What Agostini Said About Intercollegiate Athletics

As blog readers will know, we have been exploring budgetary data for UCLA. The figures we have presented so far are all aggregates, although - as we have (critically) noted - different sources include different aggregations ranging from the entire enterprise (including hospital revenues) down to "discretionary" items (not clearly defined). 

Blog readers will also know that UCLA recently fired former CFO Agostini for saying past data were not reliable due to financial mismanagement. But before he left, Agostini left us a budget book which provided a more micro division by "units."

One of the units that has attracted attention is Intercollegiate Athletics. In principle, Athletics - taken as a whole - is not supposed to cost anything, i.e., it is supposed to generate revenues from TV rights, game admissions, and other sources sufficient to cover costs. The big money makers are football and basketball. But in recent years, revenues have not covered costs.

Below are Agostini's figures for Intercollegiate Athletics. The figures for the current year 2025-26 are projections made in Sept. 2025 (before later coaching staff hiring). There was a reclassification of "All Other Funds" in the current year with much of the total now listed as "Auxilliaries." There seem to be recharges from some other non-athletic source in the first year shown, but then other funds seem to be able to recharge Athletics for some costs. There are likely to be some payments directly to student-athletes from Name-Image-Likeness rights that are not represented on the the table.

Presumably, the $10 million "tax" being paid to UC-Berkeley thanks to the Regents is part of noncompensation costs.

Since Agostini is no longer here, we can't ask him what exactly is entailed on the various lines. But there is no indication on the table that the Athletics program is moving to self-support.

Source: https://dn720904.ca.archive.org/0/items/ucla-budget-book-v-final-feb-2026/UCLA%20Budget%20Book%20v%20FINAL%20Feb%202026.pdf.

Straws in the Wind - Part 298

From the Columbia Daily Spectator: The House Committee on Energy and Commerce launched an antidiscrimination investigation into Columbia on Tuesday via a letter to acting University President Claire Shipman, CC ’86, SIPA ’94. The committee will look into whether areas of the University—particularly the Columbia University Irving Medical Center and the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons—that receive federal funding from the Department of Health and Human Services are complying with provisions of the Civil Rights Act. Committee chairman Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), the author of the letter, said the inquiry will examine whether the University is maintaining a safe environment for members of its community.

“The Committee is troubled by recent reports and allegations raising questions about Columbia University’s willingness to uphold its commitments to protect Jewish students, faculty, and staff,” Guthrie wrote in a Thursday news release accompanying his letter. “The fact that Columbia receives hundreds of millions of dollars from HHS and its subagencies, coupled with the serious concerns regarding its compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws, demonstrates that further oversight is needed.”

The letter calls for Columbia to provide answers to over a dozen questions surrounding the University’s handling of antidiscrimination complaints by April 7, including how many of those complaints were related to antisemitism...

Full story at https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2026/03/26/house-committee-on-energy-and-commerce-announces-antidiscrimination-investigation-into-columbia/. Letter at https://ia600402.us.archive.org/9/items/2-final-hjaa-report.-the-soil-beneath-the-encampments/Columbia%20Energy_and_Commerce_Letter_to_Columbia_University_3-24-2026.pdf.

Will Harvard Continue to Lead the Charge? - Part 135

From the Harvard Crimson: Harvard argued in a Thursday filing that the Justice Department’s latest lawsuit largely repackages the Trump administration’s earlier, unsuccessful effort to strip the University of federal funding over allegations it mishandled campus antisemitism. In a seven-page filing, Harvard’s lawyers urged the court to reject the government’s effort to link the suit to two prior antisemitism cases — and instead treat it as a continuation of the University’s 2025 case against the Trump administration in which a federal judge ruled that the administration had acted unlawfully in cutting Harvard’s funding.

...The filing centers on a technical dispute over case assignment. The Justice Department has argued that its March 20 complaint is “related” to two private lawsuits filed in 2024, including one brought by Harvard Divinity School graduate Alexander “Shabbos” Kestenbaum, which were heard by U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns. But Harvard countered that the government omitted what it described as the most relevant precedent: its earlier lawsuit against the Trump administration, which was decided in September by U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs...

Full story at https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2026/3/28/harvard-filing-doj-lawsuit/.

Revising Discipline

Currently under systemwide Senate review - with comments due by May 19* - are UC procedures for student discipline. Excerpt from cover letter:

...In the spring of 2025, former President Drake requested a review of the student conduct and discipline governance, process, and procedures as defined in systemwide and campus policies and related guidance. Key features of this review included:

• A description of the student conduct and discipline governance, process, and procedures in effect at each UC campus, including average timelines for each stage in the process relative to any policy-required timelines, and any notable or significant procedural differences across campuses.

• In partnership with UC Legal, a review of campus disciplinary investigations and an assessment of consistency.

• An assessment of and recommendations related to systemwide standards regarding student conduct procedures, outcomes, and timely resolution...

One guesses that Drake was motivated by the events of 2024 in calling for the review, although there is no reference to those events in the cover letter. In any case, if the intent was to change the procedures and penalties in response, not much was done. Much of the revision involves compliance with state legislation dealing with misbehavior related to drug or alcohol abuse and creates alternative treatment options. Most of the misbehavior cited involves actions unrelated to the events of 2024: things such as cheating, sexual harassment, etc. There is some reference to obstructing academic activities, but it appears that no changes were made to related rules or processes. There is some added language which allows reasonable, but limited, procedural delay caused by unavailability of an advisor to the student accused of misbehavior.

You can find the cover letter and documentation under review at:

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/systemwide-senate-review-pacaos-100.pdf.

===

*The Senate wants comments by May 19. The cover letter refers to June 11.

Straws in the Wind - Part 297

From Inside Higher Ed: The Trump administration cut off funding for area studies and foreign language education in September, putting an end to the flow of financial support for centers and programs that assisted national security strategy for decades. Justifying the cuts, the administration has said these kinds of programs are “inconsistent with Administration priorities and do not advance American interests or values.” For years, area studies centers were funded through National Resource Center grants as part of Title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Congress partially restored this funding in its most recent budget, but the damage to area studies may be irreversible. 

The University of Washington, home to one of the nation’s oldest area studies centers, lost $2.5 million in National Resource Center and foreign language grants—half of which went directly to student scholarships—for the 2025–26 academic year. The University of Michigan lost about $3.4 million and the University of Kansas lost $2 million. Western Washington University’s Center for Canadian-American Studies reportedly took a 70 percent hit to its budget after the Title VI funds were pulled.

...Facing a hostile presidential administration, institutions are unlikely to stick their necks out too far for area studies, said Zachary Lockman, a historian and professor of Middle Eastern and Islamic studies at New York University. “They’re skeptical. They’re all in austerity mode. They’re under attack,” Lockman said. “Many of them just want to fly under the radar and remain invisible, so giving money to people whom the Department of Education sees as enemies of the Trump administration doesn’t seem like a wise tactic to them.” ...

[The] symbiotic government–university partnership worked for a while. But in the 1970s, while the U.S. was at war in Vietnam, that relationship began to fracture, experts explained. Government officials started to think that they weren’t getting their anticipated return on investment, [Osamah] Khalil [of Syracuse University] said. It was never a requirement that recipients of federal fellowships work for the government afterward—and in large part, they did not, he said. “One of the things that came out of Vietnam was this idea that ‘We’re not getting the experts that we wanted out of this. We’re getting campus radicals who are protesting U.S. foreign policy’”... 

Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/business/academic-programs/2026/03/26/area-studies-once-vital-wither-without-funding.

Getting In - Part 3

We have been displaying Facebook ads aimed at parents who want their kids to get into top universities. But in California, to get into any UC or CSU, you must complete the A-G required courses in high school. Many don't. From CalMatters:

...Statewide, 54% of high school students pass the classes minimally needed to enroll in the University of California or California State University systems as freshmen, according to a CalMatters analysis of traditional high schools. In recent years the state has provided extra funding to help schools boost their numbers, but the readiness rate has only inched up. Low-income, Black and Latino students have among the lowest class-completion rates. English learners and students with disabilities also have low rates, but the numbers have climbed slightly the past few years.

California’s two public university systems require all students applying for admission to earn a C or better in a suite of courses. The requirements are four years of English, three of math, two years each of science, social science and foreign language and one year of art. Known as the A-G requirements, they often dictate a student’s schedule beginning in ninth grade or even earlier. It’s easy for a student to fall off track — by getting a D or F in a class, for instance, or by skipping a tough class like chemistry or trigonometry, or by not taking a class if their school doesn’t offer it.  

CalMatters looked at data from the 2024-25 school year for 1,468 public high schools, excluding about 800 alternative high schools, some specialized schools with high A-G rates, continuation schools and juvenile detention programs. The analysis shows that 222 of those schools posted A-G completion rates of less than 30%. More than 400 schools had A-G rates exceeding 70%.

Schools may have few students completing the full suite of A-G courses for a variety of reasons, said Sherrie Reed Bennett and Michal Kurlaender, education researchers at UC Davis who wrote a 2023 analysis on the gaps in A-G rates across public high schools. Some schools may offer the courses, but students don’t enroll in them. Or students earn below a C in these courses and don’t retake them after school or during the summer. Next, teachers may not allow students to repeat assignments in order to avoid having to retake a class; some schools allow this. Meanwhile, nearly a tenth of traditional high schools didn’t offer the needed courses, the researchers’ data show... 

Full story at https://calmatters.org/education/k-12-education/2026/03/college-admission-california/.

Watch the Afternoon Meetings of the Regents: March 18, 2026

We continue catching up with the Regents' March sessions.

At the Finance and Capital Strategies Committee, one consent item was approved without discussion. The Committee then turned to the UCLA sports medicine and lab project to be placed in an existing structure that requires substantial internal modifications.*

It was reported that the winning contractor's bid came in 38% below estimate. Other than a comment by Chair Cohen that he was happy to hear of the discount, the project was approved without discussion.

The other UCLA project was the 19-story undergrad dorm to be constructed at 901 Levering Avenue which we took note of in an earlier post.** It was presented by AVC Michael Beck. Regent Makarechian raised the issue of cost. He compared it with a mid-Wilshire Building that UCLA had bought for grad students and noted the lower cost there. Beck said that building was a distressed sale by a developer. A second issue raised by Makarechian was bathroom construction. The plan has 8 students sharing two bathrooms. Makarechian said at no cost the bathrooms could be divided for multiple use. Beck said ADA compliance would prevent such a division. But Makarechian noted that ADA compliance did not require all bathrooms in all apartments. Beck agreed to come back with an alternative bathroom arrangement.

Another issue raised was that grad students have been displaced from the immediate campus area. But the project was approved.

Academic and Student Affairs approved professional program tuition increases for various medical degrees. It was noted that the number of Pell grant recipients had recently dropped, but the reasons for that decrease were not known at this point.

The Compliance and Audit Committee then approved some technical amendments with no discussion. There was then a presentation by KPMG, a new auditor, about its audit for the current fiscal year. It was said that AI would be used to analyze audit data. The plan was approved.

The Board then met for a brief meeting in which the reports from the various committees were approved.

===

As always, we preserve recordings of Regents meetings because the Regents have no policy about retention.

The sessions of Finance and Capital Strategies, Academic and Student Affairs, and Compliance and Audit are at:

https://ia601500.us.archive.org/18/items/regents-board-am-3-18-2026/Regents%20Finance%20and%20Capital%20Strategies%2C%20Academic%20and%20Student%20Affairs%2C%20Compliance%20and%20Audit%20Committees%203-18-2026.mp4.

The afternoon Board meeting is at:

https://ia801500.us.archive.org/18/items/regents-board-am-3-18-2026/Regents%20Board%2C%20Committee%20Reports%203-18-2026.mp4. 

===

*We previously discussed this project at https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2026/03/new-off-campus-health-complex.html.

**https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2026/03/big.html.