Just the (Corrected) Facts - Part 4

If you have been following the situation in which the UCLA Academic Senate has been trying to obtain useful and comprehensive budgetary information from Murphy Hall, you know that it has yet to succeed. You probably also know that at its February 5th meeting, the Legislative Assembly of the campus Senate passed a resolution with lots of Whereas... clauses, asking for the missing information.*

We said in our last posting on this issue that there did not seem to be any opposition to the resolution. An email circulated yesterday afternoon confirmed that the resolution passed 107-0. That would seem to be a definitive expression of opinion.

====

Resolution on Shared Governance, Senate Consultation, and Administrative Accountability

Legislative Assembly members voted via the Academic Senate Data Management System on the Resolution on Shared Governance, Senate Consultation, and Administrative Accountability. The Legislative Assembly received a total of 107 votes cast: 107 Approve, 0 Oppose. This Resolution required a majority of votes cast by present members to be approved. [AIPSC (2nd ed.) 5.1]. All eligible votes cast (100%) were to approve this resolution.

====

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2026/02/just-corrected-facts-part-3.html.

Straws in the Wind - Part 249

From the Brown Daily Herald: President Christina Paxson P’19 P’MD’20, emphasized the importance of maintaining the University’s core values while navigating security questions following the shooting on Dec. 13 at Tuesday’s faculty meeting. Paxson updated faculty members on a new community initiative called “Brown Loves Providence,” new security initiatives and the post-shooting reviews. The University expedited its process of adding blue light phones and panic buttons to classrooms, Paxson said, especially in places where staff handle cash, so that they “feel more secure.” ...

Paxson acknowledged ...concerns, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a sense of “openness” on campus. “When people go to an academic seminar, they shouldn’t feel like they’re going through TSA to board an international flight,” Paxson added.

This spring, the University will be conducting “trauma-informed active shooter training,” Paxson added...

Full story at https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2026/02/paxson-shares-hopes-to-keep-brown-both-open-and-secure-at-february-faculty-meeting.

Will Harvard Continue to Lead the Charge? - Part 119

From the Harvard Crimson: Harvard students slammed a proposal to cap A grades and use raw percentage scores for internal awards, warning that the changes would intensify academic competition, misrepresent students’ mastery of course material, and harm postgraduate prospects. If approved by faculty, the 19-page plan — released Friday by the Office of Undergraduate Education — would limit the number of A grades to 20 percent of each course, with room for up to four extra As per course. The proposal also included a new “average percentile rank” system, which uses students’ raw numeric scores to determine internal awards rather than grade point averages...

But in more than two dozen interviews with The Crimson, students overwhelmingly urged faculty to reject the proposal. “You accept a bunch of top 3 percent students in the country and then get surprised that we’re getting all As,” Harlow W. Tong ’28 said. “I don’t understand the point of ranking against each other.” Tong added that lowering average GPAs would reduce the value of a Harvard education...

Ricardo A. Fernandes Garcia ’27 expressed concerns that the proposal would foster competitive incentives, damaging Harvard’s collaborative academic culture...

Bhargavi A. Limbachiya ’29 predicted that the proposal would unduly increase students’ stress and anxiety levels...

Full story at https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2026/2/7/students-slam-grading-proposal/.

Names

At the Feb. 12th systemwide Assembly of the UC Academic Senate, the following resolution is up for consideration after discussion at a prior meeting ended discussion when attendance fell below a quorum:

---

ACTION REQUESTED: The Assembly is asked to vote on the amended resolution.

Whereas on December 18, 2024, the University of California offered to enter in an agreement with the Department of Education to provide the Office of Civil Rights with “an electronic sortable spreadsheet or other file of the responses by the University or the individual campus to all complaints and reports alleging discrimination, including harassment and disparate treatment, on the basis of actual or perceived national origin, including shared Jewish, Palestinian, Muslim, and/or Arab ancestry, or association with these national origins/ancestries, during the preceding academic year at UCLA, UCSB, UCSD, UCD, and UCSC.”

Whereas the University agreed to share with the Office of Civil Rights the names of faculty members, students, staff, and others who reported (‘the reporter’), the individual allegedly subjected to discrimination or harassment (“the complainant”), the individuals who (have been allegedly) engaged in discrimination/harassment (“the respondent(s)”), and any witnesses to the alleged incidents, regardless of the outcome of the cases.

Whereas on November 19, 2025, Deputy General Counsel Allison Woodall from UC Legal clarified that “UC complied with its reporting obligation under the agreement on September 30, 2025, by providing EDOCR with a spreadsheet of relevant civil rights complaints that redacted all personally identifiable information from the spreadsheet. Therefore, no names or other personally identifiable information were released.”

Whereas there have been credible allegations that the current U.S. Presidential Administration has attempted to deport noncitizens, including scholars and students, who have been lawfully admitted to the United States, based on First Amendment-protected speech and advocacy with which the Administration disagrees.

Whereas on October 27, 2025, the Academic Council of the Academic Senate issued a statement expressing strong concern over the University’s disclosure of personally identifiable information (PII) to federal authorities during an investigation of UC Berkeley by the Office of Civil Rights, warning of harm to academic freedom and trust, and urging the UC administration to strengthen privacy safeguards, ensure timely notifications, and consult faculty experts on future disclosure decisions.

Be it therefore resolved that the Assembly of the Academic Senate of the University of California endorses, affirms, and adopts the Statement issued by the Academic Senate Council.

Be it further resolved that the Assembly of the Academic Senate of the University of California urges the UC Office of the President and the UC Board of Regents to inform individuals in advance of the disclosure of their personally identifiable information upon the request for such information.

---

Source: https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/assembly/assembly-agenda-2-12-26.pdf.

Straws in the Wind - Part 248

From Inside Higher Ed: The College Board will prohibit students from wearing smart glasses—wearable, internet-connected computers that allow users to see a computer display in the lenses—while taking the SAT, starting in March 2026. The organization has long banned any wearable electronics, such as Apple AirPods and Apple Watches, said Priscilla Rodriguez, senior vice president of college readiness assessments at the College Board. Such devices, as well as students’ phones, are taken away by the test’s proctor before the test begins; the rule outlawing smart glasses is just an extension of that existing policy.

Although the first smart glasses emerged in the early 2010s, the technology has risen to prominence in recent years, especially as companies such as Meta and Google have debuted artificial intelligence–enabled versions of the product. As they’ve become more common, professors have also raised alarm bells about whether they will be used for cheating; they fear that students will use them to scan tests and get fed the answers by AI in real time without detection.

At least one documented example exists of a student using smart glasses to cheat; a student in Tokyo was caught using his spectacles to post questions from a college entrance exam on the social media site X and received answers from other social media users...

Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/students/academics/2026/02/02/college-board-prohibits-wearing-smart-glasses-during-sat.

Just the (Corrected) Facts - Part 3

We have been following the so-far-unsuccessful quest of the Academic Senate (Legislative Assembly) for basic budget information from Murphy Hall. A meeting of the Legislative Assembly was held on February 5th which included this matter on its agenda.

As blog readers will know from previous posts,* the Legislative Assembly and Senate leaders have requested basic budget information - essentially revenues (broken down and itemized), spending (broken down and itemized), and reserves. The information should include at a minimum, the past fiscal year, the current fiscal year (estimate), and projections for next year. What has come back is either assertions that we gave you what we have (not so), or vague oral statements, or other excuses.

Using bits and pieces of information, a partial picture was assembled by the Senate, but it is missing important information. Athletics, for example, is shown with deficits of $80 million in the past, present, and future years as a net, i.e., no breakdown of revenue and spending. But we have spent lots of money buying ourselves a new football coach and an entourage to go with him. And we are now embroiled in what is likely to be very costly litigation with the Rose Bowl and Pasadena over breaking a long-term contract to play there.

And let's not even think about the wisdom of buying a defunct and inaccessible Catholic college campus in Palos Verdes for $80 million. (There's that $80 million number again!)

Apparently, in oral statements, the CFO has blamed "facilities" costs - which seem to be energy, the labor agreement with TAs and other student workers - which is up for renegotiation, and faculty salaries. Of course, you can take any segment of spending and say that if only it were cheaper, things would be better, budgetwise. And it has always been the case that if you cut out graduate programs, hired cheaper instructors, and increased courseloads, spending would be lower. More undergrads could be processed per budget dollar. But if you did those things, you wouldn't have UCLA. You would have Cal State-Westwood.

As blog readers will know, there was a resolution proposed with lots of "Whereas" clauses that repeated the Senate's demand for basic budget information.* When it was discussed, participants raised the possibility of Public Records requests,** lawsuits by outside entities (the Senate can't sue UCLA since it is part of UCLA), and future votes of no confidence. If I were the CFO or the chancellor, I would be concerned. Just saying...

Nobody spoke against the resolution, so it seems likely to have been passed with a strong vote. (Voting occurred after the meeting electronically and the results will be announced.)

====

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2026/01/just-corrected-facts-part-2.html.

**At least one such request has since been filed.

Will Harvard Continue to Lead the Charge? - Part 118

From X (Twitter): The @DeptWar is formally ending ALL Professional Military Education, fellowships, and certificate programs with Harvard University. Harvard is woke; The War Department is not. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth

Video below: (NOTE: If you are scrolling down this blog, you may get a notice that the video is unavailable. Clicking on the actual post will make it appear. Or you can go directly to the X{Twitter} link at the bottom.)

Or direct to https://x.com/secwar/status/2019918910502457536.