CFA Is No Match for PSA: Professional Society vs Union Representation

Faculty of the California State University (CSU) system are once again fighting for a new employment contract. Not surprisingly, negotiations have not gone as hoped and so they are now moving to third-party mediation. Their union representative California Faculty Association (CFA) seeks a 12% general salary increase, better defined workloads, improved paid leave, and improved campus safety. From the point of view of faculty within the higher education institutional (HEI) model of university and college employment, the CFA has been doing much to improve compensation and working conditions.

This post goes through a 3-minute promotional video capturing and commenting on the various claims in support of CFA efforts, while providing links to PSA blog posts that elaborate the commentary. The principal source of testimonials is CSU employees classified as lecturers, who earn an income of between $62,016 and $83,352 on 12-month contracts and constitute at least 45% of the faculty staff, though they have very little say in the shared governance of the CSU system, which has no where near the number of faculty necessary to meet the general demand for HE.

PSA Takes Common Strategies to Logical Conclusions

Eleven years ago, I wrote this open letter to American academics offering the Professional Society of Academics (PSA) model for higher education (HE) (2012). Ten years ago, I wrote this to help the City College of San Francisco when its accreditation was to be pulled because its finances were tanking (2013). Nine years ago, I wrote this to help the City of Detroit during its urban collapse due to the 2008 economic recession (2014). Last year, I wrote this to help all troubled universities and colleges, using the Illinois examples of two now closed institutions, Lincoln College and Lincoln Christian University (2022). In between I have explained that according to the PSA model:

Internationalization: Chinese Communist Party & Western Education (Part 2)

The first installment of this three-part series presents reasons to be cautious in forming higher education (HE) internationalization relationships with China. Much of the evidence is based on my seven years of living in China, while studying its (higher) education system, teaching at levels from middle school to university, owning a private education business, and hosting 100s of hours of Philosophy Club (an open face-to-face forum for philosophical discussion of myriad topics raised by attendees).

In a nutshell, the reasons for recommending caution are that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) does not subscribe to fundamental values which instruct HE pedagogy and policy in the West – e.g., Anglo-American, European, and Australian. These differences in values should not be tolerated or compromised and under the CCP there are no feasible means by which they can be changed through domestic action or international cooperation. Part one also presents the PSA model as a way for the West to reduce the current substantial reliance on HE export to China and thereby escape the actual and potential value compromises associated with such internationalization.

This second post considers a defense of China as an internationalization partner. The defense comes from, Fei Xiaotong (费孝通), who having lived through the early emergence of modern China was to become a notable social anthropologist and political apologist. In the second stage of his career, up to his death in 2005 at the age of ninety-four, Fei advocated for what he called, “harmony within diversity.” During this time, he disparaged the Western approach to international and national (hereafter, (inter)national) harmonization, while offering what he claimed to be a superior approach grounded in Chinese philosophy, politics, policy, and practice.

Internationalization: Chinese Communist Party & Western Education (Part 1)

This is the first post in a three-part series that explores why nations such as the United States, Canada, Britain, Australia, Norway, Finland, France, Demark, Germany, and the like – what will hereafter be referred to as the “West” – should be very cautious about forming higher education (HE) relationships with China. At the same time, it explains how, compared to the higher education institution (HEI) model of universities and colleges, PSA can better serve internationalization goals while protecting the Western ethos of HE. Initial discussion emphasizes socio-political considerations and then turns to economic, while both sections engage academics.

Parts two and three of this series respond to social anthropologist Fei Xiaotong’s (费孝通) cultural self-awareness strategy for (inter)national harmonization and his claim that (Communist) China offers a better model for internationalization than does the West.

New World Order: A Socialist Higher Education System

 

The forecast for humans is severe, with contraction or collapse expected in: demographics; trade; food; employment; ecosystems; economies; education; energy; technology; diversity; democracy; diplomacy; comradeship; freedom; tolerance; and peace. Bound by ever-increasing social and natural antagonism, it seems more of us will be doing with less in a “new world order.”