Recommendations for Colleges

I trust that the public will activate its curiosity and seek out additional information that your Aug. 10 editorial (“Colleges at the Precipice”) brings forth. The final report of the California Citizens’ Commission on Higher Education, a product of two years study and research, deserves careful scrutiny by those in the executive and legislative branches who will ultimately have to decide on which, if not all, its many reforms should be adopted.

The editorial notes that the “report’s most daring suggestion calls for removal of faculty representatives from the 17-member board that coordinates the state’s higher education planning.” This observation does not really translate into “daring.” Faculty are well represented by their unions and academic senates. What can be more properly and realistically classified as derring-do is the commission’s recommendation to eliminate the 71 districts and the 435 elected trustees and their staffs and to put the millions spent directly into the California community colleges themselves.

LEFTERIS LAVRAKAS

Costa Mesa

*

Concerning your editorial, I quote: “The report’s most daring suggestion calls for removal of faculty representatives from the 17-member board that coordinates the state’s higher education planning.” You point out that political appointees to replace them is no better. I can see, though, the reasoning behind excluding faculty from the board--these problems are much harder to solve when one knows something about the problem.

I am continually surprised by the public’s and The Times’ attitude: You expect the very best teachers--dedicated, knowledgeable, intelligent--and yet, you do not want them to have any control of the politics of education. And believe me, it is heavily politicized in California.

WALTER MAYA

Professor Emeritus, Chemistry

Cal Poly Pomona