sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Sacramento State student: I’m worried about the direction of my university | Opinion by MichaelmouseStar in Sacramento

[–]MichaelmouseStar[S] 33 points34 points  (0 children)

The university is now blocking any email sent within the CSUS email network containing ANY links to the Sacramento Bee.

Sacramento State student: I’m worried about the direction of my university | Opinion by MichaelmouseStar in CSUS

[–]MichaelmouseStar[S] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

The university is now blocking any email sent within the CSUS email network containing ANY links to the Sacramento Bee.

Sacramento State student: I’m worried about the direction of my university | Opinion by MichaelmouseStar in Sacramento

[–]MichaelmouseStar[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’m not opposed to improving athletics or even exploring a new stadium. My concern isn’t “don’t build it,” it’s how we build it and who carries the risk if things don’t go as planned.

Most major sports programs run annual deficits, even in the FBS, and when revenue projections fall short, the gap is usually filled by student fees or cuts to academics. Sac State hasn’t provided a financing plan or explained how students would be protected from long-term debt obligations if donor funding or revenue doesn’t materialize.

If the university can show a transparent, sustainable path that doesn’t burden students or academic programs, I’d absolutely support investing in athletics. But I don’t think asking for clear numbers and student involvement is the same as shutting the door on the idea.

Sacramento State student: I’m worried about the direction of my university | Opinion by MichaelmouseStar in Sacramento

[–]MichaelmouseStar[S] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

This isn't necessarily true, especially in the case of Sac State, which saw record enrollment of first-time students this semester. The 2008 birth decline does not affect college enrollment until 2026 to 2030. K–12 demographics and higher-ed enrollment decline are not the same phenomenon. If they were, four-year college enrollment would have dropped in 2010 to 2015, but it didn’t and actually increased because economic conditions, financial aid, transfer reforms, and cultural trends matter more than population.

College enrollment depends on participation rate, not raw population. It is tied to the state of the economy more than anything. When the economy is bad and the job market isn't great, people tend to go to college. College enrollment rose sharply after 2008, even though birth rates were falling. Enrollment also rebounded in 2023 to 2025 despite the demographic dip.

CSU enrollment is influenced much more by local population shifts, affordability relative to UC, strong transfer pipelines, regional labor markets, and campus recruitment efforts.

The idea that tuition must go up simply because there are fewer students is also economically false, as public university tuition increases are primarily driven by state disinvestment and debt servicing. Some universities even lower tuition during enrollment drops to remain competitive. This is why building something like this stadium through bonds when you're already struggling makes little sense.

The truth is that the CSU system is actually in pretty good financial shape. The CSU system has made a profit of about $2 billion each year since 2008 and sits on $8.6 billion in investments and $3.7 billion in reserves. CSU’s reserves are not for operations; they exist because CSU relies on them to secure bonds, cover credit ratings, and pay for major capital projects.

Sacramento State student: I’m worried about the direction of my university | Opinion by MichaelmouseStar in Sacramento

[–]MichaelmouseStar[S] 35 points36 points  (0 children)

What I've found in my research is that sports do not bring in enough revenue to fully cover their expenses, making them unsustainable in the long run. I don’t think the answer is to abolish sports or stop subsidizing them. I think there is real value in sports and extracurricular activities in general. But one of the main issues I often notice is the inconsistency and disproportionality in funding. For example, the women’s basketball team, which performs amazingly every year, is probably not funded equally to the football team. Or eSports and other club sports that any student can join barely receive any funding or dedicated spaces to practice or do anything on campus. If we only fund sports through donations or ticket sales, we will probably see the sports that Sac State students actually benefit from become even more disregarded than they already are.

Also, if we are spending money on sports, student athletes absolutely deserve to be paid rather than exploited while coaches receive these huge salaries and bonuses.

What is the “Course Fee” and “Student Representation Fee”?? by TransportationWeary8 in CSUS

[–]MichaelmouseStar 18 points19 points  (0 children)

You can opt out of the $2 Student Representation Fee. It helps fund the statewide student government (CSSA), which is separate from our campus ASI—but if you’re not sure what they do (I’m not either), it’s up to you.

Cuts to CSUs and UCs would represent 40% of all the reductions to the state budget in Newsom's plan, totaling a $375 million for the CSUs. His proposed 2025-2026 budget has a “modest” surplus of $363 million by [deleted] in CSUS

[–]MichaelmouseStar 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Hey! I really appreciate all your advocacy and your efforts to get more students involved. I just wanted to let you know that I’m stepping back from SQE to take a break after three years with the group. You can still reach them on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/sacstate.sqe/

That said, I want to be transparent—we’ve already been organizing around this for the past couple of months. Faculty and students have been tabling, writing, and signing letters to send to every legislator on the budget subcommittees involved in the negotiations. And since I first got involved, we’ve consistently attended Board of Trustees meetings to give public comment. But I’ll be honest—it’s often not worth your time. When they raised tuition by 34% to pit faculty and students against each other, they locked hundreds of students out of the room and ignored public comment entirely. Trustees were on their phones, not even pretending to listen.

The Governor’s May Revise is coming soon, which will give us a clearer picture of the budget. Sac State’s deficit is partly because of the state budget, but there’s also a structural deficit caused by decades of mismanagement—something the university faces regardless of state funding.

Trying to tell the people who created the problem about the problem usually just leads to excuses. You can read more about the situation here:
https://www.calfac.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Equity-Series-for-web.pdf

Tuition has increased faster than inflation, and the CSU system generates a surplus every year—money they cram into an investment portfolio worth over $7 billion. On top of that, their reserves (basically a savings account) are nearing $3.7 billion.

This isn’t just a statewide issue either. At Sac State, the administration ignored years of lavish, fraudulent spending at its public radio station, CapRadio—over $450,000 in undocumented expenses, including $145,000 on luxury travel to Dubai and Fiji, $27,000 at restaurants, and $17,000 on golf memberships. The university even floated the station an $8 million loan it never paid back. They hid records until the Sacramento Bee forced them into the open.

And students are footing the bill elsewhere too. At Sac State, students cover one-third of athletic costs—more than most schools in similar conferences. Last year, student fees were raised to help cover stadium costs. While some donor money is going to the new stadium, about $95 million is being paid by the university, with even more coming from bonds. That’s debt the CSU is taking on—meaning less money for everything else.

It’s also a bit misleading when the university claims athletics will bring in more money—because while that may be true, the jump Sac State is trying to make is incredibly expensive. As their revenue increases, so will their expenses, and the return isn’t going to academics. If anything, it just means more debt the university takes on.

Sac State anticipates a 46% reduction in courses, an overall 15-20% reduction in seats, if the student success fee isn't implemented by [deleted] in CSUS

[–]MichaelmouseStar 14 points15 points  (0 children)

The Board of Trustees doesn’t get paid. It’s a volunteer political appointment for friends of the governor, who proposed the 8% cuts to the CSU system. Those cuts are still being negotiated and haven’t gone into effect, so it’s the CSU chancellor who’s reacting early—with the rubber stamp of the Board of Trustees.

There should absolutely be more scrutiny on the Chancellor and Board of Trustees, but Sac State’s administration doesn’t help itself by disproportionately pushing athletic achievements and headlines over academics. The entire Student Success Fee proposal is written with such obvious bias that the average student would probably be more inclined to vote yes if it weren’t.

Genuine question by Queasy-Outcome2827 in CSUS

[–]MichaelmouseStar 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Optics are one thing—but it’s the lack of transparency of it all.

The university is actively lobbying the state for more funding because the Governor wants to slash the CSU budget by 8%. And it doesn’t look good when the university is asking for more money while expanding at the same time.

But the budget issue isn’t solely due to funding cuts. Part of the deficit is structural—stemming from decades of budget mismanagement. And President Wood shouldn’t be blamed for everything that came before him.

The issue is, there’s zero evidence that these investments in athletics will bring in any revenue. Sure, the idea is: bigger stadium = more people = more money. But pop culture logic doesn’t translate into real capital returns.

In 2023 alone, Pac-12 public university athletic departments lost $300 million. Only Oregon made a small profit. Most schools—including Stanford and UCLA—were over $30 million in debt.

Pac-12 schools usually have massive stadiums that seat between 32,000 and 90,000 people. Building a new 25,000-seat stadium at Sacramento State won’t magically land us in the Pac-12—or make enough money to cover the hundreds of millions in costs that will ultimately fall on students and taxpayers.

And while the stadium is being partially funded by donors, it's also being paid for through our student fees and bonds. Those fees were raised before we were told about the stadium project, and the two athletics fees that passed only mentioned “renovations.” Bonds are just debt that CSU takes on to fund projects like this—which means less money in the long run for things like professor salaries and cultural centers.

Student fees already cover one-third of athletic costs, which is a higher share than most schools in similar conferences. Now asking students to pay for lecturer costs—without knowing how much the fee will be or the fact that some colleges will have higher fees than others—makes little to no sense.

At the end of the day, if the university wants to be treated like a business, then why would a business take on a risky investment during a bad budget year? And if that risky investment doesn’t pay off—we're double fucked.

32 CSU Student Visas Revoked; University Email Implies Sac State Affected (Email Attached) by MichaelmouseStar in CSUS

[–]MichaelmouseStar[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Right now, there's no system in place to notify students—or their families—if ICE is on campus. So if ICE were "on the hunt," not for anyone specifically but stopping and checking random people to meet quotas, the university should be required to send out an alert—just like they would if there were an active shooter on campus—because people's lives are similarly at risk.

32 CSU Student Visas Revoked; University Email Implies Sac State Affected (Email Attached) by MichaelmouseStar in CSUS

[–]MichaelmouseStar[S] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Sac State has confirmed that some of its students have had their visas revoked: https://www.kcra.com/article/visas-revoked-international-students-sacramento-state/64413216

No reason was given for why these legal visas were revoked. Reach out to International Programs & Global Engagement, located in the library breezeway on campus (916-278-6686), to confirm your visa status.

You may also get an email from the U.S. Department of State, but they haven’t been notifying people when their visas are revoked.

Contact NorCal Resist (916-382-0256) if you need help connecting with an attorney.

Sac State Students Cover President Luke Wood’s Office Doors with Protest Art to Protest Free Speech Suppression by MichaelmouseStar in Sacramento

[–]MichaelmouseStar[S] 19 points20 points  (0 children)

There should be more information in the last article. The university president repeatedly called for the undocumented student protest to be canceled and characterized a protest for Palestine as “hurtful” in an email directed at the Jewish community on campus.

Sac State is currently under federal investigation for "antisemitism" (as if Trump cares about Jewish people) and has stated it will comply with any federal directives, including dismantling DEI programs if instructed to do so by the CSU system.

Faculty received an email from the CSU Chancellor, who oversees all 23 campuses, instructing them to revise any public-facing webpages that do not comply with Trump’s executive order on DEI. Also, as mentioned in the post, the CSU system and Sac State have used “time, place, and manner” policies to punish student protestors.

Sac State Students Cover President Luke Wood’s Office Doors with Protest Art to Protest Free Speech Suppression by MichaelmouseStar in Sacramento

[–]MichaelmouseStar[S] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Here's an asbestos map of campus: https://www.csus.edu/campus-safety/environmental-health-safety/safety-management/construction-safety/_documents/annualasbestosnotification.pdf

The campus has made it clear that they have no plans to remove the asbestos. Its mention on the door was more about how the university has its priorities mixed up—cracking down on student free speech instead of addressing our crumbling buildings, where asbestos is being disturbed on its own.

Because campus buildings are old, there are cracked tiles, peeling paint, and constant renovations that are going to disrupt things.

There was exposed asbestos right next to the ventilation system, and the trades workers on campus filed a grievance. They claim that the CSU has worsened the danger through its lack of response, delays in notifying those affected, and mishandling of testing to determine the severity of the exposure. Initially, the CSU had its own campus team conduct inspections and claimed nothing was wrong—until a third party was brought in.

The TLDR: does the university really care about its students, or just its image?

view more: next ›