s new mission was to teach student leaders about the state’s legislative process, train students how to lobby state legislators, and then occasionally mobilize grassroots lobbying efforts (ie. phone calls or postcards from rank-in-file parents and students to their respective state legislators) in support of specific legislation.

In other words, the Student Government committed itself to creating its own legislative presence on Beacon Hill independent of the University administration. Toward this end the student leaders organized themselves using pretty much the same model employed by lobbying organizations of nearly every political persuasion from the AARP to the NRA to MoveOn.org.

First, there was an ‘inside game’. The students had about two dozen trained lobbyists on Beacon Hill who were led by the SGA leadership and the SCERA Student Coordinator. These amateur ‘citizen lobbyists’ eventually became a very effective force for the students and the University at the State House. They learned the ins and outs of the legislative process, understood and followed the proper etiquette for lobbying, mastered the art of ‘message’ and talking points, identified allies, and got to know the legislators and staff on key committees such as Ways and Means as wells as the Joint Committee on Education. They met with legislators and/or staff regularly, followed the progress of bills and amendments, and occasionally testified before legislative committees. Also, when circumstances called for it, they worked in conjunction with the lobbyists from the University - both from the campus and the President's office.

They also made some very modest but very important connections with both the Speaker of the House and the Senate President - connections that were eventually leveraged against the administration on multiple occasions and on multiple issues (to the administration’s enormous dismay and frustration I might add). In fact, in at least one instance, these student lobbyists were effective enough to accomplish something absolutely unheard of: they managed to get the Joint Committee on Education to report a bill out of committee with a ‘favorable recommendation’ – over the objections of the University President and his staff.

Essentially, the ‘kids” who wore worn out loafers and earned $7 per hour lobbying for the SGA proved more effective on Beacon Hill then the President of the University, who at the time was the highest paid employee in the state of Massachusetts. Sadly, this was more of a reflection on how weak the University was overall on Beacon Hill rather then a testament to the alleged massive legislative might of the students. But it was a huge victory for the students regardless.

At any rate, the other aspect of SCERA’s lobbying initiative involved creating an ‘outside game’ which meant organizing grassroots support of parents and rank-in-file students (as well as other constituencies) to get them to make phone calls and/or mail letters to their respective legislators asking their support on specific legislation. Again, these efforts were modest – and even crude by today’s standards. Remember – this was pre-email and pre-internet.

For instance, during the budget process and the fight to increase the University’s state appropriation, SCERA organized a phone bank. Key legislators were targeted, and parents and students from those districts were identified and then called via a phone bank run out of the SGA office. On another occasion, parents were tapped to lobby legislators on a bill before the Joint Committee on Education. And still, on a third occasion students were asked to make phone calls to the Speaker’s office asking him to kill the administration’s ‘tuition retention plan’. These calls were made by students and passerby’s from a table on the beach side of the Student Union Building.

All three of these grassroots initiatives were modest, generating maybe a few score of letters and phone calls to state legislators. But the timing and impact of these efforts played a critical role in delivering some major victories for both the students and the University as a whole.

As a direct result of this model, the students eventually amassed substantial power and influence in their dealings with the state legislature as well as the administration. As has been noted in other posts, student leaders subsequently ran up an impressive string of victories including:

• Increasing the University's budget allocation by $23.5 million.
• Stopping additional tuition and fee increases.
• Defeating Tuition Retention.
• Forcing the Administration to concede on Agency Fee for GEO.
• Forcing a resolution on Student Legal Services.

This model was effective because it combined the limited platform of the SGA with a textbook modern, legislative/lobbying campaign apparatus. Instead of following the traditional path of trying to appeal upwards through the public higher ed hierarchy, the students went outside the system and around it. They started at the top, gained influence over the University's ability to ask for money, and then used that leverage to force the administration to bargain and resolve a number of other issues - a few of which had absolutely nothing to do with state funding.

In other words, instead of going bottom-up (which doesn't work), they went top-down.

For those of us who helped organize and execute this plan, it was our hope that SCERA would remain an effective means of continuing this model, but alas - that doesn't seem to have been the case. Also, another very important reason that this type of lobbying ceased is that William Bulger became President of the University, and the administration's position on working with students to lobby changed dramatically. Instead of relying on a mobilized grassroots legislative base to help secure additional funding, the University administration returned to the "Big Man" Model of lobbying - a topic covered at length in another posting.

But can this model still be used effectively 'today'? I would argue that the general answer to this is 'yes, it can', but with the caveat that the effectiveness depends upon a number of factors, some within control of student leaders and some that are completely beyond anyone's control (ie. the economy and current political climate).

But overall, a sustained organizing effort to create a mobilized legislative base for the University is a must.

A Political History of the University

UMass was built by a small handful of Irish-Catholic urban Democrats who controlled the state legislature until the 1970's (when the power base of the Democratic party in the state started shifting from the cities to the suburbs). Their agenda was to expand access to higher education to sons and daughters of working and middle class families and toward that end they poured tens of millions of dollars into the Amherst campus completely transforming it in about a decade. As the report notes, between 1959 and 1971 - 150 new buildings were built on the Amherst campus, enrollment tripled from about 6500 to over 18,000, and more than 700 new faculty were hired.

"In the post-War period, however, the traditional blue-collar Democratic constituency prospered. Those who were enjoying the benefits of this new prosperity sought to pass it on to their children, and a college education was an important and symbolic means toward this end. The Democratic leadership of the legislature therefore set about to make higher educaiton available at an affordable price.....Over a ten or twelve year period the campus was transformed almost beyond recognition, the product of hundreds of millions of new dollars and thousands of new students." (pp. 6-7)

When it comes to lobbying, which works better: the 'Big Man' model or Grassroots Lobbying?

In case you hadn't noticed so far, the point of this blog is to convince you that if you really want to be effective as a student leader and activist, then - no matter what the issue is that you want to resolve - your best strategy is to go to Beacon Hill, establish some credibility and communication by lobbying for the University's budget, and then parlay whatever influence you can gain by your presence at the state house into pressure on the campus administration.

You can (and probably will) try other strategies. Listen to the voice of the past: none of them will work as effectively as this one.

But as we move forward in this discussion about fighting for UMass, it is time to address the central problems that the University faces, and reflect on this history of how the campus administration and the students have attempted to address these problems in the past.

For some of you, this may be old news or obvious to you. But for many student leaders and activists, it is undoubtedly new and vital information that you need as you evolve into the most thoughful, articulate, passionate, and effective activists you can be.

Toward this end, it is critically important that you read, and reread, and read again and again - the attached PDF file titled "The Whitehead Group Report". This is an 80 page draft of a memo that was written as a briefing document for incoming Chancellor Joe Duffy in 1982. The original draft has no official name, but is/was often referred to as the "Whitehead Group Report" for reasons that become obvious once you read the document. At any rate, this draft memo is critically important because it gives a detailed political history of the University (it's creation by the state legislature, relations with the state legislature, attempts by students and administrators to fight for increased funding, etc.,)

Problem:
When it comes to the issue of Public Higher Education, Massachusetts is different than pretty much every other state in the country because: 1) we are home to some of the most prestigous private colleges and universities in the world, and; 2) we are also the only state in the country that has a 'private higher education' industry with hundreds of other colleges and universities that compete for the affections and support of the general public.

Think about it this way. If you live west of the Mississippi and you want to go to a University, chances are you are going to go to a state school. Can you name two large private, prestigious Universities west of the Mississippi? Probably not. That's because in most other states, higher education is dominated by the PUBLIC colleges and universities. In fact, in most other states, the public colleges and universities enjoy widespread support and even adoration from both the public and the state legislature.

Here in Massachusetts, not only are our public colleges and universities often considered the 'ugly step-child' so to speak, we are also the 'johnny come lately'. The state's tradition of higher education predates the founding of the United States, and yet for all intents and purposes our public colleges and universities are barely half a century old.

The problem for the Amherst campus is exacerbated by the fact that is located outside of the Boston media market and away from the state's power base.

Answer?

So what can 'we' do to address this problem, this lack of adequate support for our public University and the flagship campus of our system? In this section we will address the three basic models that have been used by both administrators and students to deal with this problem

Model #1: The Administration's Plan 'A'; The 'Big Man' Model. This model comes first for a very simple reason. It is the original model - the one that was used to create the University in the first place. Think of it this way: with all of the challenges facing the public higher education in the country, how did UMass even come to be in the first place?

The answer is simple: during the 1950's a small group of powerful men in the state legislature used their power and influence to transform UMass from a small state agricultural college to a large, modern public research University with more than 20,000 students in a little more than a decade. As the 'Whitehead Group Report' says the creation of the University was not the "product of a broadbased political discourse", which if you know and understand the political nature of Beacon Hill you know that almost nothing important that happens up there is the product of a 'broadbased political discourse'. Almost all the power is concentrated in the hands of the Speaker, Senate President and the chairmen of the House and Senate Ways and Means Committee. What the leadership wants, the leadership gets.

The 1940's and 50's saw the political ascendence of Irish Catholic urban Democrats both here in Massachusetts and nationally. These men had grown up in a period when college was the exclusive priveledge of the state's Protestant middle-class and upper-class establishment. These Irish Catholic working class Democrats wanted to make sure that the sons and daughters of other working class and middle class immigrants had access to a college education and a path toward a middle class standard of living.

So here in Massachusetts they used their power and influence to build UMass out of a cow pasture. There were no petitions, no debate, and no public hearings. As the memo noted "there was no widespread public discourse." They did without asking anyone if they thought it was a good idea or if they even wanted it.

So for more than twenty years (until the mid to late 70's roughly), when it came to getting support for the University from the State Legislature there was no grassroots lobbying. There was no need for rallies, phone calls, or post cards. All of the 'lobbying' the University had to do took place in a single phone call: from the University Chancellor to the Speaker of the House. Badda boom, badda bing! That was it.

And they did it without raising alarm of the private higher ed industry by 'disguising' the true nature of some of the buildings they were funding. In other words: they lied do conceal the fact that they were trying to build a public research University so that the other private research Universities wouldn't rally mobilize their considerable political influence against them.

In many ways, this effort was heroic. These people, who had suffered the scars of intense discrimination and inequality used their new found power to right the wrongs of the past.

But on the other hand, this model left the University completely vulnerable. Because the problem with this model, the "Big Man" model - is that it relies exclusively on the power and influence of a handful of very commmitted, very powerful men to take an interest in the University and its mission.

From the administration and the Board of Trustees perspective, this traditionally has been THE model because when this model works, it works better than any other model hands down. In the University gets more money and support with very little effort or energy, and equally important is the fact that they don't have to rely on any pain in the arse alumni, faculty or students - who might want to have some say over how the new monies are spent if they have a hand in helping bring those monies to campus (which we will cover in more depth later).

There are a number of problems with this model of course - and a few of them should be obvious. Not the least of which is the fact that once the 'big man' goes away (ie. retires, takes another job, runs for another office, resigns in disgrace, or maybe even goes to jail) the University is left completely empty handed and vulnerable. There is no SECOND BIGGEST MAN to step in and carry our water. And given the fact that public higher education is the biggest piece of the state budget that CAN be cut in times of trouble (unlike Medicare and Medicaid), the absence of a BIG Man to protect us leaves us with a big bulls-eye on our back.

But another problem with this model is that it does absolutely nothing to get the public to support and care about its public colleges and Universities they way that people love and care about their state schools in many, many other states. Many of us who have done this work in the past concede that the Big Man model works in the short term, but in the long term it only solidifies the entire public higher ed system's status as second-class to the private schools because it doesn't engage the public in the 'broad based discourse' that eventually needs to happen if we want to stop the endless cycles of bust and boom and build UMass into the world-class University that it can and should be.

Model #2: The Administration's Plan 'B'; Punt. And then Pass on Cuts and Cost Increases to Students, Families, Faculty and Staff. This model is simple. In the absence of a 'Big Man' on Beacon Hill or in the President's Office to fight for the campus when there is a problem, you simply punt. You slash the budget, raise tuition and fees, get your resume together and get the hell out of dodge. Abandon your obligations to the mission of UMass and the citizens of the Commonwealth and go find a cushy gig at a college or University that is not plagued by the unique circumstances of public higher education in Massachusetts.

Model #3: Mobilize a Grassroots Legislative Base to Lobby for the University's Budget Request. In this model, the various constituencies of the University (the students, the faculty, the alumni, the parents) mobilize their massive grassroots numbers and pressure elected officials to support the University's budget request. It has been used successfully a number of times by both the administration and the students - and it is obviously the model that is embraced here on this blog. It isn't simple, and it isn't perfect, it cannot always be implemented with maximum efficacy and efficiency, and it cannot always be executed exactly the same way each time it is used. But if you care about building public support for the University, keeping costs low, and keeping the University accessible to the people it is supposed to serve - then this model is at the very least a step in the right direction.

And although in most cases, the administration has eschewed this model, ironically - it was the administration in 1980 that was the first to use this model successfully. The 'Whitehead Group Report' is the case study of the Univerity administration's successful campaign to defend UMass' budget in the face of devastating budget cuts.

Of course, the rest of this blog is essentially a case study in how the SGA and SCERA used this model successfully during the 1990's - not just to increase the University's budget allocation but also to force the administration to concede on a number of key local issues.

So Why is the Admnistration Usually Very Hostile to Grassroots Model?

The answer is simple. When the administration has to rely upon groups like the SGA, or the Alumni Association to help increase the state allocation to UMass - then those groups inevitably want to have some say over how those new monies will be spent.

Basically, from the administration's perspective, they have two choices:

Choice A: A larger pie, but some small degree of shared decision making with those pain in the ass students and alumni who went all the way to Beacon Hill and actually lobbied for the money. Work with students, alumni, etc., to pressure the legislature to give more funding, and then give the students and alumni some say over how to spend a small amount of the new money.

Choice B: A smaller pie, but 100% control of the money and how will be spent. If this means budget cuts, and tuition and fee increases - no problem. The students and staff can simply 'eat cake' as Marie Antoinette, or the typical passionless administrator might say just before they collect their last taxpayer funded pay check and abandon the mission of the University and the taxpayers for a better gig somewhere else.

I think history has shown pretty clearly that the vast majority of administrators and members of the Board of Trustees prefer Option 'B'. As a general rule, the administration will choose a smaller pie but total control every time - unless the students force them to do otherwise.

In fact, I belive that one of the most powerful examples of this principle is the case study about GEO and the issue of Agency Fee. At one point, the administration was so opposed to Agency Fee they allowed a 3 week strike by grad employees. Three years later, GEO forced to the administration to spend 10% of a new $12 million increase and just like that! - the administration turned 180 degrees on the issue of Agency Fee. When it came down to it, the administration cared more about control of the money than anything else.

Conclusion:

The University needs a permanent legislative base if we are ever going to build the kind of support necessary to make UMass a world class University.