State Senate/Assembly Resolution on AI

The resolution below has been sent by the State Senate to the State Assembly for consideration on June 9:

Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 82

Introduced by Senator Niello

May 15, 2025

Relative to artificial intelligence in public higher education.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SCR 82, as introduced, Niello. Public higher education: artificial intelligence usage.

This measure would encourage the President of the University of California, the Chancellor of the California State University, and the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges to create a workgroup of faculty, staff, and administrators to review the use of artificial intelligence in higher education, and create a report and make public the strategies and best practices for artificial intelligence usage agreed upon by the workgroup.

WHEREAS, The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence presents unprecedented opportunities and challenges for both students and faculty in higher education; and

WHEREAS, The University of California, California State University, and California Community Colleges are leading higher education institutions in California, the nation, and the world that play a pivotal role in shaping the academic landscape and must play an active role in fostering responsible artificial intelligence integration; and

WHEREAS, These three institutions work closely together to ensure academic success for students; and

WHEREAS, The collaboration between these segments is vital to the coordination of student education, services, and outcomes; and

WHEREAS, Understanding how to use artificial intelligence in academic assignments is crucial to creating an environment that values innovation and knowledge while upholding academic honesty and integrity; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate of the State of California, the Assembly thereof concurring, That the Legislature encourages the President of the University of California, theChancellor of the California State University, and the Chancellor for the California Community Colleges to create a workgroup of faculty, staff, and administrators to review the use of artificial intelligence in higher education; and be it further

Resolved, That the workgroup should discuss strategies and best practices that lead to the acceptable use of artificial intelligence in higher education while emphasizing academic honesty and ethical academic standards; and be it further

Resolved, That the workgroup should discuss strategies and best practices for acceptable use of artificial intelligence across the three segments of California public higher education; and be it further

Resolved, That the workgroup should discuss strategies and best practices for the use of artificial intelligence in academic studies, including, but not limited to, mitigating plagiarism and ethically using artificial intelligence in academic assignments; and be it further

Resolved, That the workgroup should discuss strategies and best practices for using artificial intelligence as it relates to providing student academic support; and be it further

Resolved, That the workgroup should discuss and strategize on ways to provide professional support to professors on using artificial intelligence in student and faculty work; and be it further

Resolved, That the workgroup should discuss and strategize on ways to provide professional support to professors on recognizing the use of artificial intelligence in student work, including reliable technologies for checking student work, and how to work with students to appropriately inform students when professors believe artificial intelligence was improperly used; and be it further

Resolved, That the workgroup should discuss best practices for responding to violations of artificial intelligence usage standards, with student participation in these discussions for relevant feedback; and be it further

Resolved, That the Legislature encourages the workgroup to collaborate with faculty, administrators, and students at the higher education segments, as well as individuals who work in higher education outside of California and experts in artificial intelligence; and be it further

Resolved, That the Legislature encourages the workgroup to collaborate with liaisons from the statewide associated student bodies of the three segments of California public higher education; and be it further

Resolved, That the Legislature encourages the workgroup to create a report and make public the strategies and best practices for artificial intelligence usage agreed upon by the workgroup; and be it further

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this resolution to chairs of the academic senates at the University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges, and to the author for appropriate distribution.

---

Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SCR82.

Straws in the Wind - Part 365

From Inside Higher Ed: Virginia Tech Board of Visitors rector John Rocovich is pushing back on Governor Abigail Spanberger’s efforts to remove him from the board for alleged violations of its code of ethics. Spanberger fired Rocovich from the board... But... Rocovich dug in, responding to the governor with a letter in which he denied violating the Board of Visitors’ code of ethics. He also called the effort to remove him “deeply offensive” and “legally unsupported,” essentially rejecting the premise that university boards serve at the pleasure of the governor.

He wrote that the board—which is appointed by the governor—is “an independent governing authority, insulated from the day-to-day political pressures of any particular administration.” ...

Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2026/06/01/virginia-tech-rector-defies-governors-removal-effort.

Will Harvard Continue to Lead the Charge? - Part 169

From the Harvard Crimson: Harvard asked a federal judge... to dismiss the Trump administration’s lawsuit seeking applicant-level admissions records, arguing that both the Department of Education and Department of Justice rushed to court without following Title VI enforcement procedures. In a motion filed in the U.S. District Court in Boston, Harvard’s lawyers claimed that the records demand is procedurally defective and politically motivated, casting the lawsuit as the latest front in its monthslong legal fight with the White House.

The filing marks Harvard’s latest attempt to beat back a federal lawsuit that seeks years of granular admissions data to determine whether Harvard is complying with the 2023 Supreme Court decision that banned race-conscious admissions. The Justice Department probe has been ongoing since April 2025 and seeks five years of individual-level admissions data, including applicants’ race, grades, standardized test scores, admissions outcomes, and internal evaluations...

Full story at https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2026/6/4/harvard-admissions-records-dismiss-motion/.

Coming soon to a campus near you?

San Jose State University has rolled out an AI initiative as part of a larger CSU experiment. Pay attention! If you think it can't happen at UC, think again. (Yours truly, who on recall taught his last class in 2022, is amazed at how prescient his timing was!)

It can.

From the NY Times: Last spring, newly admitted students to San Jose State University received an unusual video message from the institution’s president, Cynthia Teniente-Matson. Her caramel curls were tucked behind her shoulders, her hands clasped neatly at her torso. Dressed down in a royal blue hoodie, she appeared composed and approachable. “Congratulations on your admission,” she said. “At S.J.S.U., you’ll have opportunities to dive into the technologies shaping the world today, and redefine what’s possible for tomorrow.” This was not, in fact, Teniente-Matson addressing the new class, but her brand-new custom A.I. avatar. “I’m thrilled to share this special moment with you,” the avatar said. “It’s only fitting, isn’t it? After all, technology is a cornerstone of what makes San Jose State University such an incredible place to learn, innovate and grow.”

...Because the world’s largest tech firms are headquartered in California, the state has generally become a petri dish for A.I. experiments in education. In early August, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed education agreements with Nvidia, Adobe, Google, IBM and Microsoft; each company agreed to provide free A.I. resources to California schools. The goal is to create the “A.I. work force of the future” by training high school, community college and C.S.U. students to use the technology. In this spirit, C.S.U.’s A.I. Initiative has been marketed as simple progress — a way to ensure that the state’s working-class students are buoyed by the A.I. economy rather than left behind. After all, many students in the C.S.U. system are first-generation immigrants or the first in their families to go to college; roughly half identify as Hispanic, and many commute to campus and work alongside their studies. With A.I.’s looming reorganization of the job market, many of these students might graduate into jobs that will no longer exist in five years. Already, recent reports estimate that roughly 40 percent of recent college graduates nationwide are underemployed.

C.S.U. is promising that the A.I. Initiative will prepare its students to be workers of the future. The only issue is that, at this moment of technological acceleration and flux, we don’t yet know what the workplace of the future will look like. A year into this experiment, no one can tell how it will end. Will these graduates be ahead of the curve in the new A.I. economy, or robbed of a chance to hone their critical thinking skills? If adopting A.I. eases their entry into the work force, might it also hinder their intellectual development in unforeseen ways?

...Students...  are caught in the middle as everyone around them struggles to figure out what becoming “the first A.I.-powered university” actually means. “Faculty are feeling anxious,” Nik Janos, a sociology professor at Chico State, told me. “Students don’t know how to behave. What are we doing here?”

...Today, economic pressures have prompted C.S.U. to redefine what it means to train useful workers. In December 2024, [Governor] Newsom’s office encouraged the C.S.U. system to create the A.I. Workforce Acceleration Board, which would “guide the equitable development of a highly skilled, diverse work force that can drive California’s A.I.-powered economy.” In January, C.S.U. signed the contract with OpenAI, and C.S.U.’s chancellor, Mildred García, announced both developments as flagship elements of the A.I. Initiative at a news conference shortly afterward. In April, Newsom released a new Master Plan for Career Education, a revision of [former UC President Clark] Kerr’s [Master Plan] model that responds to “rapidly changing work force needs, particularly with the advent of artificial intelligence.” The statewide push to incorporate A.I. into every level of education is an integral part of this plan...

...Faculty members I spoke with opted for different metaphors to describe the effect of A.I. on higher education, and their varied analogies captured the range of sentiments on campus. John Sullins, a computer ethics professor, likened it to handing every student a machine gun, while Niel Shahrasbi, an information systems professor, compared it to giving them a magic wand. Robert Ovetz, a lecturer in political science at S.J.S.U., told me he views A.I. as “an ‘intelligent’ steam shovel” that students are being trained to use. Jeremy Murray, a historian at Cal State San Bernardino, described the integration of A.I. as a “smash and grab situation” akin to a bank robbery.

...The A.I. Initiative is a potentially lucrative ticket to a job in the tech industry and the class mobility it brings. But many of their peers instead perceived it as a threat not only to their education, but also to the kinds of jobs they had arrived at S.F.S.U. hoping to pursue. Vi Lee, a political science and Asian American studies double major, helped organize a student union protest demanding that the contract with OpenAI not be renewed “until students and faculty have control over A.I. policies and funding on campus.” 

...CSU’s A.I. Initiative has set off an institutional identity crisis: The debate about A.I. on campus is also a debate about exactly what public education in California is for. What does it mean to train the next generation of Californian workers and citizens when neither students nor faculty nor administrators have a solid grasp on what that requires, or what the “A.I. economy” will be in even four years...

Full story at https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/01/magazine/ai-university-college-california.html.

And then again, there is this:

Or direct to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNaN0iAuan8.

Straws in the Wind - Part 364

From Inside Higher Ed: The National Science Foundation has reversed its recent freeze on new grant funding for Duke, Harvard and Yale Universities, Nature reported. Limitations on new grants for Princeton University, however, remain in effect. The reversal took place on May 28, one day after Nature published a story detailing a funding pause for all four institutions. 

An NSF database showed that on April 9 the accounts of the four universities had been marked with a note that said, “Future Awards to Organization on Hold,” Nature reported. As of Thursday, the note had been removed from every account except Princeton’s. So far this year, the number of new grants received by each institution is down significantly from previous years, but that seems poised to change; “a few grants” have already been released to researchers at both Harvard and Duke since the freeze was lifted, an NSF staff member told Nature...

Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2026/06/01/nsf-reverses-funding-freeze-duke-harvard-and-yale.

Will Harvard Continue to Lead the Charge? - Part 168

From Inside Higher Ed: The Harvard Graduate Students Union announced Monday that its 40-day strike has ended “with the close of the academic year,” though the union has still not reached a bargaining agreement with the university. The strike—the longest in the union’s history—spanned the end-of-semester grading period and university commencement, which wrapped on Friday. Over the last several weeks, the university offered to expand benefits to all graduate student workers, provide dental coverage for Ph.D. students and increase its four-year raise proposal by 1 percent, the union said in a news release. These moves were the “first indication of engagement” from the university on the union’s priorities, the release said...

In an email to faculty obtained by Inside Higher Ed, deputy provost Jessica Soban and managing director of labor of employee relations Paul Curran said that student workers with ongoing appointments returned to work [this past] Monday...

Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty/labor-unionization/2026/06/02/labor-watch-harvard-grad-students-end-40-day-strike.

UCPD Policy Review - Public Comment

Currently reported as under review by the systemwide Academic Senate (and others) is policy related to the UCPD. Comments are due in mid-July.*

The proposed policy comes in two segments in Box: a clean copy of the proposal** and a tracked change version.*** Although there are cover letters regarding the review, there really is no overall summary of highlights as to what was changed, what is new, etc. And there is a lot of material.

I am guessing that those concerned will be mainly interested in the following items:

• Arrests
• Use of Force
• Personnel, Duties and Responsibilities
• Crowd and Demonstration Management
• Military Equipment
• Unmanned Aircraft Systems
• Mutual Aid
• Systemwide Response Teams

Note: In some cases, you may get a message that the item is not available and can't be downloaded. But in fact it can be downloaded and then read. Not all items appear in both Box collections. Be persistent.

Additional note: Given the complexity and length of the documentation, it would have been nice if the systemwide Senate had distributed a guide to the significant changes, rather than just make the entire set of files available.

====

*https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/systemwide-senate-review-ucpd-policies-gold-book.pdf.

**https://ucop.app.box.com/s/qldatg08j5ifk9zar6yvq0vfbymxmakn.

***https://ucop.app.box.com/s/ouweu9b5xn9ciepangdeunk2ljvgxrxq.