Baruch College’s student newspapers, The Ticker and The Reporter, capsulized students’ reactions the city’s cutbacks and their impact on CUNY. Their articles reported on the proposed changes at the colleges, students’ anxieties and frustrations about these changes, students’ struggles with new tuition costs, and their criticisms of city and federal politicians. Student reporters and faculty members alike published articles and letters to the editors, which contemplated how the rise of austerity politics and the city’s policy changes would impact Open Admissions at CUNY, campus facilities, student demographics, and the quality of the academics.

Richard Warren, Baruch student, wrote prolifically about these topics for The Ticker. He offered considerable political criticism about Mayor Beame, President Ford, and their “cronies.” He argued that “The result of Beame’s policies (and before him, Lindsay’s) is that the vast majority of residents in New York City will suffer from cutbacks of essential services. But does that it matter to Beame and his cronies? They’ll still be collecting their fat salaries and driving around in their Cadillacs.”¹ To President Ford, Warren asks how Ford can be against bailing out New York City with federal funds when New York City taxes pay for the majority of the country: “Why do we have to pay taxes to the governments of other states when we don’t have enough for ourselves? Why do we pay more and get less while other states pay less and get more? Why Gerald Ford? Why?”²

CUNY Chancellor Robert J. Kibbee was also a target of CUNY students’ dissent. Kibbee, tasked with dramatically cutting the university’s spending, proposed a CUNY restructure, which entailed cutting operations by 20% by 1979. While his plan sought to retain free tuition for full-time undergraduate students, it also included a fixed number for freshman enrollment, imposing tuition on summer sessions, accelerating degree programs, increasing faculty contract hours, limiting enrollment for CUNY’s older students, and re-defining the “open admissions” so the policy would only apply to students coming straight from high school.³ His proposal was criticized in Ticker articles. Mark Rohrlich began his article, titled “Kibbee Destroys by ‘Saving,'” with “Sometimes people try to save something by destroying it. I feel that this is the case concerning Chancellor Kibbe’s proposals to restructure CUNY.”⁴ Rohrlich believed that Kibbee’s plan would destroy the quality of a CUNY education. He took particular issue with Kibbee’s plan to cut the staff and faculty by 20%. Rohrlich posited that “His proposal to lay off 2,000 staff members would further burden an overworked teaching staff. Also, it would threaten the existence of many vital student services such as counselling and tutoring… I feel that this would place too heavy a burden on teachers in Baruch, resulting in weakening their ability to reach students.”⁵ Steve Gaynor, in his criticism on Kibbee’s plan in his “Baruch’s U.S.S. Rep Views CUNY Crisis” article, theorized that these massive cuts would place a larger burden on students of color and those from lower income families, despite Kibbee insistence that it would not.⁶ Kibbee’s initial proposal was ultimately rejected and thrown out by the Board of Higher Education as students, faculty, and staff protested outside the BHE’s headquarters.

Accompanying their criticisms of the city’s politicians and Chancellor Kibbee, student reporters also sought to highlight the victims and those suffering as a result of New York’s newfound austerity politics. In the article below, Richard Warren hoped to bring attention to the staff members laid off because of the city’s cutbacks. This article was published in the September 22, 1976 issue of The Ticker, pages 3 and 5.

Baruch student and member of the CUNY Fight-Back Committee, Gilbert Ramos, emphasized the cutback’s effects on the students. In the letter to the editor published in the November 18, 1975 issue of The Ticker below, Ramos called on students to defend the ideals of CUNY’s open admissions. He asserted:

“These cutbacks are a very definite and serious occurrence. Thousands of students would be forced out of school, unable to pay increased fees and tuitions. It would make it almost impossible for the student to complete a degree without supportive services, such as tutoring, counseling, and remedial programs… Presently our education is not geared to the great mass of students this school accommodates. Imagine how bad things will be with elimination of a number of teachers and services.”

And things did get bad, which The Ticker and The Reporter lamented. Articles pointed to the aftereffects of these cutbacks at CUNY. Student reporters and school administrators published their complaints about the more complicated and frustrating class registration process. Dean Selma Berrol, for example, wrote: “Registration last September was a very difficult time for most of you. As a result of the financial crisis and the unknown impact of tuition, there were not enough sections offered in many departments and this created great problems at registration. It also meant that many students who wanted to take a full program of 18 credits were unable to do so.”⁷ Sonja Waithe, likewise, complained that “[t]hose student who have survived the frustrations will be faced with crowded classrooms, cancelled courses, and possibly the elimination of entire departments.”⁸

In an anonymously written editorial titled “Tuition-Not A Dead Issue,” the author argued because of the city’s cutbacks, CUNY students will be paying more in tuition (and in taxes) for a worse education than their predecessors: “While we’re paying for our education, the quality of this education is being damaged by cuts. There are less courses available, and larger class sizes. Instructors, counselors, and administrative people are being retrenched.”⁹ The author continued, accurately predicting the future trend of rising education costs: “Many apologists for tuition claim that CUNY still provides one of the cheapest educations around. But how long will even that last? How long will it be before Beame, Carey, or the E.F.C.B. decides that it is ‘necessary’ to raise tuition. Remember, just ten years ago the subway cost only 15 cents. What’s going to stop the politicians from raising CUNY tuition just as easily as they raise taxes and the price of transportation?”¹⁰

The many budget cuts at CUNY and the imposition of tuition, along with the looming threat of further tuition hikes, kindled an anxiety in students that is present through out these student paper articles. For them -the cutbacks, tuition, class registration frustrations, the loss of favorite faculty and staff members – all of it signaled this was the end of CUNY as they knew it. It was an end of era.

Carol Adamson’s article below encompassed this deep unease felt by members of the student body.

---

The Ticker and The Reporter Articles Links

The Ticker

• The Ticker, November 12, 1975. Articles: “Baruchians to Hold Protest in Main Aud.” (p. 1), “March Against the Bankers, Protest Cutbacks” (p. 3), “Next Semester: Fact or Fiction?” (p. 4).
• The Ticker, November 18, 1975. Articles: “Defend Open Admissions” (p. 6) and “Kibbee Destroys by ‘Saving'” (p. 6).
• The Ticker, November 25, 1975. Articles: “CUNY Protest Goes to Washington” (p. 1, 3),
  “Baruchians March to Washington D.C.” (p. 1), “Thousands Voice Protests Over CUNY Cuts” (p. 3), “Budget Cuts: CUNY Layoffs” (p. 4), “CUNY Restructure Proposal to BHE” (p. 5), “Kibbee Plan Thrown Out” (p. 8).
• The Ticker, December 3, 1975. Articles: “Baruch’s U.S.S. Rep Views CUNY Crisis” (p. 1, 6), “Win Round One In CUNY Budget” (p. 2), “Baruchians Fight for Survivial” (p. 4)
• The Ticker, December 16, 1975. Articles: “The Question of Budget Cuts” (p. 3).
• The Ticker, December 23, 1975. Articles: “CUNY Students Rally at E.F.C.B” (p. 1, 4).
• The Ticker, January 14, 1976. Articles: “CUNY Cutback Fighters Plan Strategy” (p. 2).
• The Ticker, February 16, 1976. Articles: “Insure Free Tuition” (p. 7).
• The Ticker, September 22, 1976. Articles: “Victims of Budget Cuts” (p. 3, 5) and “Editorial: Tuition-Not A Dead Issue” (p. 4).
• The Ticker, September 28, 1976. Articles: “Tuition Welcomes Baruchians” (p. 2).
• The Ticker, December 2, 1976. Articles: “The End of An Era” (p. 5).
• The Ticker, December 21, 1978. Articles: “For Your Own Good” (p. 2).
• The Ticker, March 14, 1978. Articles: “CUNY Establishes New Financial System” (p. 1) and “Koch Outlines Financial Plan for CUNY” (p. 1).

The Reporter

• The Reporter, May 17, 1976. Articles: “Matching Funds Formula Unfair: Kibbee” (p. 4).
• The Reporter, December 20, 1976. Articles: “An Open Letter from Kibbee” (p. 13).
• The Reporter, February 7, 1977. Articles: “Baruch Mobilization in Gear” (p. 3, 7).
• The Reporter, March 21, 1977. Articles: “Albany: Poor Show” and “March to City Hall” (p. 6).

---

1. Richard Warren, “Our Mayor’s Still Off Beame,” The Ticker, 1975 November 18, 10.  ↩︎
2. Richard Warren, “Why is N.Y. Tax Money Used To Support The Country,” The Ticker, 1975 November 25, 3. ↩︎
3. “CUNY Restructure Proposal to BHE,” The Ticker, 1975 November 25, 4. ↩︎
4. Mark Rohrlich, “Kibbee Destroys by ‘Saving,'” The Ticker, 1975 November 18, 6. ↩︎
5. Rohrlich, “Kibbee Destroys by ‘Saving,'” 6.  ↩︎
6. In his article, Gaynor wrote: “I spoke with Chancellor Kibbee late in October and he stated to me much the same claim that Nyuqist held, that his proposal would not adversely affect minority and poor students. However, it is obvious that Kibbee’s retort to this point is that he is simply calling for a return to the open admissions proposal as it was passed by the BHE in 1970. Is he playing a game of semantics?” Gaynor, “Baruch’s U.S.S. Rep Views CUNY Crisis,” 1.  ↩︎
7. Dean Selma Berrol, “For Your Own Good,” The Ticker, 1976 December 21, 2.  ↩︎
8. Sonja Waithe, “Tuition Welcomes Baruchians,” The Ticker, 1976 September 28, 2.   ↩︎
9. “Editorial: Tuition-Not a Dead Issue,” The Ticker, 1976 September 22, 4.  ↩︎
10. “Tuition-Not a Dead Issue,” 4.  ↩︎