After a condescending letter sent last week to all faculty by SF State president Robert Corrigan, which expresses his intention to discontinue working directly with the union, we can clearly see how he is elevating himself even farther from the rest of us. Just days before the California Faculty Association plans to vote on a strike, why would they have any qualms at all about doing so at this point? We cannot believe that he would shake his head at CFA's tactics, which we feel shows their strength and committment.

The letter demonstrates Corrigan’s undercutting of the hard work the union has put into contract negotiations and informational picketing, and his decision to hamper any further discussion by vilifying the CFA and turning the faculty against the union is pathetic.

Corrigan does not even discuss in detail the enormous salary gap between top execs and everyday faculty, which is the crux of the complicated situation.

How can Corrigan, who recently received a $10,000 pay raise on top of his already exorbitant salary, even begin to be “acutely aware” of the economic hardships the faculty and students have endured? How does he believe he can convince he rightfully angry faculty to simply go along with his contract without making a fuss, when the administration’s salary and gratuitous perks are a downright slap in the face to a state university faculty that earns less than community college instructors?

The true thrust of the piece lies within a section Corrigan has entitled, “Speaking Frankly About CFA Tactics.” After stating that he will heed the advice given to him years ago to not criticize the union, he then proceeds to deliberately do so. Citing several examples of CFA activities that have taken place over the past few months, such as speech interruptions and mock arrests, he calls the acts an embarrassment to the university that are damaging to its reputation. He suggests most faculty members are unaware of what is being done in their name, which is insulting. Does he really think that no one is paying attention?

Last week, we published an angry response from a faculty member, alongside a letter from our editor urging students to read Corrigan’s letter, which is posted online, in its entirety.

According to CFA president John Travis, Corrigan’s letter was an “unusual practice” that he wasn’t familiar with. Although Travis told us that he does not believe the letter was an unfair or unethical method of discussion between the administration, faculty and union, we question the legality of this relatively unheard of practice that flies in the face of mature negotiations.

We feel that the decision by Corrigan to send such a letter was in unacceptably bad taste. What exactly was his motive? By sending it to all faculty members rather than the union, he reveals his last-ditch efforts to avoid a strike by attempting to crumble the alliance between the two. Apparently, Corrigan believes he can sway the strike vote by focusing on eroding the union’s support system rather than working with them directly.

By its nature, the letter fails in achieving Corrigan’s goal. From the start, it is condescending. He provides a disclaimer warning readers of the “long and often blunt” message he has to deliver, and offers those who can’t handle it to delete it. This demeans the strength and character of all who received the letter. Calmly, the letter continues on by rehashing the negotiations and bargaining problems between the CSU administration and faculty from the past two years, as if any of those reading the letter weren’t already all too familiar with the situation.

After claiming to have only acted in the most economical and fair manner given the limited campus resources, Corrigan then has the audacity to make an “unprecedented request,” by asking the faculty to trust what he has told them about the lack of funds and commitment of the administration. Basically, he requests that they knock off all their nonsense and swallow whatever answer—and salary—he has to give them.

We ask, Mr. Corrigan, is this how you dignify the passion and hard work that have gone into organizing, disseminating information and rallying support by the CFA? Is this how you address a group that the union president would regard as the most upset he’s seen in 30 years?

We are appalled that Corrigan and the administration would regard these bold moves as pointless, “self-indulgent” acts that do nothing for CSU and students. We disagree. Rather, they are bringing to our attention the mockery the administration has made of all of us. Complaining about the CFA humiliating a chancellor and an administration that we have seen devalue students and faculty time and time again doesn’t elicit any sympathy our side.

If the CSU doesn't want the faculty to strike, fair and honest negotiations--not patronizing letters-- are the answer.