DRAFT

Excerpt from Board of Trustee Minutes, May 26, 1998

NO 12. COMMITTEE ON LONG RANGE PLANNING: RESOLVED, That the following item
be approved:

Statement by Trustee John Morning:
At its May 6th meeting the Long Range Planning Committee agreed that the
sense of its discussion was that a proposal should be prepared by the
Chancellor which would provide for certain measures that the Committee felt
were important in the ongoing discussion about remediation and its future at
the University. I certainly think by this point everyone is familiar with
the two proposals that were under discussion at that meeting, though I do
want to underscore that only one of them was reported out favorably, the
earlier proposal having been rejected by that Committee. On the assumption
that everyone knows what the counter proposal that was reported out
favorably is, I won't go into a word by word reading of that.

With your permission or indeed with the permission of all of my colleagues I
would like to make a few brief comments about that proposal that the
Chancellor has so carefully prepared. I am aware that it may be very
difficult for that proposal to prevail today, and I have debated a great
deal whether it might be better to not raise this issue to go forward with
it, but I want to say, and this is just my personal belief, that it is
better for us to go ahead, at least to the extent that we can have some
discussion of it today, whatever may happen to it. It reminds me of Edmund
Burke's admonition that all that is necessary for the forces of evil to
prevail is for enough good people to do nothing. I would not be content to
do nothing in regards to this consideration at this important time for the
University. I want to ask my colleagues on the Board if they will do
everything that they can to support this counter proposal. The reason I ask
for this is because I think at last week's Public Hearing, we heard an
overwhelming show of what the public feels about this issue. It is
absolutely clear what the public believes in this regard.

I think that what the public sees is a dear threat to the University as we
know it. I am asking that we take action to not go along with this
dismantling of CUNY. We now have before us a counter to the proposal that I
truly believe would be so injurious to this system. It is a very simple one.
It maybe does not provide for everything that every member of this Board
might like to have, but I think those refinements can be made at a future
time. What we do have is what I believe is a clear alternative to the threat
of no remediation. It gives two very important things. First the authority,
the freedom for the individual campuses to provide remediation in the
appropriate degree, to the degree that they see as fit, and as I have said
before. I think it is the individual campuses that are in the best position
to make that assessment. Nobody outside of the system can do that for them.
Secondly, it sets remediation in a clearly defined period of time. I don't
think that anyone going forward from this day is not going to take
remediation more seriously than it has been in the past. It is clear that
there are going to be improvements in remediation and we need a rational
time frame in which to allow that to be done.

Why do we need this? Why is it so important? Not just because the public
wants it, but because our economy demands it. It is what our society needs
as well. We are enjoying an unprecedented boom in this city, but it isn't
going to continue by having fewer trained people as I have attempted to say
in the past, or less well trained people. We have got to continue to provide
this to the economy and to the City. Reducing the size of CUNY is a step
backwards.

Finally, let me say, we have had lots of controversy about this, I know that
this is a difficult lift for our colleagues, but I hope that they will give
consideration to supporting this counter proposal and maintaining CUNY as we
know it.

Statement by Vice Chairman Badillo:
I would like to introduce a substitute resolution to the resolution
introduced by Trustee Morning. My substitute resolution applies only to the
senior colleges. It does not affect the community colleges. This resolution
follows under the 1996 resolution, which the previous Board passed, limiting
remediation to two semesters. In this resolution we are moving to limit
remediation at the senior colleges beginning in September of 1999 and
continuing on through the year 2001.

However, we specifically provide that students shall be able to have
remediation at the summer immersion programs at the community colleges, and
elsewhere as may be made available. For example, the summer immersion
programs, according to a report that I have here, as of last year, had
15,000 students. There are many programs at the community colleges and we
have, beginning September of 1999 and on through the year 2001, to develop
other programs.

Now the reality is that if there is imagination on the part of the
Chancellor, and we hope to have a permanent Chancellor long before
September of 1999, it will be possible to develop programs to insure that
the students who require remediation are able to secure it.

A report was prepared by Interim Deputy Chancellor Patricia Hassett which
says that this resolution will have a tremendous impact, but the report also
says that this may indeed represent the worst case scenario. It does not
take into account expanding the summer immersion program. It doesn't take
into account the administration doing anything whatsoever. It is
inconceivable to me that this administration would wait until the year 2001
to do anything and I cannot believe that a new Chancellor would not take
steps to insure that summer immersion programs are expanded so that the
remediation immersion programs are developed elsewhere.

The fact is that remediation is nothing other than high school work, and
that's what it is. And the time has come to insure that we begin to develop
programs. Madam Chairwoman, I move the resolution.

Statement by Trustee John Calandra:
I support a substitute resolution phasing out remediation at the senior
colleges. I would like to just discuss briefly what I think we are doing by
this resolution and more importantly what we am not doing by this
resolution. What we are doing by this resolution is insisting that students
who would enter our four-year colleges have completed their high school
education and am ready to do college level work when they enter. Simply put,
I think we are ending social promotion into our four-year colleges and we are
raising standards. In my view, this will ultimately redound to the benefit
of students, as it will increase the value of their degree. Importantly what
we are not doing here today, in response to some of the criticism, is
shutting the door of CUNY to a single student. There is a community college
access to each student who would seek to go into that. And we are not, by
this proposal, ending open enrollment. In fact, we are not impacting it one
bit. Open enrollment only affects the community colleges, and this proposal
only affects the senior colleges. Finally, we are not even ending
remediation at CUNY. Remediation continues at CUNY in a different forum, in
a different venue. Those students who just need a little of remediation, in
fact, will take it over the summer and then will enter into the senior
colleges as they would normally. Those students needing a significant amount
of remediation, will go to the community colleges and then from them are
free to transfer into the senior colleges. In fact. I have heard numerous
arguments against this proposal. One thing I have not heard anyone explain
to my satisfaction, is what is the harm in a student who needs significant
high school education work getting that at a community college, rather than
at a senior college and then transferring into the senior college. No one
has ever answered that for me. I support this substitute proposal and I urge
its adoption.

Statement by Trustee James P. Murphy:
Let's not make any bones about it. this is radical surgery on the mission
and role of The City University and New York City. This, I think, is the
first step as part of a covert plot to downsize and to marginalize this
public university. The remediation issue is really a charade, it is a term
that has been picked up by the radical conservative folks that changed New
York at the Manhattan Institute and they have leveraged their ideology into
a political dimension where it is now nice to beat up on this particular
institution.

For twenty-eight years we have been admitting thousands upon thousands of
students to the senior colleges in this system even though they may not have
passed one or all of the assessment tests. The lineal studies that have been
made of that noble experiment that was initiated in 1970 confirm that
remediation works. Remediation can be improved and there has been some
allusion to how improvements might be effected, more cooperation with the
public schools, pre-testing in the junior year in the high schools, doing
summer interventions while the kids are in high school, and expanding
College Now. That's fine, but I don't see that as the package. What I see
here is a meat cleaver that says as of a date certain there will be no
remediation at the four-year colleges and the door is being slammed shut.

The Chancellery has reported on the enrollment and racial implications of
this move. We will drop from 26,000 to 14,000. This has been criticized as
being a worst case scenario. It is not a worst case scenario, it is a
seasonally adjusted figure based on efforts to factor it. If there is a
problem hem, the problem is that this substitute resolution would set in
force a series of happenings that none of us can quite fathom where it will
take us and where they will lead. Vice Chancellor Mirror sent a memo to
Trustee Calandra pointing out that of the 12,000 that would be out, at least
1,100 of those are potentially our best students. These am the students in
the technical programs and if they hadn't passed all three tests, they
couldn't start in engineering and architecture. A lot of those guys and gals
that go into that field are weak on their writing, but they are good on
their math and they can read, and they wouldn't be able to go. Why do we have
to fix something that is working? This proposal is so absolutist that there
is no flexibility.

I think the community college promise is hem and I think some of my
colleagues who am Mayoral appointees am being sold a bill of goods by the
Mayors people that, yes, we am going to put plenty of resources into this
remediation thing, but the Mayor is on record as wanting to privatize
remediation at the community colleges. What is going on here? On the one
hand we am going to cut remediation out at the senior colleges and we have
this wonderful resource called the community colleges. But the chief guy
that has something to say about initiatives here is saying I want to
privatize those activities.

What I feel like is one of the Greeks at the pass at Thermopylae, and my
colleagues who are against the substitute motion, feel the same way.
Remember that story. A few handful of Greeks held off the Spartan armies for
months, but they eventually lost out. We have been doing this, this has been
an issue for us for months and we have been trying to hold out. Why? The
Athenians at Thermopylae held out so that Athens could get strong and be ready
and it did get ready and it was strong and it won the war. Now we may lose
this battle today, but ladies and gentlemen, I sense that them is a rising
ground swell once people have started to look at this. The American Jewish
Congress weighed in over the weekend. Cardinal O'Connor is on record through
my colleague Father Mike Crimmins in his memo to the Trustees and the Chair
and the Chancellor of this University today. Bishop Moore, the Emeritus
Episcopal Bishop of New York City and dean of St. John the Divine, was here
last week and is on record as saying this is the wrong thing to do. Ethical
Culture is on our side. The business community is beginning to wake up. Wait
until they wake up and see what is going to happen when they won't have the
people to fill the jobs that are plentiful now in New York, and CUNY has
been filling those jobs now for forever it seems. Tom Johnson the CEO of
Greenpoint Bank has written to all of us and to the Mayor and Governor
saying this is the wrong thing to do. Remediation is about opportunity. It
has nothing to do with lowering standards. You could have remediation and
you could maintain high standards.

We know that a lot of people graduate from this place after ten years. Why,
because they am raising families. I met Frank Burke, the father of Chris
Burke, the fellow with Down's Syndrome who is now an actor, at a dinner the
other night. He said, 'Jim, your statistics are lousy, because it took me
fourteen years to get out of John Jay College.' He started as a patrolman at
John Jay and with promotional examinations, and some of the cops standing
around this room can relate to this, and having children he got his BS at
John Jay when he was a Deputy Inspector. That's what happens to CUNY
students.

This ground swell, I believe, is manifested by the author Frank McCourt, the
playwrights who testified at the last Public Hearing, Jack Newfield's
column, the various defense organizations that have come to recognize this
for what it is, and the unions are weighing in.

We heard, 'We Shell Overcome,' sung in this room a few minutes ago. I believe
that we shall overcome, and that we will win the struggle to continue to
provide access and opportunity to deserving New Yorkers at CUNY. We may lose
this battle today, we may not. But the war will continue, the struggle will
continue. I ask my colleagues to vote against this substitute resolution, it
is reprehensible.

Statement by Trustee Richard Stone:
It is no secret to the many of you Trustees, members of the administration
and to some who are not here today, that I have agonized, almost
preposterously over this decision that has been easily one of the most
difficult and painful decisions that I have ever made in my life.

When I was asked some four years ago if I were interested in being
considered to be a Trustee of CUNY as an appointment of Mayor Giuliani, I
was asked to have only one interview. At that interview which I had with the
Mayors advisor on educational matters, Herman Badillo, I was asked basically
if I understood what a great institution CUNY had once been and what had
happened over the years. I said that I had read that, and I was not as
current on the affairs of CUNY, as I had a very acute memory of the
greatness that emerged from its halls in the 40's and the 50's. At that time
I think I would have been flabbergasted to think that three or four years
later a resolution of this kind would have caused me so much anguish and
that I would not have been able to vote for it easily rather than with the
great pain that I am, in fact, going to vote for the alternate resolution.

When I began to serve as a Trustee, even with all the background and
interference of Trustee meetings that occurred that first year and somewhat
into this year, I began slowly but surely to realize that my prior existence
as an armchair commentator in favor of standards was to be displaced by a
much more complex role as a person making decisions that affected human
lives, and that the balance of interests was going to be far more complex
and difficult than I could have imagined it to be. Nonetheless, I did not
lose my resolve to play a role over time in raising the standards that I
believe had fallen in the senior colleges, to raise to something resembling
its prior greatness, the value of a degree from a four-year college in the
CUNY system, while at the same time taking into account the immensely more
difficult and complex demographics in the City of New York that exist today
than existed in the golden era of CUNY.

I would, as I think many of you know, have eased into this in a slower way.
I would have made the process slower, conceivably I would have preferred a
somewhat more flexible resolution. I envy some of my colleagues for the
certainty with which they vote for this resolution rather than the
ambiguity. I envy particularly my colleagues John Calandra and Herman Badillo
for their level of certainty which I attribute perhaps as a privilege of
either youth or age as the case may be. I passed one, maybe I will get to
the other. I would have preferred perhaps a true comprehensive plan that
nailed down what the other components will be and that eliminated the fear
of a second shoe dropping, but I concluded on the basis of very extensive
discussions with other Trustees, with governing authorities, and with many
other people that this was not to be, that the moment had indeed arrived to
take a dramatic first step, even if it is a step I take without total ease.

And so I decided instead to seek assurances about what the next steps would
be and what the actuality would be after this first step is taken. In
particular, I was concerned with two matters, both of which have been
alluded to by people speaking today. One, my fellow Trustees voting for this
alternative resolution are those with whom I had a relationship sufficient to
rely on their assurances, and members of the governing authorities who have
hovered over this process, and been so deeply interested in it, and who are
ultimately responsible for its funding, have gone to great lengths to assure
me as Trustees Calandra and Badillo have both mentioned and as the Chair has
mentioned that the underlying assumption of this plan is not in any way,
shape, or form to shrink remediation but to relocate it conceivably even to
places where it can be more focused and more effectively delivered. My
assumption is that it is most likely to be in the community colleges. I am
open, although now is not the time to get deeply into it, to the possibility
of privatization. I have lain awake at night worrying about people who could
have access, who could make it with remediation in one form or another, and
who somehow under the plan that we enact today and its aftermath will fall
through the cracks. I cannot express to you how worried I am about that.
Nonetheless, I have taken these assurances and I have delivered an assurance
of my own which is that even if it requires a quadrupling of the otherwise
highly difficult amount of time devoted by me to this enterprise, that I
will watch every step of the way, that I will hold people to these promises
and that if it appears to me, I am only one Trustee, that the implementation
of this program is in any significant way denying access to students who
have it in the current system, that I will be a gross pain to my fellow
Trustees who are today in favor of this alternate proposal.

Second, I sought assurance that one particular category that is referred to
not quite explicitly enough to my taste, but surely referred to and
thoughtfully carved out, and I think that Trustee Marino can take some
credit for this, is the category of English as Second Language students,
students who have received some part of a secondary education in foreign
countries, who clearly have academic skills equal in sophistication to what
should be required of them in a baccalaureate program but who, for example,
are simply not able to pass the writing test. I have experienced teaching at
Columbia in a Masters Program with Japanese students, for example, who get A
's on exams that I have to read very, very carefully, who could not possibly
pass the writing test. I have been assured across the board by the Trustees
that exception for English as a Second Language students who received part
of their secondary education in foreign countries will be broadly and
generously and not narrowly interpreted and that's an implementation that I
will surely remain very much on top of.

I also believe that the assessment tests which were not necessarily designed
for the purpose that they find themselves now serving must be evaluated and
I will express my deep concern that I hope to continue to raise that, in
particular, the math and writing tests both really have to be carefully
thought out as continuing criteria.

All that being said, I am going to vote for the substitute proposal with the
hope and even the belief that it will require a serious adjustment, but that
it will lead to an improved University system. It will increase the work
load of all of us because the implementation is everything. To those of you
who are shocked and dismayed, assuming this proposal passes by what it says.
I say to you, I am sensitive, I am sorry about your shock and dismay. I
think there have been excessive comments and excessive politicization on both
sides of this controversy, but I, as one Trustee who is voting not the way
you want, I give you my absolute assurance that I will watch vigilantly and
welcome working with you to make sure that the concerns that you have about
this proposal are adequately dealt with in the implementation.

And to all of the Trustees on this Board, no matter how strongly the
feelings expressed today are, this is not a datum, this is a beginning. If
ever there was an appropriate use of the word commencement, which I still
never have understood in its normal meaning to a graduation ceremony, this
is it. We are going to have to work together and the polarization, in my
opinion, is going to have to stop here and now or we are going to make a
mess of the situation. I believe we have the chance to make a greater
University system on the basis of the proposal we are hopefully passing
today.

Statement by Trustee Nilda Soto Ruiz:
As the one person who works for and has worked with the Board of Education
for so many years, I don't think there is anyone who doesn't want higher
standards. Every time I see a school turn around, every time I visit, and I
am in a position where I visit many, many, many schools, it is with the
emphasis that we should be providing the education for our youngsters to
graduate with no need for remediation. That would be my wish. However, I
speak to the reality of what I face every day, and my concern here. The
reality is that we do not have complete control over the public school
population that could be mobile; that comes to us with different needs, with
different strengths, and I don't think we have to push the public school
system. I think the State Education Department and the Commissioner of
Education have been very clear that standards have to be raised across the
board for all our citizens. Indeed, every time I go to a classroom, my
questions are about high-order thinking skills, and what are you doing with
the youngsters so that there are no excuses and so that we would have the
public school system that we need and deserve.

However, when I became a Trustee. I was asked about the question of
remediation, and I said, well, I think it Is an issue for all of us within
public education because I think it starts very, very early on. Those were
my comments. I have learned a great deal about CUNY, that it is not the same
exact CUNY that I went to, because I was very young and was very privileged
in the sense that it was easy as I was a youngster when I entered.

I was very proud to be a part of The City College where I got my degree. As
I became a Trustee, it was with awe that I sat on the Board and listened to
the presidents and to the professors. It was with sadness that I learned
that we did have to remediate, and as Trustee Calandra talks about
remediation to a great extent, I would concur that we don't want to
remediate to a great extent. That is not what the University is here for.

However, what I have been hopeful of is that we would work out a compromise
that doesn't eliminate all remediation for the simple reason that, as I
spoke, I said I don't have complete control. I know very well that a person
can have a good average, can meet admissions criteria, and yet can have a
bad day, and fall short in one area. I am concerned about those students who
are just almost there, and we are not allowing them to go to the senior
colleges. I have been thinking about it and I have been looking at the
statistics and I was very hopeful that some kind of compromise would be
raised.

Statement by Trustee Susan Moore Mouner
I just want to also state that I concur with my colleagues Trustee Murphy,
Trustee Morning, and Trustee Ruiz. I would feel far more comfortable with
the Board of Education having a plan in place that will move forward to deal
with the remediation issue. On the high school level I am very unsettled
with the fact that that is not clearly in place at this point in time. I
also want to say on a personal note that I have had the pleasure of serving
on this Board for eight years. During that time I have had autonomy to vote
any way I felt. I could choose to vote with my gut feeling, my conscience, my
own personal morality, and today I must go on record as being opposed to
what is being put forward. I look forward to my colleagues voting the same
way. If Trustee Everett was here I can speak on her behalf that she would
vote the same way and say vote your conscience, vote your morality and save
CUNY.

Statement of Trustee Everett: (made for the record by Trustee Sohmer)
It is shocking and frightening to observe the methods employed by Mayor
Giuliani and Governor Pataki to Influence their CUNY Board appointees. The
threats and intimidation of Board members to assure that they vote as the
politicians direct them resemble tactics used in third-world dictatorships
trying to look like democracies.

There is no doubt that, allowed to vote their beliefs concerning senior
college remediation, the majority of the Board would approve the moderate
resolution introduce by Trustee John Morning last month. In contrast, Mayor
Giuliani and his representative, Herman Badillo, are determined to raise
unreasonable barriers for University admission. If they succeed, it will
result in depriving thousands of qualified students of a CUNY education, a
severe disservice to the people and economy of New York.

The often repeated charge that by offering remediation the CUNY diploma is
devalued is a myth promulgated by the Mayor, his educational advisor, Herman
Badillo and Trustee John Calandra. The constant repetition of a myth does
not make it true. In the face of their year-long public barrage of destructive
attacks on the University, 120 corporations and agencies tended booths at
the recent CUNY Job Fair, many repeat participants, which makes clear our
students are, in fact, sought after.

Mayor Giuliani has established a commission to examine CUNY, but first, he
is rushing to try to force dramatic and destructive change. This
disingenuous move is not too surprising since the 'yellow ribbon panel' he
appointed Is structured to produce predetermined results. Can you imagine
they will come up with anything not supported by the Mayor? Who will be
fooled by this hypocrisy?

Public boards are intended to function independently, they are not supposed
to be political puppets. Those of us who believe in democracy need to be
very worried about the behavior of our City and State leaderships that we are
witnessing. The Governor and Mayor are certainly entitled to express their
opinions regarding CUNY, but I urge them to desist from trying to control
educational policy making in New York and restore sanity and order from the
chaos they have created.

Statement by Trustee Md. Mizanoor R. Biswas:
When I first became a member of the University Student Senate in 1992, I
came to this Board office, sat over there looking at the Board of Trustees
and I asked my fellow students and other people, how come this is a Board of
Trustees not inclusive of minorities and other people. I believe three or
four Trustees were from minority groups. Then I remember we went back to the
USS to write letters to the Governor and other people to appoint more
minority members to the Board. Now we have somewhat fifty/fifty. You know
that we have heard the statistics, we have heard the testimony from a whole
lot of people, faculty and students. At the end who is going to be affected.
Twenty-eight years of tradition is going to be on the line, it is going
under the drain. Minorities, Hispanics. Asians, blacks, they are the people
who will pay the price, the ultimate price. My appeal is that you please
vote consciously, not because somebody told you to vote that way or this
way, and think that your name is going to be in the history and people will
haunt you, people will follow you, people will know how you voted and people
will remember that for the longest time.

Statement by Trustee George Rios:

I had not planned to respond to the statement we just heard read prior to
the student, but I think it is important to clarify far the public record
that as a Commissioner in the City of New York, working for the Mayor and
ratified by the Senate, as a Trustee here, I have not in any way been
intimidated, threatened with the loss of a Job, or coerced. My prepared
statement deals with my views as they have been formed since 1985 and on
in the Senior Executive Service of the US Department of Education under
Secretaries Bell, Bennett and Lamar Alexander, where we took a world view
and a national view, long before this particular Governor was here, and long
before this particular Mayor was here.

As an educational counselor for ASPIRA from 1965 to 1969. and as a volunteer
on the Advisory Boards of Hostos Community College, Borough of Manhattan
Community College. and Westchester Community College, I have consistently
deplored the lack of preparation afforded our children, and counseled and
advised them and their families to grasp the responsibility for preparation
and excellence, or be among the unprepared.

In 1982 as a member of the senior executive service at the U.S. (Department
of Education, we Issued an alert to the nation under Secretary Bell titled,
A Nation At Risk! Since that time three presidents have launched numerous
initiatives aimed at America 2000 and our competitive place in the world.
Essentially, numerous nations outrank us in mathematics, science, and in the
command of more than one language.

Even after all the initiatives in the number one industry of America,
education, we are not yet preparing our students for the rigors of being
academic Olympians our nation will require. As I see it, the higher academic
standards initiatives of the New York State Board of Regents being phased in
over a seven year period, which will ultimately require students to take the
college preparatory Regents exams in four core courses, (mathematics,
English, science and social studies), coupled with our college preparatory
initiatives, is precisely the right approach for a society all too often
caught up in the distractions of relative affluence. Of course there is
always the chorus of critics who regard competitive education as punitive
and un-American.

Educators, administrators and indeed Trustees cannot but counsel in their
respective fiduciary responsibilities to continue to sound the realistic
warning-bell to our students of the next century. that global competition in
all societal spheres and international pursuits as a nation must be met
competitively.

It is not inconsistent, as some have argued, to require tougher State
standards for high school graduation while raising admission standards at
CUNY's four-year senior colleges. Those who suggest we shelter students from
the competitive nature of both the world of work and the world of the next
century foster a coddling attitude towards competitive progress which
students do not want nor need.

On May 10th in The New York Times we heard from two minority students from
Jamaica High School. Adriana Hurtado cannot attend New York University and
will likely attend Hunter College. Jannise Massens indicated that she finds
CUNY's reputation unacceptable and I quote, 'Nobody takes these degrees
seriously!' Students and parents obviously desire a strong college
preparation.

These students who spoke their minds to The New York Times are not appointed
by the Mayor or by the Governor. These are our clients. These are students
looking at which college to go to and crossing CUNY out for not having stronger
standards.

Students deserve to be challenged and I believe they will meet the
challenges. Here, in New York City, it is a tragedy that our corporations
hire from New Jersey, Westchester, Long Island, and Connecticut. During my
seven-year period as an officer at the Equitable, I saw first-hand that as a
corporation we needed to invest in over one hundred training programs. These
additional educational costs do not show up in the public ledger nor balance
sheets. When one considers the lingering pattern of unemployment, the City
is slower as compared to many parts of the nation to recover. Indeed, the
multi-year outflow of jobs is reversing but so too must the pattern of
hires. The only long-term solution is an unchallengeable degree and solid
performance.

The failure for educators to set the highest standards with the firm
conviction our students will and must be challenged was and is today
unacceptable.

The very willingness of our colleges to step in and assist the unprepared
student over the last thirty years has in part contributed to the 'social
promotion' atmosphere so prevalent. Indeed, CUNY students, administrations,
faculty, and Trustees are logically correct to say, 'we did not make this
situation, these students come unprepared and deserve an opportunity!'
For example, at our Public Hearing last Monday the 18th, Tony Kushner
testified that when students need help, 'We would be guilty of terrible
crimes to refuse to help...'

I for one wholeheartedly agree. However, all involved in the process of
preparing students ought to direct their attack not at each other and the
University level, but rather at the numerous years of failed interventions,
lost summers of opportunity, and aim more successfully than in the past
their collective criticisms at the system of preparation.

Currently those supporting remediation at our senior colleges are in fact
saying, sure we spend millions on a failing year by year system, for twelve
years. But let's spend it again. This to me represents an acute lack of
logic, lack of focus, lack of accountability, and is wasteful.

Every year a student attends school in our democracy is a taxpayer-paid-for-
opportunity which ought not to be wasted.

Our vote today for the resolution will send the loudest message to date that
we as educators will no longer tolerate mediocrity and failed opportunities.
Parents, students, and educational systems thoughtout the country are
listening intently.

Clearly when Jaime Escalante taught and graduated the highest number of high
school calculus students, the majority of which were minorities, he j~4
the educational community, even when challenged by colleagues and the State
Examiners Office that felt the results were achieved by cheating. The
educators and administrators initially felt calculus was overly challenging
for poor students. At Wednesday's Council breakfast we heard of a teacher in
high school who felt students did not deserve to go to college. Clearly,
this teacher's attitude is the exact opposite of Jaime Escalante.

Today in casting my vote, I firmly believe that CUNY ought to lead by
insisting that students be prepared for college work. While we all lament
the historical lack of preparation which has given rise to the very debate
on remediation, we ought to fix the responsibility where it belongs. We
are not shutting a door by insisting upon preparation; we are being
realistic in advancing the concept of accountability at all the levels of
preparation that ought damn well to measure up for the high public funds we
provide, and the focused demand we ought to make at all levels of education.
It is not just dollars, which does matter, but rather a call for excellence,
improvement, and accountability. It is our turn to 'stand and deliver.' And
thus I vote for the resolution.

Statement by Trustee Alfred B. Curtis, Jr.:
Madam Chair and members of the Board of Trustees, change is a very difficult
process to embrace. But change can be a very effective process. We are at a
very critical time here as Trustees with our responsibility and
accountability to address a very critical issue, the issue of remediation at
the senior colleges. The argument has been advanced that CUNY is getting rid
of programs that benefit minorities and CUNY will no longer serve as an
institution of Open Admissions to all the citizens of New York. I disagree
with that view. No one has said Open Admissions will be eliminated in this
particular case. What we have begun is a process of reengineering the system
that needs to be reengineered. Some may argue that the time frame with which
we are forging ahead with this is rather too quickly. Others will argue that
we need more remediation. The answer to that is unequivocally yes, there
will be a lot more remediation. And there will be remediation provided for
in the summer session at the community colleges and I believe very firmly
that anyone who wants to pursue a degree will be able to do so as provided
in the current resolution. There is nothing wrong with attending a community
college, absolutely not. There is noting wrong with being enrolled in a
remedial program. I think the critical topic of discussion here is 'how do
we examine what we do currently. What is it we do today? Can it be done
better? Are we bold enough to dare to change a system that has been in
existence for a long protracted period of time. As a product of CUNY, as a
minority civil rights leader, I can assure you that remediation done at a
senior college or community college doesn't really make a bit of difference.
What I am very delighted to pronounce in specific terms, is that I would not
support this resolution if it didn't allow for remediation and it does. I
would not support this resolution if some part of the SEEK Program were not
excluded. I support this resolution believing that anyone who wanted to
pursue the American dream will have the ability to do so. Change is
difficult, I know it, but it is a constant phenomenon that we must forge
ahead with. I support the substitute resolution and I urge others on the
Board of Trustees to support it also.

Statement by Trustee Ronald Marino:
These are difficult emotional questions, and I respect the positions on both
sides that my colleagues have taken. Often I found the debate over the past
three months to generate a lot of heat, but sometimes not a lot of light,
because these are emotional issues. As Trustee Curtis said, I think change
for large institutions is not easy, but I do think that in every generation,
an institution needs to examine its goals and its mission, and the
mechanisms or means it utilizes to reach those goals and missions. I think it
is time to do that in a very endemic method. There are certainly equities in
all the positions that one can take. However, I think we must look at the
clients of this institution, that's the students, and that is why I am
willing to make a serious change. Back in October I discussed at one of the
Fiscal Affairs meetings that I was willing to look at either two or three
schools where we would, on the community college level, be willing to bring
in a not-for-profit or for-profit entity to deliver the remediation
service to test it to see if our performance is as good or whether there
are other methods, and to pay these entities on a performance based system
so that only if they could improve upon the base performance of the
University would they receive full payment.

I believe that this resolution is far from being perfect, but it does
improve upon the criticisms that I at least heard of some of the earlier
resolutions. I think it is important that we do gear this in over a number
of years, that it is not one cliff that one must try to jump from at one
moment in time. And it has also proved the importance that the remediation
is maintained on a college campus. I agree with the criticisms I heard
earlier that taking the remedial services off a campus both psychologically
and from an education perspective, certainly has some impact on those
students. So, I believe that the time frame to gear this in, leaving ft at
the community colleges, is now. I think we have to be careful that we don't
create the dumping grounds in the community colleges, that there is the
access to move from the community college to the senior college as one
succeeds.

I also remember that when we had the discussion over Hostos last year, and I
did listen to much of the debate and discussion at Trustee Ruiz' Committee
back in September and October with Vice Chancellor Mirrer's participation,
we began to reexamine the use of those assessment tests and to replace those
assessment tests as vehicles for admission to assess students. So, I think
that one of the priorities we have is to continue that discussion, through
Trustee Ruiz' Committee, and be sure that if this substitute resolution
passes that we do replace the assessment tests, because I do agree these are
not the appropriate vehicles. They weren't created for that purpose. I have
a lot of trust in Trustee Ruiz to do it, and Vice Chancellor Mirrer.

I also took the time to try to think through the implications of some of the
other base issues involved with this resolution. And sometimes I think I
often remember what my professors at Hunter told me, and that is abide by
the words of George Santayana, that one who does not study history is often
condemned to repeat it. So, sometimes you've got to take a step back to take
a step forward. So, I went back and read most of the master plan produced by
the framers of Open Admissions in 1988. I found them to be significant
similarities between the initial Open Admissions plan, not as it was amended
over the years. and the framework of this resolution. I think there are more
similarities than there are disparities from what the framers, and I think
those were good people, I am not questioning their motives, than anyone ever
has imagined throughout this debate of the last three months upon which
these men and women who came together in 1988, their ideas, their conception
of what Open Admissions meant and how one would accede to the senior college
level, and they actually sent percentages of how many would come directly
from the high schools, from community colleges, and how many would come from
what they call educational skill centers.

Much of this thinking is very much the structure of the initial plan. There
are so many criticisms. The Open Admissions criticisms and reviews written
by Professors Rosen, Brenner, and Fallow in the mid-1970s which looked at
the initial plan and then tested the initial plan against what changes both
the Board and the administration made between then and 1975. It was also
very educational for me to look at all this and to reflect upon it as we
look at this resolution. I think that is very important and I think I
enjoyed the intellectual conversations I had with my colleague, Trustee
Stone as we went through this and argued and looked and really dissected it,
so that we could come to some conclusions.

To me it is very important to maintain the ability of ESL students to be
able to move to full matriculation at a very fast clip. I take the same
broad interpretation that my colleague Richard Stone mentioned in his
statement. No one should be penalized because they were born in a country
where English is not their native language. The promise of CUNY should be
the same promise to any immigrant group coming today that it held for
immigrant groups, 30, 40, 50 years ago. That should never change and that
should be endemic to the basic mission of this college or this University,
which I believe it is. So, I look to as broad an interpretation for the ESL
I look to and have faith in Interim Chancellor Kimmich and Interim Deputy
Chancellor Hassett. Vice Chancellor Mirrer, Interim Vice Chancellor Proto,
and the other vice chancellors in implementing this. I would like to see the
involvement of the senior college presidents in these definitions, and how
we move on this, and the interaction with the Board on this so that we not
receive a finished plan, but there is an interactive process in here.

And I am certainly, as many of the other Trustees mentioned, willing to
listen to this debate and to make changes that are necessary as we move
through this to see what is the best method to try to implement this plan.
So, I am very much for the Badillo and Calandra plan because of what I just
said.

Statement by Trustee Michael Crimmins:
Most of you know already my views. I am opposed to this resolution and the
reason I am opposed to it primarily is because it Is simply too radical.
Everyone on this Board has spoken and has studied the issue of remediation
and we know that there is a lot of Improvements that should be made and
there should be modification of the remedial programs at the Senior
colleges. I am opposed to this resolution because, simply, it is too
radical, it is too fast. We don't know what the consequences will be. What
the racial and social consequences will be. I don't think we know what the
educational consequences would be. This is simply too much, too soon, and
that is the reason I am opposed to it. There is something also I would like
to say very quickly and that is that the argument in favor of it seemed to
be somewhat disingenuous to me, because it is almost as though we are voting
to increase remediation. If you look at the wording of the resolution, it
says remedial education will be phased out, It doesn't say it would be
increased. So, I think we should be very honest about that and say that. And
so, again, I would just ask my fellow Trustees to really think seriously and
not go to this extreme.

Statement by Trustee Babbar
I won't repeat a lot of things that my colleagues have said and all the
information I share with them. I would just briefly like to say I joined
this Board two years ago and as soon as I joined the Board, a few months
later we started thinking that we have to raise the standards at The City
University. This process for me started at least almost two years ago. Then
in the last four or five months, we have been working very actively on some
kind of resolution to insure that the quality of degrees imparted from the
CUNY system are of value and that the students who get out of this system
really are very well prepared for their job assignments when they go out in
the field to work as a professional. Therefore, and I have seen the
resolutions during that four or five month period, ranging from no
remediation to not really a change of remediation or added remediation. When
I look at all those things and look at this substitute resolution, I do see
some positive points in this resolution which essentially first of all just
colleges, this in my opinion gives us an opportunity to evaluate it again
what and how far we have achieved in terms of the standard elevation of the
system here. At the same time if you are in a senior college and then you
need a minimal amount of remediation, you can really finish that in the
summer and then in that way attend the college where you want to be. Four of
our senior colleges do have associate degree programs, so if you join those
associate degree programs, you can be transferred in the very same college
into your baccalaureate degree programs.

It is definitely a tough decision. I understand the concerns of all the
students and to me they are very clear in this whole process. At the same
time we want to make sure if there is some direction to raise the level of
education that we impart on students. Therefore, considering all that, I
really would go ahead and support this substitute resolution understanding
that on the path to fully implementing, there are many opportunities for us
to make sure where and how we want to change things that need to be changed.



Statement by Interim Chancellor Christoph Kimmich:
There have been several allusions to reservations that I have about the
resolution and I really owe it to you as a Board that honored me with my
present appointment to explain myself. My reservations do not extend to the
basic purpose of maintaining a University with high standards. A University
without high standards is not worth having. I have said from the beginning
that we can and should address the question of remediation and that we
should not delay doing so. I have also said that colleges working within
policies established by the Board are best equipped to determine how best to
implement Board mandates and that they should be allowed to operate with the
kind of flexibility that would allow them to offer no remedial instructions
at all, or offer such for a maximum of one semester.

My reservations are two. My first really extends to the use being proposed
for the placement tests. Since I wrote to the Board on May 18th, we have
been in touch with experts both inside and outside the University including
the College Board which of course is the most testing organization in this
country. We all agree that a test designed and validated for one purpose
cannot legitimately be used for another purpose. And let me extend on this
briefly because it is a reservation that I continue to have and which I
think I would be remiss in not sharing with you. All three of CUNY's tests
were developed for the sole purpose of determining whether students have
mastered the academic literacy and the mathematical skills necessary for
success in upper division courses. That was what they were established for
in 1975. Twenty years ago these tests could be used as measures of placing
students into remedial courses in which they did not have the skills to
enter the basic college level writing or math course for. So tests developed
for one purpose tend to be used for another and it is now proposed, and that
is a reservation of mine, to use them for a third. I think we need to think
very hard before we go down that particular road. An admissions test by its
very essence should predict performance across the curriculum and across
time in a particular college.

My second reservation extends to the proposal that no student should be
allowed to enroll in a senior college unless they have passed all three
assessment tests. All of you know, I think, that we have students who come
very close to passing. These students are of senior college caliber who can
be helped by tutorials or other enhancement. They deserve access to the
college of their choice and I think that they should get it. Nor, I think,
are their numbers significant. The budgetary enrollment impact on the
colleges, even under the most rosy circumstances, is something that concerns
me and I think should concern you. The losses of revenue cannot but hurt the
quality of our institutions and the preservation of quality is what we are
all about.

Statement by Chairwoman Anne A. Paolucci:
I have been faulted by some media for having opened this matter to
democratic debate, and we have had that for the last two and a half months
or so. As you all know I have revived the Long Range Planning committee in
recant time to provide the dialogue and the outlet for the dialogue. We have
all heard many voices, many resolutions, many ideas. We have listened to
everyone. We have had other versions of the Comprehensive Action Plan (CAP),
only three of which were made public, but in between we have been working
night and day trying to refine and come to some agreement. It seems to me
that this is the time for closure and after the Board having given that much
time to the listening, access to other ideas, making all the efforts
possible, the time for closure has come.

The one thing I want to say is I think putting Band-Aids on situations that
have been in place for about thirty years is not the solution. I firmly
believe strong signals have to go out hem and with that, let me also say
that there will be ample time and effort to amend, to review, and to
monitor. I have said that many, many times, nobody listens. Even the
phasing-out would have to be reviewed at a certain moment in order to make
sure that we can do what we say we are doing. That's common sense. I don't
think even a discussion is needed on that. So, I am firmly in position with
strong signals at this time. I think staying with the status quo is not the
solution. I do believe that we have to go much further than the resolution
that the majority of the Long Range Planning Committee has put forward
because you have to aim higher to hit the mark.

I agree with Trustee Stone that this is a beginning. I have said I called it
a work in progress. This is something that is subject to change, again, to
monitoring, to review on a periodic basis, so that we know that we are going
in the right direction, and we can readdress things as the need arises. We
are going to be monitoring very carefully all along the line, and the
Chancellor will be supervising this operation and the presidents will be
giving us their plans for implementation. On the basis of all these things,
we look over the situation and find out what the best approaches are,
including the kinds of tests that will be the assessment tests. We say the
assessment tests, but they don't have to be the ones in place now.

Let me also assure you that this is part of CAP. The last version of the CAP
proposal, which came out on March 20 or March 21, was a streamlining of the
wording of the earlier proposal. There we highlighted the two major areas:
what we were going to do with remediation at the four-year level and
remediation at the community college level; and putting the schools on
notice by way of ideas for implementing or at least for puffing into
position the large measures that we were looking at. So, it is indeed part
of a comprehensive action plan. The reason we haven't produced that at this
time is that we need much more work to define and delineate the process in
connection with the four year colleges. But I want to make dear that this is
part of a comprehensive action plan and we are not Isolating the four year
colleges here at all.

The senior colleges have had their own admission standards and open
enrollment at the senior colleges has not been in effect for a long time.
So, lets get that clear. We keep repeating things that are not true. Also a
number of the senior colleges have said very clearly that they were ready to
end remediation by this Fall. There were some strings attached, I warrant
you, but they were willing to accept that and to implement that. And by the
way there are some senior colleges that have associate degrees and these
students would fall very neatly into the associate degree program to pass
the remediation they need to overcome their deficiencies. So, again, this
isn't that far removed from what we have been discussing and what has been
on the table for a long time. And we have delved into that.

I must say parenthetically that the second part, the very deep part of the
resolution contains the implementation on the part of the administration
because there we would like to know, and let me stress this, in what ways a
college now can be made broader, have greater access across the various
campuses. I would like to know on the basis of what the presidents think
about this, how the language immersion programs might be increased and
broadened and perhaps improved.

I also want to say that from way back I have felt that the senior colleges
have all the possibilities for what we are suggesting and this is a
resolution without too much disarray, too much change. In fact, it will
certainly, I think improve the strategies and I want to say that very
clearly at this point, the strategies in place right now are limited. We
have two language immersion programs and we have College Now which is a
wonderful national model. We need that across the spectrum and what we do
with this resolution by allowing the strategies to be improved and extended
at the entry level is to provide many more students with what they need.

What we need here, and I think Trustee Curtis has hit it, is more
remediation, not less, but the venue is different. I hope we all have
understood that by now. We are not getting rid of it, we are increasing it
in fact in ways that will benefit the students as far as I can tell. I have
addressed this from the very beginning and I have spoken on it, but it seems
to get lost in the shuffle continuously.

Let me just say that the phasing-out in this resolution is the part of CAP
that refers to the four year colleges at this point. What we would like to
do is put remediation in broader strategies to get it over with more quickly
so that students can go into regular class work, read the books well and
easily, and take notes, which is a big problem right now.

We are actually helping the students in my view and I am being very honest
about this. I feel that the student is getting a better deal. There will be
more strategies, and we will certainly go after the money for that, and
instead of two small programs of language immersion we may have many more.
And the same down the line with the other programs. That's what I would like
to see. That's why this is only a very small part of a comprehensive action
plan that will include and must include community colleges in the way that I
have suggested and I think that is coming.

The other thing that has been mentioned is the high schools. One of the
things the CAP addresses, and we will not let up on this, is the pressure on
the high schools to work with us in the five or six year window which we
have to deal with before the Regents exams come into play and things will
change, and things will change even earlier, I hope. We can't wait for them
to do it, but we can continue to put pressure on them as other institutions
and groups and the Mayor himself is doing. I think that is important to note
that the schools have a big role to play in this, and we are not necessarily
the culprits or the villains in this scenario, we are not that at all.

As my last comment, I just want to say I respect the Interim Chancellors
remarks and his concerns as I do the concerns of presidents and other
administrators. I think we are doing something here that is vital and very
serious. So, I appreciate all those comments. On the other hand we all know,
and let me just remind you by way of conclusion, the role of the Board is a
very different one from the role of the administration. The Board sets the
policies and the administration implements those policies and sometimes we
lose sight of that. We are trying to work together. I think I have worked
very well with the Chancellor. I respect his judgment and his concerns. My
job is a little different and I think the job of the Trustees as a whole is
different. So, having said that, I respectfully would say, let's move the
question and take a vote. We are now voting on the motion to accept the
substitute resolution that has been put forward by Vice Chairman Badillo and
seconded by Trustee Calandra.

On the motion to accept the substitute resolution Chairwoman Anne A.
Paolucci, Vice Chairman Herman Badillo, and Trustees Satish K. Babbar, John
J. Calandra, Kenneth E. Cook, Alfred B. Curtis, Ronald J. Marino, George J.
Rios, and Richard B. Stone voted 'YES.' Trustees Michael C. Crimmins, John
Morning, Susan Moore Mouner, James P. Murphy, NIlda Soto Ruiz, and Md.
Mizanoor R. Biswas voted 'NO.'

A. THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK - REMEDIATION PHASE-OUT:

RESOLVED, That all remedial course instruction shall be phased-out of all
baccalaureate degree programs at the CUNY senior colleges as of the
following dates: September 1999, for Baruch, Brooklyn, Queens, and Hunter
Colleges; September 2000, for Lehman, John Jay. Staten Island, New York City
Technical, and City Colleges; and September 2001, for York and Medgar Evers
Colleges. Following a college's discontinuation of remediation, no student
who has not passed all three Freshman Skills Assessment Tests, and any other
admissions criteria which may exist, shall be allowed to enroll and/or
transfer into that college's baccalaureate degree programs. Students seeking
admission to CUNY senior college baccalaureate degree programs who are in
need of remediation shall be able to obtain such remediation services at a
CUNY community college, at a senior college only during its summer sessions,
or elsewhere as may be made available. This resolution does not apply to ESL
students who received a secondary education abroad and who otherwise are not
in need of remediation; and be it further

RESOLVED, That the Interim Chancellor and the senior college presidents
shall, after consultation with the faculty, present a detailed plan for
implementation of this resolution at the respective colleges to the
Remediation and Long Range Planning Committees by September 1998.

Chairwoman Anne A. Paolucci, Vice Chairman Herman Badillo, and Trustees
Satish K. Babbar, John J. Calandra, Kenneth E. Cook, Alfred B. Curtis, Ronald
J. Marino, George J. Rios, and Richard B. Stone voted 'YES.' Trustees
Michael C. Crimmins, John Morning, Susan Moore Mouner, James P. Murphy,
Nilda Soto Ruiz, and Md. Mizanoor R. Biswas voted 'NO.' Chairwoman Paolucci
stated that she wants to thank everyone including Interim Chancellor
Kimmich, Interim Deputy Chancellor Hassett, Vice Chancellor Mirrer, and the
other members of the administration who have worked so hard and honestly and
in good conscience to bring this to closure. We are going to do everything
possible to implement in the best possible way this resolution and we will,
as has been said many times already, monitor and review periodically the
results.


(This is a detailed summary of the Board of Trustee's meeting. The tape of
the meeting are available in the Office of the Secretary of the Board for a
period of three yearn.)