1

September 14, 2010

To: Middle States Commission on Higher Education

From: Puerto Rican Association of University Professors (APPU)

Introduction: APPU Background

The Puerto Rican Association of University Professors ( Asociación Puertorriqueña de

Profesores Universitarios, APPU) was founded in 1961 to protect the interests and rights of the

faculty of the University of Puerto Rico, to promote collegiality and to forward our ideals of a

quality public education. Although we have not become a faculty union, we often have a role

similar to that of unions in disputes, policy debates and similar situations. In the current

controversies at UPR, we have tried to mediate between parties, have supported the basic

concept of the need for an affordable public education of excellence and have tried to mitigate

the damages caused by a rigid administrative structure which allows little community

participation, has an agenda quite different from most of the university community and which

has caused the recent crisis, including the probatory status in which most of the UPR system

finds itself today.

Prestige of the UPR

It is noteworthy that UPR has undergone long strikes before over the years and never

before has Middle States felt the need to place the institution under probation. It has always

been clear that we are not a fly-by-night institution which will disappear overnight. We have a
 2
history of 107 years during which the UPR has served the country faithfully and has created a

professional middle class on an impoverished island where the vast majority of students

cannot afford to go elsewhere for their education. We are a prestigious university with

extensive links and agreements with hundreds of institutions around the world. We are the

ONLY institution of higher learning in Puerto Rico that carries out important research in all

fields, from the sciences to the humanities, from architecture to education. The library system,

despite its problems, serves as the National Library of Puerto Rico and the Law School Library

is the de facto legal library of the island legal profession. Thus, while the recent student strike

postponed the ending of the second semester of classes when it was three weeks short of

ending, historically, UPR has never “lost” a semester because the academic calendar has always

been adjusted to meet the required credit hours. Our organization was shocked that

Middle States could even begin to doubt the seriousness of the community’s

commitment with education. Our history, our numerous achievements, the proven

quality of our graduates, and the many prestigious members of the faculty should be

a guarantee that UPR will not fold suddenly and must be proven to be a “viable”

institution. Only actions by the government could possibly destroy UPR, and we do

not think even the current hostile climate would go that far.

APPU position concerning the current administration’s behavior

We do believe that the current administration needs evaluation and critique. Like many

other state-supported schools in the States, UPR is currently under serious budgetary

constraints, and it is important that a clear accounting of just how the available moneys have
 3
been and will be used must be carried out. Additionally, the university administrative

practices that led to the shut down of communication with the community need to be

addressed. The APPU perceives a huge gap between what the administration has

understood as the root problems in the recent events and those perceived by the rest

of us.

On June 1, 2010 the Vice Presidency for Academic Affairs submitted a “Voluntary

Report” that created a picture of a university in a totally chaotic state, where students had

defied all law and order, and where teaching and research had become impossible. We beg to

differ. The strike began as a mere stoppage of two days to dramatize legitimate student

concerns over substantial budget cuts affecting academic offerings, the threat to tuition

waivers, and the concern for the unstable situation of the summer sessions. At that moment,

all that was required was good faith conversation between the parties, for the students

concerns to be addressed and for a common search for solutions to be proposed where both

parties, administration and students could participate effectively. None of this happened. In

fact, the chancellor of Río Piedras immediately decreed a lock-out. So the students went on an

indefinite strike. It was the administration that shut down research by imposing a

lock-out.

The students tried repeatedly to acquire lists of researchers so that they could enter

campus to continue their work. It was the university authorities, with the backing of Riot

Police units of the state police, that kept people out. It is unnecessary for us to produce proof of

this. Any number of videos to be found online and newspaper reports and editorials testify to

the truth. To blame the students for the prolonged shut down, when by official Certification
 4
No. 126, passed by the Board of Trustees on May 14, 2010 (Addendum 1) the Río Piedras

Campus was ordered closed by the University until July 31 and it was not until more than a

month after the strike began that the UPR administration sat down with the students to talk.

This lock-out with the subsequent actions of the Riot Squad teams and the university guards

effectively blocked researchers from entering on several occasions when the students were

perfectly willing to let them in.

APPU, the HEEND (the union that represents non-teaching personnel) and other unions

set up camps outside each of the gates to monitor events and to prevent violence from

erupting. Our experience throughout the strike was that the so-called student-generated

incidents were most often begun by the police, who at one point even prohibited food, water

and even medicines from being given to the students on campus. Such was the public outcry at

this behavior that dozens of private citizens spontaneously showed up and donated cases of

food and water to the students, having to dodge the police in order to be able to hand them to

the students over the fences. Parents who tried to bring supplies to their offspring were beaten

by the police and even arrested. APPU witnessed several incidents of police brutality. Most

students stuck to a non-violent policy no matter the provocation; at most they expressed their

anger through words. We found that many of the charges made by the administration about

damage to university property were also exaggerated or false. Students in fact made serious

efforts to keep the campus clean, and undertook several projects for its improvement,

including recycling and a community food garden. The press took note of these efforts and

coverage is available to the commission by checking the newspaper accounts for the strike

period. Several APPU members entered the Río Piedras Campus during the strike when reports
 5
of damage circulated, and found that they were false. A video circulated by the administration

showed areas of the campus which were abandoned and in desperate straits for time

immemorial.

The APPU strongly feels that in order for MSCHE to consider the situation at

UPR and the ten campuses under probation fairly, it must hear from sources other

than the Administration which has so far controlled the information which reaches

it, as far as we can see, and has even incurred in what we understand as illegal

actions: on July 28, 2010 the Board of Trustees met with members of the MSCHE. At

the beginning of the meeting, the duly elected and full member of the Board, Dr. Waldemiro

Vélez, who represents the faculty was physically blocked from entering the meeting. In protest,

his colleague and the second representative of the faculty on the Board, Dr. Marta Bustillo,

expressed her outrage at this and walked out of the meeting. We still do not understand how

the members of MSCHE did not object to this clear violation of legal procedure. The faculty

representatives on the Board of Trustees have a clear right to be present at all meetings of said

Board and it is not the right of the President of the Board or of any member to prohibit their

full participation within that body. It is our understanding, therefore, that the meeting with

MSCHE was clearly irregular and illegal.

We are deeply concerned as well with recent legislation (Law 65 of 2010)

(Addendum 2) which adds new members to the board, which like all but the two

faculty representatives and the one student representative, are named by the

governor of Puerto Rico. Such a Board is inevitably a political body in the worst

possible sense. They owe their loyalty to the current political structure rather than the
 6
institution (this was actually expressed openly by the president of the Board when an

assembly of professors from the whole UPR system demanded her resignation). Another

intrusion into the internal affairs of the university on the part of the government is another

recently approved law (Law 128 of 2010) (Addendum 3) which orders the exact mode of

voting in all decision-making processes within the institution and essentially alters the

democratic practices which have been in place historically. At this moment there are

approximately one hundred pieces of legislation about university affairs under consideration

in the legislature. (Addendum 4)

Our primary concern now is the new report submitted to the MSCHE on

September 6, 2010 and particularly the outlined Plan of Action contained therein.

Typically, no community reaction or participation went into its making, and it was

released so late, that we have only had a few days to respond.

We consider that the document deals with issues of security on campus to present what

most of us would consider a revisionist (and inaccurate) version of what most of us know to be

events on at least the Río Piedras Campus.

Certification No. 90 of the Board of Trustees, (Addendum 5) which is proudly hailed as

a supposed solution to the problem of stoppages or strikes, is essentially the abolishment of a

long-standing non-confrontational policy that grew out of serious riots, violence and even

deaths at the Rio Piedras Campus in the late sixties, the seventies and up to the long student

strike about tuition raises in the early eighties. This policy, put in place by Chancellor Juan

Fernández, was strengthened by a body composed of members of all the university community

including non-teaching staff, members of the academic senate, members of the security
 7
division, and students (Junta Coordinadora de Seguridad) who mediated and guaranteed the

safety of all during demonstrations, marches, and other activities. It also promoted the respect

of picket lines and essentially limited the intervention on campus of the police to events of

illegal actions such as robberies, rapes, hold-ups and other clearly criminal acts. The denial

that this policy was a recognized part of academic life in Río Piedras at least is

seriously faulty. The Academic Senate of the Río Piedras Campus has considered said policy

repeatedly and numerous certifications attest to its importance to the community.

(Addendum 6) While it is true that the detailed protocol did not get approved in its final

form, the policy continued to protect the members of the community until this administration

essentially erased it.

At this moment not only the students, who are to be charged a “special quota” which de

facto duplicates their tuition, which essentially renders many waivers moot, but also the

HEEND which is negotiating their new contract have grievances which might lead to another

strike or stoppage. None of the policies or attitudes of the current Board of Trustees and the

Presidency of the UPR are likely to prevent these from happening, and their suspension of the

Non-Confrontational Policy makes these probable situations seriously dangerous to all.

The Report states, in its introductory section the following: Tuition is among the lowest

in the nation, accounting for less than 10% of UPR revenues. In accordance with a 4% annual

increase per incoming class established in Certification No. 60 (2006-2007) of the Board of

Trustees, tuition has increased from $45 per undergraduate credit hour in 2007 to $51 in 2010

and from $113 per graduate credit hour in 2007 to $127 in 2010

(http://www.certifica.upr.edu/PDF/CERTIFICACION/2006-2007/60%202006-2007.pdf). Each cohort

 8
is guaranteed the same tuition rate for a period of 150% the time required for degree

completion. Since its inception, the UPR has educated the majority of the top leadership of

Puerto Rico’s academic, business, and government sectors and confers degrees at the rate of

9,000 per year.

This data is correct, but serious omissions exist. A recent article in Caribbean Business

compared Puerto Rico’s economic status to that of all other jurisdictions under the US flag,

including Guam, the Virgin Islands and other non-state territories. Puerto Rico has the

lowest per capita income of ALL jurisdictions. Our student body is now made up of

commuters who often work full-time. Pell grants, constantly alluded to by the administration

as the solution to all economic problems the students might have, help students who qualify

but leave a substantial part of them with no help. At any rate, the grants do not cover all

expenses. The administration has conducted a propaganda campaign to deny that students use

Pell funds “left over” after paying tuition for any serious expenses associated with their

studies. In fact, the university itself estimates the cost of study at UPR to be about

twice what the Pell grants allot a students. Many students get no help from their families

whose overstretched family budgets cannot cover the cost of books, supplies, transportation,

room and board. And then, Pell grants do not apply to graduate studies, where students have

very little financial aid. Yet the graduate students too will have to pay the quota. In spite of the

quality of instruction and the unique nature of some of our graduate programs, most have been

unable to attract many students from outside of Puerto Rico for lack of financial support.

Further raising tuition and quotas will only drive students out or stretch their time spent

studying considerably. Tuition raises in the past have shown that many students are forced to
 9
drop out or take fewer classes. All in all, these added costs give the institution no real

benefit.

The Section of the Plan that deals with the Standard of Governance begins with a

section called “Foster an Enhanced Institutional Climate and Identity” where the expressed

goal is the following:

GOAL: Optimize the flow and exchange of timely and accurate information and
broaden opportunities for productive communication and input to all sectors of
the University Community, to stimulate a climate of trust, collaboration,
commitment and identification with the institution’s mission, goals, and
challenges.

It is interesting to note that the flow is one way (to the community). The measures that

the report discusses are more or less the same as are available currently. Unfortunately, the

community has long since lost its trust in the administration and thus none of the cited means

to “foster an enhanced institutional climate” are likely to make any difference. More useful to

most members of the community are the individual pages and blogs operated by

non-administrative personnel or low level administrators who are generally trusted.

Thus students and even professors are more likely to look to pages on Facebook or

appu.org to get information than to check out the institutional pages (with some

exceptions -the Río Piedras Registrar is respected by most of the community, for

example, and so the section from the Registrar is trusted by most).

We would like to address the issue of shared governance in the process of

selection of administrative officials at the University of Puerto Rico, as well as in

budgetary decisions. We believe that the report prepared by high level officials of
 10
the University of Puerto Rico’s administration does not reflect the practices

implemented by said officials in governance issues. Shared governance requires the

participation (in different degrees) of all members of the university community in decision-

making regarding important policy decisions. As the Academic Senate at California State

University (2000) put it:

Shared governance describes the relationship between the administration and the
faculty in which the faculty participate in giving direction and advice to the university
on important policy decisions. At the system level this involves the relationship
between the system-wide Academic Senate and the Chancellor’s Office, the Trustees
and parallel advisory bodies (e.g., the Executive Council).

This applies, not only to officials at different campuses but also to the Board of Trustees.

Hermalin in Governing Academia, page 45, discusses the role in governance of the Board of

Trustees during conflicts and states that: “The role of governance is, thus, to ensure that the

administration properly affects a compromise solution, a role made difficult by the lack of clear

performance metrics and uncertainty over objectives on the part of the governors.”

We consider that the university administration, including the Board of

Trustees, contrary to what they have claimed in the reports submitted to your

commission, has not complied with basic requirements of shared governance. The

following sections provide examples of practices that differ significantly from those defined as

shared governance by scholars and by the practice at other institutions.

 11
Political Intervention at UPR and Violation of University Policy

It is a widely held belief among members of the university community that with every

change of central government officials as a result of Puerto Rican elections, there will be a

change in the university’s administration. Every time there has been a change in political

party, the whole upper echelon of administrators (President, chancellors, deans)

changes within two years of the election. Moreover, these changes typically involve the

selection of Board of Trustee members and administrators who have organized fund raising for

a political party, or have been long-standing members of the political organization that wins

local elections. Sadly, the university community has resigned to the regularity of this practice.

The university is electionary booty, and there is little hope among the community that

this is likely to change. Nevertheless, this fact doesn’t make it ethical or lawful to substitute

administrators based on political, or even familial relationships, rather than on merit. As we

have pointed out earlier, the whole Board, with the exception of three members who represent

the faculty (2) and students (1) is named by the governor of the island, and recently the

number of members was expanded further adding the political influence on this board.

Although this MSCHE commission has no bearing on the particulars of university

campuses, this time, the process of selecting chancellors for our 11 campuses coincides with

the visit by your commission. We have sensed widespread skepticism among professors

regarding the influence of this commission on the direction of this institution. Some

information about the issues of governance within the commission has cast doubts among our

peers. However, the Puerto Rican Association of University Professors (APPU) believes
 12
that such questioning should not preclude the commission’s findings and recommendations to

the UPR administration. Moreover, during a teleconference held on August 4, 2010, MSCHE

officials mentioned the undue interference of people holding particular political beliefs in

decisions of governance at UPR. Therefore, we believe that this commission will listen

to our criticisms and proposals regarding shared governance at UPR, and perhaps

issue a serious warning about the undue intromission in the university’s internal

affairs by the government.

As we have pointed out, political interference is a historical fact which has become

exacerbated by the current government’s attitude toward UPR. This has a direct influence on

the implementation of shared governance since recommendations made by the university

community and the Academic Senates of the various units for the chancellors’ positions are

consistently ignored. During the week of September 5-9, the Regents have selected Chancellors

that have little or no support from the community in the public hearing processes. The Board

of Trustees is not even consistent with its own policies. A chancellor was named who has no

doctoral degree even though the Board of Trustees has certified that a doctoral degree is

required for faculty hiring and in yet another certified a policy statement making the doctoral

degree a requirement for the administration of an academic unit, such as a campus. The claim

made now to justify their choice is that it is difficult to acquire a doctoral degree in

Puerto Rico. The fact is, however, that in the recent elimination of adjunct positions

on various campuses, numerous professors with Ph. Ds and even post docs were

fired.

In the Report on page 34, the university administration describes their plan to
 13
cultivate an open-university culture. They define this as: “Support an Open University
Culture that values diversity of ideas, guarantees and encourages freedom of speech and the right
to dissent, while safeguarding the rights and responsibilities of all members of the University
community with the continuity of the institutional education, research and service mission.”

Their recommendations include: (a) a Chancellor’s report to the Academic Senate, a

body substantially composed of high administration officials as well as students and faculty;

(b) presentations to faculty of the consequences of not complying with Standards (4) and (11),

which the President of the University has described as an immediate loss of accreditation and

federal funds warning students and employees on the consequences of a future strike; (c) the

creation of an Open University Committee, which deals with “keeping open” the campuses

during a strike, not with an “open university culture”1; (d) a Leadership and Governance

Committee to evaluate and educate about roles and responsibilities of campus constituents

according to regulations.

No section of this report includes the participation of the campus community

in any decision or evaluation of the university or its policies. The administration

understanding of “shared governance” includes only informing constituents of their

responsibilities with their exclusion from any decision-making. This report was designed and

written by a few, and includes only the opinion of higher-ranking administrators. We saw it

for the first time on September 8, 2010; and no section of this report has been

subject to Faculty input, except for a few people carefully selected by the

administration. The administration practices and this report tell lower ranking constituents

1 Recent news articles seem to indicate that an “open” university is one without fences, which a committee is considering
knocking down. That some of the campuses border on areas of high criminality does not seem to worry these literal-
minded committee members.
 14
what their role is as members of the community; while higher-ranking administrators reward

members of a political organization without having to account for their actions to anyone

within the community.

We believe that the University of Puerto Rico cannot comply with Standards 3

and 4 if the administration ignores every aspect of shared governance.

Regarding budget allocations, the University of Puerto Rico seems to be implementing a

Tiebout’s (1956) model of competition. Unfortunately, the control of budget resources is so

centralized in the system that it defeats the intended competition for resources that

characterizes this model. The administration recently implemented a 25% cut in course

sections across the board.

In Río Piedras, the cuts were made with no analysis of student needs, graduation

requirements or student academic progress. While registration was going on, new rules on

class size were suddenly imposed with no consultation to departments and academics. Class

size was raised to 30 per section in the case of multiple sections, and 20 for single section

courses. Sections with as many as 29 students were closed, leaving students unable to

complete their programs and in many instances unable to get any courses in their major areas.

Even more outrageous, the size of graduate classes was raised brutally, creating serious

problems for many master´s and doctoral degree programs. In some instances, student

progress was seriously threatened by the cuts.

Of course, no concern about quality of teaching, diversity of methods or student

participation seemed to form a part of these purely economic decisions. If MSCHE is really

concerned with student progress and continuity of programs, then it is imperative

 15
that any cuts be preceded by careful analysis of need. We believe that quality of teaching

is not a negotiable item. All budgetary adjustments need to be designed keeping in

mind that priorities need to be established that privilege quality of teaching, student

needs to complete their degrees, and faculty need to have time and space to conduct

research. All these values seem to have disappeared from view under pressure from “the

bottom line.”

On the other hand, the administration froze all hiring except in those areas that they

have decided to develop further (primarily research in scientific areas which might lead to

marketable findings). All these practices contradict what they have told faculty members

about the need for competing for students by providing more attractive course offerings, and

by bringing new funding to the University. They have risked loosing funding by severely

cutting release time for faculty in charge of programs that get external funds and for staff

engaged in important research. All these decisions seem to be driven by a desire to “save

money” by downplaying some areas that the administration does not consider important or

relevant to the central government.

The influence of political figures in the decision-making at UPR is overwhelming, from

politicians who are not even members of the Board of Trustees to the Governor’s Chief of Staff

(In fact, the importance of these outside figures in UPR policy was clearly demonstrated when

the last group from MSCHE to visit in the summer, actually met with Mr. Rodríguez Emma at

the Fortaleza.) The current practices profoundly undermine the development of programs,

compliance with continuity in educational programs, participation of the community in

decisions, and retention.

 16
The perception of political control in hiring decisions and in the development

of long term-plans is demoralizing to the Faculty. Freezing long-due promotions (these

were frozen in 2008-09, leaving the candidates for that year in an administrative limbo and

others who would have qualified in 2009-10 without the possibility of even becoming

candidates) becomes an incentive for faculty attrition. Although we have no access to statistics

regarding this issue, we have numerous testimonials of tenure-track faculty members that plan

to resign and find a job elsewhere; and some have already taken the step of leaving.

APPU´s expectations of MSCHE

Our recommendations to this commission include conducting a thorough evaluation of

higher administration practices at UPR, not just of well-manufactured reports. We expect this

commission to inquire about the process of selection of chancellors at each campus, to request

higher administration officials to implement a true “open university culture,” where

democratic participation is possible. We aim at having “shared governance,” where decisions

on course section closings after the registration period follow an analysis of enrollment, and

student need, particularly of those students who are about to graduate, as well as the graduate

students whose academic progress is equally important. Recent practice has not only not

analyzed student enrollment and need, but it has suddenly and without consultation raised the

minimum number of students in a class after the registration period was almost complete.

This particularly affected graduate programs where the previous maximum number of

students suddenly became the minimum and sections were closed without considering the

impact on student progress.

 17
Only profound changes in higher administration policies and practices will

allow the university to comply with these standards. The increasing micromanagement

coming down from the Board of Trustees, the loss of academic freedom, the lack of autonomy

of the eleven campuses, are all serious challenges which we perceive the report makes no

attempt to solve.

Pusser and Turner in Governing Academia, page 249, indicate that:

In evaluating how well governance works in higher education, it is necessary to

distinguish between productive efficiency – getting a given output at the lowest
cost – and mission efficiency – choosing the combination of outputs that is true
to institutional mission.”

The administration at the University of Puerto Rico has ignored “mission efficiency”

altogether and it seems that only profit for some privileged allies guides the decisions of

university officials. The loss is not just for the institution but for the people of Puerto Rico

whose public university is becoming increasingly remote to its historical social mission of

giving all talented students, no matter their social or economic class, the opportunity to study

at an excellent university, and of the country to benefit from the increases in learning not just

about money-making subjects but also about those humanistic and social areas that give

quality to life.

We regret that we did not have the opportunity to meet with the Commission, but trust

that you will consider all the issues and concerns that we have addressed. We have respectfully

made recommendations and firmly believe that said concerns and recommendations reflect

those of the majority of the University community.

 18
APPU trust that MSCHE will favorably recommend the reaccreditation of the ten

campuses recently placed on probation. We wish to insist on the commitment of faculty with

the mission and goals of the University of Puerto Rico with our country.

Should you require additional information or clarification, do not hesitate to contact us.

Respectfully yours,

Professor María Gisela Rosado Almedina

President APPU

Works Cited
Ehrenberg, Ronald G (Ed.). 2004. Governing Academia. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

Academic Senate at California State University. 2000. Report: Shared Governance Reconsidered: Improving
Decision-Making in the California State University. March 29, 2001.