The proposed venture, due to start in January, would join Microsoft, GTE, Fujitsu and Hughes Electronics in a private consortium with CSU for at least 10 years, taking the world's largest university system further down the road of corporate partnership than any public university has ever gone.
CSU leaders view the arrangement as a creative solution for a university facing deep cutbacks in state money and ever-increasing numbers of students. But many professors and students worry that it amounts to a corporate takeover of academia.
Professors expect intellectual freedom and a collegial work environment. Some are wary that the corporations would dictate things like course requirements, the usage of software and hardware, and the publication of course materials, Jones said.
As online courses come into vogue, some facultyare also afraid of being forced to cede control over the university's educational direction to high-tech companies.
``Our big concern is that students are being known in the plans as `consumers,' '' said Monica Pacheco, student body president at California State University at Hayward. ``We're here for more than consuming. We're here to learn and enhance ourselves.''
The debate over the so-called California Educational Technology Initiative also plunges the campuses into the battle over high-tech standards between Microsoft and competitors such as Netscape Communications and Sun Microsystems.
Already, faculty on one campus, CSU Chico, say the installation of Netscape Communicator, a Web browser and e-mail program, has been suspended because of the pending initiative.
According to the minutes of a technology policy committee meeting, ``the expectation is for all campuses to move to Microsoft.''
Officials from the companies and CSU insist that such a scenario will not occur under the initiative, but they have not released the latest details of the plan.
CSU officials say they are seeking a controlling interest in the partnership, but the exact financial arrangements have not been spelled out.
So, have you got a point of view or what? Tell us what you think.
The new company would be the exclusive provider of the campuses' ``baseline'' technology, ensuring students and professors easy access to high-speed communications networks by the year 2000.
The firm would also gain access to a potential market of more than a million customers -- including students, professors, staff and CSU alumni.
The company hopes to generate revenues as high as $3 billion over 10 years by selling services such as computer support, pager accounts and Internet access to the public. Whether or not students would be charged for Internet and computer access hasn't been worked out, according to Don M. Scoble, San Francisco State vice president for business and finance and a member of the negotiating team.
The draft proposal also called for the new consortium to offer courses, but officials say that idea has been dropped for now.
The plan lets CSU satisfy technology needs that the Legislature isn't able or willing to fund. In the next 10 years, an additional half a million Californians are expected to need a college education.
``If I had my druthers, I think it's something the state should pay for,'' said Robert Corrigan, president of San Francisco State. ``But as a president who can't get the money either from the students or from the state, I'm driven into working with the corporate sector.''
More than anything, Microsoft's role in the deal is sending up red flags on many campuses. The Redmond, Wash.-based software giant is being sued by the U.S. Department of Justice for alleged monopolistic practices. ``In a way, it's a transfer of funds from the California taxpayers to the shareholders of Microsoft,'' said Kenneth Peter, a faculty leader at San Jose State. ``That probably won't be terribly popular in Silicon Valley.''=
``Microsoft is locking out other vendors from donating the software,'' said Peter Harter, a Netscape attorney. ``This is a few companies trying to take away taxpayer dollars and lock down the education system.''
Microsoft officials balk at the idea that the company is doing anything but satisfying market demand.
``We try to provide the best solution at the direction of our customer,'' says company spokesman Greg Shaw. ``As higher ed continues to look for ways of empowering students and faculty with PC technology, we obviously want to be there.''
CSU officials say some critics are being paranoid.
``The concern about Microsoft is highly exaggerated,'' said Scoble. ``Even though their name appears on the proposal, they have not been an active participant in the discussions.''
In the past two months, CSU officials have held meetings at 21 of 22 campuses to explain the plan to concerned faculty, students and staff. Officials from the companies also plan to address a large group of students on December 6 in Long Beach.
Last week, about 50 faculty, staff and students gathered at Cal State Hayward to ask why they haven't seen more details.
``This proposal seems to be quite vague and general,'' said professor Emily Stoper. ``I'm concerned that there's no business plan.''
In the absence of details, professors are using their imaginations. ``If we're not careful, we'll end up being the training wing of large corporations at taxpayer expense,'' said anthropology professor Glynn Custred.
CSU assistant vice chancellor Tom West gave some specifics at the Hayward meeting -- such as reassuring faculty that CSU is not liable for the debt if the new company goes bust. But many of his comments contradicted the draft proposal that has been circulating on campuses.
The deal is expected to be signed before the CSU trustees meet in late January. Most of the review period, then, coincides with campuses' Christmas break -- another source of contention.
Faculty senates on at least five campuses are asking for more time.
Reese Erlich, a lecturer at Cal State Hayward, asked why the deadline for signing the contract can't be extended.
``What's the rush?'' he said.