Anne Roark's article (May 1) on the deliberations of the Commission for Review of the Master Plan for Higher Education, and the letter from Chancellor-emeritus Glenn Dumke of the California State University (May 10) raise some very important issues regarding relationships between the University of California and the other segments of higher education in California.
Dumke reminds us that it was the original intent of the 1960 master plan that functions be divided so that money appropriated for higher education might be used as efficiently as possible. UC was to be the research arm, CSU the teaching arm and the community colleges were assigned a double task: preparing students for the four-year institutions, and offering vocational instruction.
Assemblyman Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica), in his report to the commission, has raised the long overdue question regarding the wide disparity in funding these three equal but separate segments. This gap has been accentuated by UC's additional revenue derived from its independent investments.
There is no question that the research responsibilities assigned to UC by the master plan represent costly and essential aspects of academic endeavor; what has been overlooked or undervalued, as Hayden makes clear, is the importance of the teaching function assigned to the CSU and the community colleges.