First year students Julie Beaufils, Sid Duenas, George Egerton-Warburton, Edie Fake, Lauren Davis Fisher, Lee Relvas and Ellen Schafer have left the University of Southern California’s Roski School of Art and Design MFA programme in protest amid allegations of a retroactively dismantled funding model and drastic changes to the existing faculty structure and curriculum.
Here’s their statement:
“We are a group of seven artists who made the decision to attend USC Roski School of Art and
Design’s MFA program based on the faculty, curriculum, program structure and funding
packages. We are a group of seven artists who have been forced by the School’s actions
dismantling each of these elements to dissolve our MFA candidacies. In short, due to the
University’s unethical treatment of its students, we, the entire incoming class of 2014, are
dropping out of school and dropping back into our expanded communities at large.
The Roski MFA Program that attracted us was intimate and exceptionally well-funded; all
students graduated with two years of teaching experience and very little to no debt. We were
fully aware of the scarcity of, and the paucity of compensation for, most teaching jobs, so this
program seemed exemplary in creating a structure that acknowledged these economic and
pedagogical realities. However, a different funding model was presented to us upon acceptance
to the Program by the Roski administration: we would receive a scholarship for some of our
first-year tuition, and would have a Teaching Assistantship with fully-funded tuition, a stipend,
and benefits for the entirety of our second year upon completion of our first-year coursework.
We, the incoming class of 2014, were the first students since 2011 to take on debt to attend, and
the first students since 2006 to gain no teaching experience during our first-year in the program.
Moreover, when we arrived in August 2014, we soon discovered that the Dean of the Roski
School was attempting to retroactively dismantle the already-diminished funding model that was
promised to us, as well as make drastic changes to our existing faculty structure and curriculum.
The Dean of the Roski School of Art and Design was appointed by the University in May 2013,
despite having no experience in the visual arts field. She, along with Roski’s various Vice and
Assistant Deans, made it clear to our class that they did not value the Program’s faculty structure,
pedagogy or standing in the arts community, the very same elements that had attracted us as
potential students. The effects of the administration’s denigration of our program arrived almost
immediately. In December 2014, Roski’s MFA Program Director stepped down from her
position, and was not replaced with another director; in short succession that month, the program
lost a prominent artist, mentor, and tenured Roski professor, her pedagogical energies and input
devalued by the administration. By the end of the Fall 2014 semester, we quickly came to
understand that the MFA program we believed we would be attending was being pulled out from
under our feet. In January 2015, we felt it necessary to go to the source of these issues, the Dean
of the Roski School.
In a slew of unproductive, confounding and contradictory meetings with the Dean and other
assorted members of the Roski administration in early 2015, we were told that we would now
have to apply for, and compete with a larger pool of students for the same TAships promised to
us during recruitment. We were presented with a different curriculum, one in which entire
semesters would occur without studio visits, a bizarre choice for a studio-art MFA. Shocked by
these bewildering and last-minute changes, we reached out to the University’s upper
administration. We were then told by the Vice Provost for Graduate Programs that the
communication we received during recruitment clearly stating our funding packages was an
“unfortunate mistake,” and that if the Program wasn’t right for us, we “should leave.”
Throughout this grueling process of attempting to reason with the institution, the Roski School
and University administration used manipulative tactics of delaying decisions, blaming others,
contradicting each other’s stated policies, and attempting to force a wedge of silence between
faculty and students. At every single turn, the Dean and every other administrator we interacted
with tried to de-legitimize and belittle our real concerns, repeatedly framing us as “demanding”
simply for advocating for those things the School had already promised us.
As of 5pm on May 10, 2015, after four months, seven meetings that we held in good faith with
the administration, and countless emails later, we have no idea what MFA faculty we’d be
working with for the coming year; we have no idea what the curriculum would be, other than that
it will be different from what it was when we enrolled and is currently being implemented by
administrators outside of our field of study; and finally, we have no idea whether we’d graduate
with twice†the amount of debt we thought we would graduate with.
Since February 2015, we have communicated in writing to the Provost of the University, the
Vice Provost for Graduate Programs, The Dean of the Roski School, and other USC
administrators that we could not continue in the Program if the funding and curricular promises
made during recruitment were not honored; thus, the University is not blindsided by our
decision, nor has it been denied ample time and opportunity to remedy these issues with us.
Perhaps the University imagined that we would suffer any amount of lies, manipulations, and
mistreatment for those shiny degrees.
Let’s not forget about the larger system of inequity that we paid into to try to get our degrees.
USC tuition has increased an astounding 92% since 2001 (1†), compensation for USC’s top 8
executives has more than tripled since 2001 (2†), and Department of Education data shows that
“administrative positions at colleges and universities grew by 60 percent between 1993 and
2009” (3†). Adjunct faculty, the jobs that freshly-minted MFAs usually get- if they’re lucky- are
paid at a rate that often does not even reach the federal minimum wage (4†) while paying off tens of
thousands of dollars of student-loan debt. USC follows this trend of supporting a bloated
administration with whom students have minimal contact to the diminishment of everyone else.
Despite having ultimate power over the program structure and curriculum, our experience has
shown that the administration has minimal concern for their students. Meanwhile, faculty voices
are silenced and adjunct (5†) faculty expands, affecting their overall ability to advocate for students.
We seven students lost time, money, and trust in a classic bait-and-switch, and the larger
community lost an exemplary funding model that attempted to rectify at least some of these
economic disparities. What we experienced is the true “disruption” of this accelerating trend.
We each made life-changing decisions to leave jobs and homes in other parts of the country and
the world to work with inspiring faculty and, most of all, have the time and space to grow as
artists. We trusted the institution to follow through on its promises. Instead, we became
devalued pawns in the University’s administrative games. We feel betrayed, exhausted,
disrespected and cheated by USC of our time, focus and investment. Whatever artistic work we
created this spring semester was achieved in spite of, not because of, the institution. Because the
University refused to honor its promises to us, we are returning to the workforce degree-less and
A group of seven students is only a tiny part of the larger issues of the corporatization of higher
education, the scandal of the economic precarity of adjunct faculty positions, and the looming
student-debt bubble. However, the MFA Program we entered in August 2014 did one great
thing: it threw us all together, when we might not have crossed paths on our own. We will
continue to hold crits ourselves and be involved in each other’s work. We will be staging a series
of readings, talks, shows and events at multiple sites throughout the next year, and will follow
with seven weeks of “thesis” shows beginning in April of 2016. Our collective and
interdependent force is energizing as we progress toward supportive and malleable spaces
conducive to criticality and encouragement. These sites are more important than ever in the
current state of economic precarity that reaches far beyond the fates of seven art students. We
invite everyone to reach out to us with proposals, invitations and strategies of their own, dreams
not of creating a “better” institution, but devising new spaces for collective weirdness and joy.”