From the Harvard Crimson: Harvard’s non-tenure-track faculty and researchers will walk out of classrooms and labs [today] for the first time, after a final bargaining session Monday ended without a contract agreement with the University. Harvard Academic Workers-United Auto Workers – which represents about 2,600 preceptors, lecturers, teaching assistants, and postdoctoral researchers – set the Nov. 10 strike deadline on Oct. 19 after more than two years and 54 bargaining sessions without a contract. J. Gregory Given, an Expository Writing preceptor and a member of the union’s bargaining committee, said Monday that the two sides have moved closer to a deal since then. But the remaining disputes – including wages – are core issues on which the University has made little progress, he said.
...A Harvard spokesperson did not immediately respond for comment Monday night.
The remaining issues are across-the-board raises, family benefits on par with those of tenure-track faculty, the inclusion of hundreds of stipend-funded postdoctoral fellows who are Harvard contends are not University employees, and union security...
The Regents are meeting next week and will discuss pending litigation behind closed doors. (We posted the agenda last Saturday.) A whole lot of issues developed after Oct. 7, 2023, with the encampments and related issues, particularly at UCLA. And there was a fallout of litigation - still pending. (I am not referring to the Trump demand for a billion dollars which is a whole other thing and not up for discussion or a "deal.")
In one instance - the Frankel case (named after a student plaintiff) - the Regents effectively admitted guilt, paid some money, and said the problems had been corrected going forward. An official UCLA task force said much the same. But now, in a related case, rather than settle with the individuals involved, the Regents are trying to get that case dismissed on various technical grounds and on the assertion that while Bad Things might have happened in the past, corrective actions have since been taken. A friend-of-the-court brief has been filed with ten Jewish UCLA employees saying that while Bad Things had happened at UCLA, they nonetheless could go about their business.*
As a non-lawyer, the main thing that impresses me is the thought of what it must have cost to have O'Melveny & Myers and their 6 named lawyers prepare the brief, and how much more cost there will be when a hearing is held on the brief on Feb. 1.
Hey Regents, why not work out a deal with the individuals named? Just settle it. You don't need to "win." And here's a little ditty to help you to get there:
*I asked Claude to wade through the Regents' request for dismissal and summarize. Here is that summary:
UC Regents' Motion to Dismiss: Summary of Key Arguments
Case: United States, et al. v. Regents of the University of California, No. 2:26-cv-01946-CAS-AS (C.D. Cal.), Judge Christina A. Snyder Document: ECF 79-1, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Dismiss (filed Oct. 26, 2026; 55 pages, about 14,500 words) Counsel for the Regents: O'Melveny & Myers (Adam Karr, K. Lee Blalack II, Meaghan VerGow, Natasha Teleanu, Jennifer Sokoler, Anton Metlitsky) Hearing: February 1, 2027, 10:00 a.m., Courtroom 8D
What the motion covers and what it asks for
This is a single consolidated brief responding to two complaints. The first is DOJ's Title VII complaint. The second is the First Amended Complaint filed by the Intervenor Plaintiffs (IPs), who are Jewish and Israeli UCLA faculty and staff.
DOJ complaint: The Regents ask the court to dismiss all six counts in full, with prejudice and without leave to amend.
IP complaint: The Regents seek dismissal of these specific counts:
Claim 1, as to Drs. Shamsa, Holloway, Stein, and Burt
Claim 2, as to Holloway
Claim 3, as to Shamsa, Holloway, and Burt
Claim 4 (FEHA failure to prevent), as to all IPs
Claim 5, as to Holloway
The brief opens by acknowledging that some UCLA employees were exposed to antisemitism on campus, which it attributes to third parties. It then argues that the complaints leave out UCLA's remedial steps and that the legal theories fail as a matter of law. The background section also describes the federal government's $584 million funding suspension and its demand for over $1 billion as unlawful and retaliatory, noting that both are subject to existing injunctions.
1. No standing to seek injunctive relief (Rule 12(b)(1))
The legal standard. A plaintiff seeking an injunction must show a "certainly impending" future injury (Clapper; Spokeo). Past harm is not enough (Wright v. SEIU; Nelsen v. King County). The brief notes that the same rule applies to the United States.
The allegations are stale. According to the brief, the complaints focus mainly on events from the 2023-24 academic year, especially the spring 2024 Royce Quad encampment.
The court may look beyond the pleadings. Because standing is jurisdictional, the court can consider declarations and evidence of UCLA's reforms since 2024. The brief lists these:
Tightened time, place, and manner rules that ban unauthorized encampments and masking to evade identification
A new Office of Campus and Community Safety, led by former LAPD officers
Revoked registration for Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Graduate SJP
A reorganized Civil Rights Office with new leadership
New training programs
Compliance with a December 2024 Voluntary Resolution Agreement with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights
Chancellor Frenk's Initiative to Combat Antisemitism and its May 2026 Roadmap
An improvement in UCLA's ADL report card grade from F (2024) to B (2026)
No renewed encampment and no consent-judgment violations. The brief says no encampment has formed since spring 2024 and no one has alleged a violation of the Frankel consent judgment.
Harvard precedent. The brief relies heavily on United States v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (D. Mass. Aug. 13, 2026), which dismissed the government's injunctive claims as resting on stale, episodic allegations. That ruling is on appeal.
Causation and redressability. Any future harm would come from independent third parties such as protesters and vandals, not from UCLA, so an injunction against UCLA would not redress it.
2. The hostile work environment claims fail (DOJ Counts II, IV, VI; IP Counts I, III)
(a) No employer liability for harassment by third parties.
Title VII reaches the employer and its agents under agency principles (Burlington Industries v. Ellerth).
The Ninth Circuit allowed negligence-based liability for third-party harassment in Folkerson (1997), but that case involved a tightly controlled casino. Universities have far less control over adult students and members of the public, and a public university is further constrained by the First Amendment.
More broadly, the brief argues that the negligence theory came from EEOC guidance and should be abandoned after Loper Bright. It points to Bivens v. Zep (6th Cir. 2025), which requires that the employer intended the third-party harassment.
Both complaints plead only negligence ("knew or should have known"). They do not allege intent, a discriminatory policy, or that Jewish complaints were treated worse than others.
The IPs' assertion that encampment participants were UCLA's agents is called conclusory.
(b) UCLA's response was reasonable even under a negligence standard. Under Campbell v. Hawaii Dep't of Education (9th Cir. 2018), the question is whether the employer's steps were reasonably calculated to end the harassment. An employer may respond incrementally and need not act in the most draconian way. UCLA cleared the encampment within about a week, and more than 200 people were arrested and referred for prosecution. UCLA also blocked later attempts at encampments and building occupations. The brief cites Stand With Us v. MIT (1st Cir. 2025), which approved a gradual de-escalation approach.
(c) Dr. Shamsa's claim is barred by the Frankel release. Shamsa settled the Frankel case for compensation and released Title VII and FEHA claims arising from materially identical allegations. The brief argues the release also bars DOJ from recovering on his behalf, citing EEOC v. Goodyear Aerospace and the rule against double recovery in EEOC v. Waffle House.
(d) No actionable harassment of Drs. Shamsa or Holloway.
Standard: Conduct must be severe or pervasive (Manatt v. Bank of America). Speech on matters of public concern that is aimed at the campus community generally, rather than at a particular person, cannot be harassment (Rodriguez v. Maricopa; Reges v. Cauce). Several post-October 7 campus cases have excluded such speech from the analysis.
Shamsa: Most incidents occurred at protests on the main campus that he chose to attend during work breaks, away from his medical-school workplace. The incidents connected to the medical school were either not directed at him or were protected speech. An anonymous postcard sent to him was intercepted by UCLA, and his department chief brought it to him and suggested he call campus police.
Holloway: The incidents arose from his signing the "UCLA Faculty Against Terror" letter. They include a chalkboard note, criticism from colleagues, student evaluations that mentioned the letter, and an accusation that he gave a biased personnel review. The brief argues these are protected speech and are not severe or pervasive.
(e) The "other aggrieved employees" claim (DOJ Count VI) fails.
DOJ does not state the size of the class or the principles that define its members (EEOC v. Il Fornaio; EEOC v. BNSF).
The incidents are scattered across a very large campus and do not support an inference of a common experience.
The Task Force survey cannot fill the gap. Only 231 respondents were employees, out of roughly 50,000. The survey also has selection bias, allowed anonymous participation, does not separate victims from witnesses, and does not measure how often incidents occurred.
3. The pattern-or-practice claim fails (DOJ Count I)
Intent is required. Section 707(a) applies only to a pattern or practice "intended to deny" rights. The brief supports this with the statute's text, Senator Humphrey's 1964 floor statement, and several circuit decisions. It also relies on the Teamsters requirement that discrimination be the employer's "standard operating procedure."
DOJ pleaded negligence instead. DOJ's complaint expressly pleads negligence in responding to harassment, so the brief says DOJ "pleaded itself out of court." It adds that no court appears to have recognized a pattern-or-practice claim based on a negligent response to third-party harassment.
The facts are too thin in any event. Even if such a claim were possible, accounts from about nine employees cannot show a systemic pattern in a workforce of roughly 48,700. By comparison, Teamsters involved about one account for every eight class members plus statistical evidence. The brief also cites Cooper, Craik, and EEOC v. Carrols. Again, it argues the survey cannot fill the gap.
4. The retaliation claims fail (DOJ Counts III, V; IP Counts II, V as to Holloway)
Shamsa: The complaint does not identify which promotions were lost, when, or by whom, and does not allege that the decision-maker knew of his EEOC charge. Shamsa himself brings no retaliation claim.
Holloway: The litigation-hold notice sent to his department is a legally required step, not an adverse employment action. The request that he stop voting on personnel matters while on medical leave, and unspecified colleague "concerns" about his transfer, are not tied causally to any protected activity.
5. Two intervenors are not employees (IP Counts I, III, IV)
Dr. Burt: She is a professor emerita who retired in 2004 and was not recalled to a paid appointment. Her pension and insurance are not compensation. The Regents seek dismissal of her Title VII and FEHA claims.
Dr. Stein: She is an unpaid volunteer clinical faculty member. Perks such as library and gym access and malpractice coverage are incidental and do not count as remuneration. The Regents seek dismissal of her Title VII claim.
Other intervenors: The Regents chose not to challenge the remaining IPs' claims individually at this stage. They say they expect to address them later through motions for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment.
6. The FEHA failure-to-prevent claim fails (IP Count IV)
This claim depends on an underlying claim of actual discrimination (Martin v. Board of Trustees of CSU). The IPs assert only harassment and retaliation under FEHA, so the brief argues the claim should be dismissed to the extent it rests on discrimination.
This summary is based solely on the Regents' brief. It reflects their characterization of the complaints and the law, not the positions of DOJ or the intervenors.
==
If you really want to see the underlying documents, here they are:
From the Daily Pennsylvanian: Some Penn professors are radically reorienting their classrooms to meet the challenges of teaching in an era of artificial intelligence. The advent of large language models has forced instructors to adapt to a transformed learning environment and reevaluate how they assign classwork and homework. In response, some faculty members have reduced the role of technology in their classrooms, while others have voiced optimism about AI’s potential to enhance learning. Most faculty members said they have limited the opportunities for AI use in the classroom by decreasing access to technology during lectures. For some, the solution has been to ban laptop and phone use entirely.
...Russian and East European Studies professor Kristen Ghodsee said she has also gone “100% analog.” She asks her students to put their phones “into Faraday bags at the beginning of class,” which are then “locked away in a 1940s suitcase.” A Faraday bag prevents electromagnetic transmissions from passing through — blocking Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and other signals. Ghodsee provides students with pieces of paracord to practice tying knots “to give them something to fidget with.” ...
Back on Nov. 4, the UCLA PD held a state-mandated Zoom with regard to its budget request for certain weapons and supplies considered "military." I asked Claude to provide summary notes. Below is the result, somewhat modified by yours truly:
UCLA PD AB 481 community meeting: summary
Format. This was a one-hour Zoom meeting required by AB 481. Its purpose was public comment and questions on UCLA PD’s annual military equipment report for calendar year 2025. Captain Scott Scheffler ran the meeting. He said the next step is a UC Regents meeting, where the Regents will review AB 481 reports from all ten UC campuses. Other department officials also answered questions. Nearly every speaker from the public was a UCLA faculty member, lecturer or staff member.
Main concerns raised by participants
40mm launchers. A faculty member presented a petition calling for an immediate ban on buying and deploying 40mm projectile weapons. He said it has more than 400 signatures, including over 200 UCLA faculty and staff. He cited:
a UCLA undergraduate hit in the chest by UCLA PD on June 10, 2024, who was hospitalized for two days
a student hit by LAPD in June 2025 with a skull fracture
a federal injunction restricting LAPD’s use of these weapons for crowd control and banning aiming at the chest or face
He argued that UCLA PD now holds itself to a lower safety standard than LAPD and that the weapons are a liability.
Why a campus needs these weapons at all. Several faculty asked why a campus devoted to learning needs “military-grade” weapons that LAPD has been restricted from using. One asked for real examples where the weapons were needed.
Use at protests. Participants who said they witnessed events disputed the department’s account:
On June 10, 2024, they said pepper balls were used to disperse a crowd. Two faculty members reportedly had pepper balls fired at their feet.
An officer carried a 40mm launcher at a peaceful movie screening in Bruin Plaza on April 30, 2025.
Launchers were carried at the Chancellor’s inauguration on June 5, 2025.
A police motorcycle drove onto a crowded pedestrian path at night, which they called dangerous intimidation.
One participant said the gap between what they saw and what the department described explains the lack of trust.
Effect on free speech. A professor said her department exists because of a student hunger strike. She said she had never seen a violent protest at UCLA in 25 years. She argued that visible military-style weapons intimidate protesters, escalate situations and chill free speech, contrary to the university’s mission.
Budget. A union representative asked how the department can justify more weapons spending while lecturer positions and services like childcare are being cut. A faculty member asked about $216,000 for two more drones, linked in the report to the LA28 Olympics, when the three drones already bought haven’t been installed yet.
Numbers requested. One participant said the request (described as roughly 100 40mm rounds and nearly 1,000 pepper balls) suggests planned use against crowds, not individuals.
Which force responds. A faculty member asked how it’s decided whether UCLA PD, LAPD or private security responds. She said she’d almost prefer LAPD, given its stricter limits.
Off-topic requests. Questions about cooperation with ICE were ruled outside the meeting’s scope. Several participants asked for a separate public meeting on that topic.
The department’s responses
What the weapons are for. Officials described 40mm launchers and pepper balls as “less lethal,” not non-lethal. They are meant for people who are assaultive or life-threatening, where deadly force might otherwise be the only option. Use requires special training, approved target areas and distances, a medical assessment when possible, and a supervisory review afterward.
Crowd control. The department repeatedly said it does not use and has no plans to use these tools for crowd control or against peaceful protesters. It said doing so would violate AB 48, a separate state law. Officers carry the tools at demonstrations in case one individual becomes violent. Carrying them doesn’t lower the legal threshold for using them. Use must be justified by a specific person’s conduct.
June 10, 2024. Officials said they couldn’t discuss specific incidents. Asked directly, Captain Scheffler said the pepper balls fired that day were not used for crowd control. Participants disputed this. Separately, a participant noted the Regents report describes about 240 pepper balls fired during an incident with an “aggressive crowd,” none aimed at people.
Examples of need. Officials gave several:
a non-compliant man with a metal pole throwing rocks near campus apartments, who dropped the pole after one 40mm round
an armed man who assaulted students on Bruin Walk and forced his way into a dorm
the 2016 Engineering 4 shooting
people throwing metal trash can lids off parking structures
They also noted UCLA PD patrols university property across greater Los Angeles, not just the campus.
LAPD comparison. Officials said the LAPD ruling limits when LAPD may use these weapons, not whether it may own them. They disputed the claim that UCLA PD’s standards are less safe. LAPD responds on campus under an MOU for certain serious crimes, such as homicides and some bomb threats. UCLA PD handles everything else.
Who decides. On routine calls, individual officers decide within law and policy. At planned events, an incident commander sets force guidelines. Any officer may still respond to an immediate threat. Use-of-force incidents generally become criminal investigations that aren’t open to public review unless a case goes to court.
More munitions. Munitions expire and are replaced. The department is also authorized for more launchers than it owns and wants matching ammunition for each. Rounds come in fixed package sizes.
Drones. The drones are for a “drone as first responder” program: a drone reaches a call before officers to give real-time information. That could sometimes mean a smaller police response or none. Officials said it is not general surveillance or routine patrol. Five drones would cover about 95% of priority calls, and multiple drones are needed because batteries run down. They expect the drones to help with Olympic athletes’ village security.
Budget. Captain Scheffler said he isn’t a budget expert. He said most costs come from existing department funds, and he couldn’t speak to university-wide budget decisions.
Free speech. He said protecting First Amendment rights is a core function. He said most of the hundreds of campus gatherings each year involve no police. Officers attend some protests partly to protect demonstrators from counter-protesters.
Process and follow-up
Policies. Use of force, control devices and techniques, and military equipment are each covered by a policy posted online. A link was shared in the chat.
Complaints. Complaints about specific officers go through the misconduct complaint process. AB 481 concerns can be sent year-round to info@ucpd.ucla.edu (as given in the meeting). They will be recorded in next year’s AB 481 report.
Petition and comments. Department leadership said it would discuss the comments and read the petition. Asked whether the request will simply be approved anyway, officials gave no direct answer.
Contact. The second official offered his email for one-on-one conversations, including about ICE.
Unresolved. Some participants left saying their accounts of past incidents and the department’s descriptions remained far apart.
From the Daily Pennsylvanian: Provost John Jackson Jr. and Senior Vice Provost for Faculty Laura Perna announced the next steps toward establishing a new teaching track for full-time lecturers... A 12-member working group will provide recommendations on how to implement the new track in the associated faculty category, moving full-time lecturers away from their current designation as academic support staff. The advisory body was formed in response to the Faculty Senate’s push for a teaching faculty track, including a May resolution endorsed by the Senate Executive Committee.
According to the announcement, the working group aims to “draft language for the Faculty Handbook that identifies the central and distinctive elements of a new track” and “propose a process by which current full-time lecturers, senior lecturers, and advanced senior lecturers could be considered for the new track.” ...The original report, published in June, stated that “persistent concerns have been documented regarding the professional status, advancement opportunities, and evaluation processes” of full-time lecturers, who “frequently hold long-term or effectively career-length appointments” despite their formal classification as academic support staff... According to the Faculty Handbook, full-time lecturers are limited to three consecutive years of appointments with exceptions approved by the provost. Some full-time lecturers can be promoted to senior lecturers, for which “successive appointments are allowed.” ...
Blog readers will recall many past postings on l'affair Gino at Harvard. If you don't recall the story of the Harvard faculty member who was stripped of tenure for allegedly falsifying data, including data from studies on honesty, use the search option on the older version of the blog and type in "Gino."
From Inside Higher Ed: A federal judge this week ruled in favor of Harvard University in a civil case brought by Francesca Gino, a former tenured professor of business there who studied ethics and was herself accused of fabricating data. Granting summary judgment to Harvard on counts including breach of contract and sex-based discrimination, U.S. District Judge Myong J. Joun wrote in his decision that “no reasonable jury could conclude on the identified evidence that Harvard revoked tenure dishonestly or without a reasonable basis, prematurely removed Gino from her appointment, or materially violated a contractual procedure.” ...
