From Inside Higher Ed: The Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously ruled... that a state grant for minority students is unconstitutional... The ruling affirmed an appeals court decision in concluding that the Minority Undergraduate Retention Grant Program, established by the state legislature more than 30 years ago, violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The program offered financial assistance to low-income Black, Native American, Hispanic or Southeast Asian students from Laos, Cambodia or Vietnam who came to the U.S. after Dec. 31, 1975.
The case was brought by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty on behalf of five people who objected to the program, including a couple who claimed their son couldn’t access the scholarship because of his race. The Wisconsin Supreme Court said the individuals had standing as taxpayers... The case could have broader implications for race-based scholarships, many of which are disappearing or undergoing changes in the wake of state and federal bans on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.
Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2026/06/24/wisconsin-supreme-court-strikes-grant-minority-students.
There will be, for example, the billionaire tax and some measures designed to be poisoned pills for the billionaire tax. There will be much pro and against advertising on TV and social media. Groups that you might expect to be united for or against various propositions will be split this time in their support or opposition.
With all the confusion, some voters may be tempted to reject everything. But here is what will be offered:
Proposition 1: This $11.25 billion bond measure would fund veterans homeownership and affordable housing programs. The majority of that money, $10 billion, would finance programs to fund affordable rental housing and homeownership programs, and $1.25 billion would finance veterans housing programs. SUPPORTED BY UC.
Proposition 2: This measure would double the amount the state is allowed to tuck away each fiscal year into its mandated “rainy day fund,” from 10% to 20%. Gov. Gavin Newsom has endorsed the measure as “common sense” — a sentiment echoed by Democratic lawmakers, and panned by several Republican members.
Proposition 3: This measure would make permanent voter-approved income tax rates for high earners set to expire in 2031. Backed by several California teachers unions, it would make permanent the tax revenues going toward K-12 schools and community colleges.
Proposition 4: Candidates running for public office would be able to use select public funds when campaigning, if this Democrat-led measure passes. It would not allow candidates to use funds earmarked for education, transportation or public safety, and would set expenditure and use limits.
Proposition 5: This measure would effectively split the current recall process into two. Instead of requiring voters to choose a replacement for the official they are voting to recall, the measure would create a separate election of the official’s replacement.
Proposition 37: This measure would use up to $25 billion in bonds to offer eligible California buyers fixed-rate mortgages for up to 17% of the purchase price of a qualified new home, if they make less than 200% of the area median income.
Proposition 38: This measure would authorize $8.4 billion in state general obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research. (Some of the money would go to UC.)
Proposition 39: The Republican-backed measure would require voters to present government-issued identification at the polls, or to include the last four digits of a government-issued identification number when voting by mail.
Proposition 40: The Billionaire Tax Act would impose a one-time, 5% wealth tax on anyone worth more than $1 billion. It is backed by a powerful union of healthcare workers, but has splintered other unions as well as the Democratic Party. Republicans, meanwhile, are united in their opposition.
Proposition 41: This is one of two measures meant to counteract the billionaire tax. Backed by billionaires, it would ban new state taxes that are excluded from the state’s spending limit.
Proposition 42: This is another measure seeking to neutralize the billionaire tax would ban new taxes on personal property and other financial assets, and prevent new taxes from taking effect retroactively — a key element of the billionaire tax proposal. The measure is being bankrolled by several billionaires who’d be directly impacted by the billionaire tax.
Proposition 43: In a deal struck between the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and legislators June 25, the measure would increase the voter threshold for citizen-led initiatives for new special taxes, from a simple majority to two-thirds. That high bar would make it virtually impossible for local governments to pass new taxes that would go toward a specific purpose.
Proposition 44: The measure, backed by the SEIU-UHW — the healthcare worker union behind the billionaire tax — would require health clinics to spend 90% of their revenue on patient services.
Proposition 45: The measure would amend the state’s broad California Environmental Quality Act to expedite environmental review of most housing, transportation, health and energy construction projects, and set new limits on courts’ ability to rule on project approvals.
Descriptions from the San Francisco Chronicle: https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/california-ballot-measures-22319723.php.
The committee concluded that scores on the SAT and ACT, the main standardized tests for college admissions, did a better job measuring student readiness for college than high school grades. High test scores were particularly good at finding talented students from low-income families and underrepresented minority groups. For these reasons, the committee recommended the system continue to require applicants to submit SAT or ACT scores.
The university’s leaders disregarded the report. A few months after its release, early in the Covid-19 pandemic, the system’s Board of Regents voted to stop using the tests in undergraduate admissions. Initially, the university planned to make the submission of SAT and ACT scores optional, as many other colleges did during the pandemic. Almost immediately, though, the University of California began refusing to accept SAT or ACT scores, even from students who wanted to submit them. The policy was known as “test blind.” University leaders wrongly claimed that it would make admissions fairer and more equitable.
The results have been terrible... More than half of entering Berkeley students who took a math placement test incorrectly answered basic questions... Reading and writing skills have also deteriorated, and professors say they must spend time teaching elementary skills. “After the SAT was dropped, I got students who could not write a sentence,” said Janet Sorensen, an English professor at Berkeley...
Hundreds of faculty members describe the situation as an emergency. More than 1,500 science and mathematics professors, including the chairs of more than 60 departments, have signed a letter asking the university to reinstate the test requirement. More than 700 humanities and social sciences professors have signed a similar letter... So far, the university’s leaders are ignoring the faculty’s plea for urgency. They instead plan to appoint a new committee to study the issue over the next year, saying they need more time to understand the data. This delay could lock in the current policy until 2029 because students tend to take the SAT and ACT during junior year of high school.
The university’s trustees, known as the regents, have the final word. When they next meet, on July 14, they should have the courage to admit they made a mistake six years ago and reverse it... Even Janet Napolitano, who was the university president in 2020 and recommended a test-blind policy then, now favors its reversal. “It was a worthwhile experiment,” she told us, “but as the results come in, it is increasingly clear that the experiment needs to be revisited.”
...When the regents meet this month, they will face a choice. They can acknowledge their error and restore the test requirement, or they can adopt a classic bureaucratic dodge and appoint yet another committee to study a problem that has an evident answer.
Full editorial at https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/06/opinion/university-california-sat-testing-admissions.html.
Usually, stories about UC regents don't appear in the Entertainment section. But Regent Greg Sarris is an unusual exception.
From the LA Times: On a Monday morning in California, Sarris sits in his sleek office at the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria in Rohnert Park. Sarris, 74, has served as chairman of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria for more than 30 years. In his office, diplomas and academic certificates crowd the walls. A framed poster for the 2023 film “Joan Baez: I Am a Noise” hangs nearby — she’s a close friend. Behind him, an American flag ripples in the distance outside the window, blurred by the summer heat. Just up the road sits a multibillion-dollar tribe-owned casino, Graton Resort & Casino — a project the writer oversees. “I had never been in a casino. I have a PhD in modern thought and literature from Stanford,” says Sarris.
How does an accomplished author find himself at the helm of a multibillion-dollar casino enterprise? It’s a question that still puzzles Sarris. “I told them if we can raise our people and become a platform for social justice and environmental stewardship to benefit Indian and non-Indian alike, I’ll do it.” ...
Before his stint as a reluctant casino mogul, Sarris was a prolific author and university professor at UCLA and Sonoma State. In 2023, he was appointed a regent of the University of California by Gavin Newsom. Over the course of his career, he published six books, and his novel “Grand Avenue” became an HBO original film in 1996...
In 1952, Sarris’ teenage mother gave him up for adoption, her family hoping to evade the embarrassment of their Jewish daughter becoming pregnant by a Native American Filipino man. Sarris grew up in a white family in Santa Rosa alongside three siblings. His adopted father, George Sarris, became abusive, causing Greg to flee the house with his adopted mother’s blessing. “God bless her. She let me go out and live on ranches and run with other people to get away from him.”
At age 30, Sarris uncovered the identities of his birth parents and learned of his Native heritage. He learned his birth mother was buried in a pauper’s grave at the Calvary Catholic Cemetery in Santa Rosa, with “nothing to mark her grave but an upside-down horseshoe that has her name in it.” In the opening pages of the novel, a dedication to her: Bunny Hartman...
...The Graton Resort & Casino, launched by Sarris over 12 years ago, now plays a vital role in supporting the Pomo Indian community. “I promised early on: roof over everyone’s head, an insurance policy in every pocket and a college degree paid for,” he says. “We give $2.5 million a year in perpetuity to the University of California, so that all California Indians can go to the University of California tuition-free.” The casino has funded theater programs, youth writing intensives and revenue sharing with neighboring tribes...
Full story at https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/books/story/2026-06-24/graton-resort-casino-greg-sarris-native-history-author.
From Inside Higher Ed: An 11th-hour change to Iowa legislation last month required almost all University of Iowa undergraduates to complete courses in American history and in American government. And the provision, which became law, said only the Center for Intellectual Freedom—the civics center Republican lawmakers previously created at the university—could offer these mandated courses, starting in fall 2028.
Now, the advisory council overseeing this civics center faces a logistical issue. The university had more than 22,000 undergrads this past spring, per the Iowa Board of Regents. And the civics center officially has just one faculty member: its interim director... The Iowa center’s interim director, Luciano I. de Castro, said it only taught 19 students last semester in its two courses, Political and Economic Institutions of the U.S. and American Culture and Values. Now, the center needs to hire more faculty, or somehow get more affiliated instructors, to significantly expand its capacity, all while searching for a permanent director...
Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/state-policy/2026/06/24/iowa-civics-center-must-teach-thousands-it-has-one.
