Note: Clicking on the images may clarify the text.
This week, as you may have seen, 80 out of the ~120 Harvard law school faculty signed a group letter protesting certain Trump administration actions--especially those targeting law firms--as being detrimental to the rule of law.
Predictably, where Harvard leads, the rest of legal education follows. I hear rumors of similar letters in the works at some law schools or among faculty at multiple law schools.
I have been asked to sign some. But I'm not going to do so.
First, however, let me emphasize that I share the signer's concerns about the way the Trump administration is punishing law firms of which the administration disapproves. The use of unilateral executive action is inconsistent with the rule of law. This is true even though I think some of what some of the law firms did to incur Trump's wrath was seriously problematic. In particular, Perkins Coie played a major role in commissioning and disseminating the Steele dossier, which has been widely and effectively discredited. In effect, they committed election fraud. Having said that, I believe Trump should have had the Justice Department investigate to determine if laws were broken rather than unilaterally imposing punishment by executive decree. If the Justice Department concluded laws were broken by the firm, then prosecute the firm. That is how the system is supposed to work. That is how the rule of law is supposed to work.
But I have three reasons for not signing a version of the Harvard letter. First, I share many of the concerns that Harvard law professor Adrian Vermeule identified in an open letter to his students explaining why he didn't sign the Harvard letter:
Second, we have just come through a year of massive campus unrest. In response to which, many universities recommitted themselves to the principles announced in the Kalven Report:
The instrument of dissent and criticism is the individual faculty member or the individual student. The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic. It is, to go back once again to the classic phrase, a community of scholars. To perform its mission in the society, a university must sustain an extraordinary environment of freedom of inquiry and maintain an independence from political fashions, passions, and pressures. A university, if it is to be true to its faith in intellectual inquiry, must embrace, be hospitable to, and encourage the widest diversity of views within its own community. It is a community but only for the limited, albeit great, purposes of teaching and research. It is not a club, it is not a trade association, it is not a lobby.
Since the university is a community only for these limited and distinctive purposes, it is a community which cannot take collective action on the issues of the day without endangering the conditions for its existence and effectiveness. There is no mechanism by which it can reach a collective position without inhibiting that full freedom of dissent on which it thrives. It cannot insist that all of its members favor a given view of social policy; if it takes collective action, therefore, it does so at the price of censuring any minority who do not agree with the view adopted. In brief, it is a community which cannot resort to majority vote to reach positions on public issues.
The Report thus advocated that, in most cases, there should be "a heavy presumption against the university taking collective action or expressing opinions on the political and social issues of the day, or modifying its corporate activities to foster social or political values, however compelling and appealing they may be." In other words, a norm of institutional neutrality.
Granted, neither the Harvard letter nor the others reportedly circulating purport to speak for the university. Technically, there is no violation of the letter of the principle of institutional neutrality. But surely there is at least a seeming inconsistency between these letters and the spirit of institutional neutrality. As Professor Vemuele observes of the Harvard letter:
In virtue of its joint signature list, its collective voice, and its claim to portray itself as a consensus statement of those who otherwise disagree, the letter hovers ambiguously between a statement of the faculty as such and a mere aggregation of “individual” views.
Finally, and most importantly, as academics, we cultivate specialized knowledge that gives our opinions particular weight within our domains of expertise. When we sign open letters on matters beyond these domains, we risk lending our professional credibility to positions where we lack specialized insight. This practice may inadvertently dilute the value of academic expertise broadly.
Our professional standing results from years of focused study and contribution in specific fields. When we leverage this standing on issues where we possess only general knowledge, we potentially mislead the public about the depth of expert consensus. This creates an ethical tension: should we use the authority granted to us for one purpose to influence discourse in unrelated areas?
This position doesn't require political silence—we remain free to participate as private citizens. Rather, it suggests that our public use of professional credentials should align with the areas where we possess genuine expertise. This approach upholds both intellectual honesty and the distinctive value of academic contribution to public discourse.
So, when it comes to group letters I am going to continue my longstanding policy of sticking to my lane: federal securities and Delaware corporate law.
===
*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2025/03/law-deans-letter.html.
Do you have a sense that the chart above could do more to "adjust" current political trends affecting UC than all the protests combined? Of course, it's not good news for pension funding. And relying on the stock market for such things is risky. Reversals can occur. But sometimes a reversal is just a Dead Cat Bounce* and the trend continues.
Or direct to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndG2yv9aIkE.
====
*In finance, a dead cat bounce is a small, brief recovery in the price of a declining asset. Derived from the idea that "even a dead cat will bounce if it falls from a great height," the phrase is also popularly applied to any case where a subject experiences a brief resurgence during or following a severe decline. This may also be known as a "sucker rally." ...
We have diligently collected most of them, along with the long budget proposal of January, for the first quarter of 2025, along with other events - such as the January fires - for your visual enjoyment.
You can find the first quarter at:
https://archive.org/details/newsom-1-2-25-new-laws.
If you are looking for stuff about higher ed, however, you will be disappointed. Except for a brief mention in his January 10th state budget proposal, you won't find much about that sector. Of course, there are a lot of things going on in the state apart from higher education. And the governor, who will be termed out after this term ends, is looking ahead. Notably, he now has a podcast which seems to be premised on trying to prove that - while California is in the bag for Democrats in 2028 - Newsom could win swing states.
You can read it at:
https://ia802206.us.archive.org/33/items/ucla_final-congress/UC%20Systemwide%20Guidance%20re%20Contributions%20to%20DEI%20Statements%20in%20Academic%20Recruitments%20-%20Circulated%20at%20UCLA%204-4-2025.pdf
Message from the UCLA Faculty Club's President, Linda Sarna
April 4, 2025
Dear Club Members,
Happy Spring! Since January, the Club has been engaged in a new partnership with Housing & Hospitality (H&H). Despite the fires, rains, holidays and other disruptions affecting the ability of the Club to be open for its members, we are making excellent progress in meeting the goals of our mission while pursuing fiscal sustainability. Factors affecting this positive outcome are the strong usage of the Club by members, including the increased number of Events. H&H now has a labor model that works under the leadership of our Interim General Manager Guadalupe (Lupe) Morales. H&H is in the process of hiring a new GM for the position. In addition to two resignations, four other employees were laid off and encouraged to pursue other options at UCLA. On a positive note, all of our current employees have completed their required training, and one received outstanding recognition for her service. I meet frequently with the GM and with H&H leadership, Al Ferrone and Peter Angelis, so that we are all on the same page, focused on the success of the club. This includes moving forward with the renovation for the North Hallway restroom. At our June Board Meeting on Wednesday, June 18, we will have a full discussion of the financial status of the Club since the transition.
The dramatic changes in the administrative structure of the Club, required us to do a careful analysis of our Bylaws. As a result, after long discussions and multiple drafts, the approved new Bylaws will guide the Board’s direction, beginning July 1. Rather than a cumbersome and labor-intensive committee structure, the new smaller Board will work together as a “Committee of the Whole” to accomplish our mission. We will still have an elected leadership team consisting of a Chair, Vice Chair 1 (Treasurer) and Vice Chair 2 (Secretary), and two At-Large Members. Representatives from the UCLA Emeriti Association, the UCLA Faculty Women’s Club, and UCLA Administration will continue as voting members.
Previously, the Club held elections in the Spring with a new Board launching September 1. Because of the myriad of operational details involved in the transition, as well as efforts in revising the Club’s Bylaws to reflect the new scope of Board responsibilities, the Board made the difficult but thoughtful decision to suspend elections for this year. The new smaller Board with Victoria Steele as Chair, will begin July 1. My term will end June 30th. The Club will have elections for open positions in Spring 2026.
Although the new Interim Operating Agreement, an integration of the 2019 and 2024 agreements, has not yet been approved, we are posting the Club’s new approved Bylaws on our website. We will update them when the Operating Agreement becomes finalized.
Last month, we received the excellent news from Administrative Vice Chancellor Michael Beck that Chancellor Frenk and Executive Vice Chancellor/Provost Hunt approved the Club’s name change to the University Club. The formal name will be the UCLA University Club. This historic change was supported by our members and more accurately reflects our membership. Over the next few months, the change will become more evident in the signage to our building, our website and communication materials. Stay tuned!
Our next Board meeting on Thursday, April 24, 2-3:30, will be in person and is open to our members. More information will be forthcoming.
Finally, I encourage all of you to support the Club, especially by your attendance at two upcoming special events, the Easter Brunch and Egg Hunt on April 20, and the Mother’s Day Brunch on May 11. H&H are doing their best to continue our traditions and make these memorable occasions for you and yours. These events are by reservation only so please contact reservations@fc.ucla.edu as soon as possible.
I hope to see you there!
The Board has done their best on your behalf. I remain optimistic about the future success of the Club.
Best wishes for a successful Spring Quarter,
Linda Sarna
President, University Club
===
Yours truly can't help but note that the email starts with the name being "Faculty Club" in the heading, but ends in University Club. So I guess the change occurred while reading the message.
