Development in the O'Bannon Case, named after a former UCLA basketball player:
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Wednesday upheld the main thrust of a judge’s landmark decision last year declaring that NCAA rules violate federal antitrust law by restricting players’ ability to trade on their images. The decision
also struck down part of last year’s ruling, by Judge Claudia Wilken
of the U.S. District Court in Oakland, Calif., which would have allowed
football and men’s basketball players to be paid deferred compensation
of up to $5,000 per year. Stating that the NCAA “is not above the antitrust laws” and that its
rules “have been more restrictive than necessary to maintain its
tradition of amateurism in support of the college sports market,” the
decision marks another victory for athletes lobbying for greater
compensation. But it also states that allowing colleges to pay players the cost of
attendance in the form of scholarships is enough of a remedy. The panel
called the portion of Judge Wilken’s ruling about paying players $5,000
per year “erroneous,” questioning the district court’s judgment that the
payment would “be as effective in preserving amateurism as the NCAA’s
current policy.” ...
The UCLA Anderson Forecast conference met on Monday. You probably read about it. If not, a summary is at http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/media-relations/2015/ucla-anderson-forecast-september-2015. Our purpose today is just to point out that even without the UCLA Grand Hotel, it is possible to have a large conference on campus. (The Forecast was presented in Korn Hall in the Anderson complex.)
Earlier this month, representatives from tech firms in and
around Silicon Beach convened for the second time to weigh in on the
classes that will shape Santa Monica College’s four-year program in
interaction design. The advisory board’s input is one facet of a process that
will yield a landmark opportunity at the local community college, which
views the bachelor’s degree as a way to prepare students for in-demand
jobs in the growing field of digital user experience. Officials are making tweaks to the drafted curriculum and
developing application materials for the IxD program, which they hope to
have up and running by next fall. The new upper-division classes will
complement the existing coursework that comprises the school’s
associate’s degree in graphic design...
While we wish Santa Monica College well, this change in the division of labor between the three segments of the Master Plan was undertaken via a whim of the legislature. No planning. Nothing like what went into the original deliberations.
The meeting began with public comments which were mainly
statements by reps from the Interns and Residents union about contract issues.
The TA union supported the tolerance/intolerance resolution (which the Regents
later rejected). Urban planning options at Merced were also mentioned. In
addition, there was discussion of student mental health, cost of student
housing at UC-Santa Cruz, graduate student career planning, and disability
access at UC-Irvine. UC prez Napolitano delivered a general report on UC. Senate
rep Dan Hare noted issues of faculty total compensation, particularly in light
of the pension cutbacks for new hires.
A session of the Committees on Governance and UC Health
discussed the proposal – from past Regents meetings – for more autonomy and
delegation of authority for the various campus health enterprises. Several
regents expressed concerns about such delegation, particularly grants of
authority to non-regents. It appears that this issue is headed for some
decision at the November meetings.
The Committee on Grounds and Buildings continued discussion
of the proposed public-private partnership to build out the UC-Merced campus
over the next 35 years. Issues related to the cost of borrowing and who would
carry the risks involved were raised.
Chief Investment Officer Bachher largely repeated his
earlier (Sept. 9) report to the Committee on Investments, but also plugged what
his office could do (and is doing in some cases) to manage campus endowments.
He also offered services to evaluate financing of campus real estate projects.
Bachher repeated his announcement that he had divested the UC portfolio of coal
and oil sands stocks. In answer to a question, it was noted that the pension
assumed rate of return was being cut back from 7.5%/annum to 7.25%. One regent
noted the potential impact on the unfunded liability but otherwise there was
little discussion. This was in contrast to the Sept. 9 meeting in which Bachher seemed to agree with the notion that maybe the rate should be 6%. (See the second link below.)
You can look directly at the listing above of "select Major Capital Improvement projects that are currently in planning/design, construction, or post-construction phases." It, of course, includes the UCLA Grant Hotel for over $160 million. Or go to the source page for a clearer view: http://www.capitalprograms.ucla.edu/Projects/ProjectList?sortOrder=ESTStart
George Orwell - whose "1984" featured such slogans as War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength - apparently neglected Volunteering is mandatory:
From the Daily Bruin: ...Nearly 7,000 UCLA students, staff, parents and alumni participated in
Volunteer Day, which, despite its name, is mandatory for all incoming
students. Some students were eager to participate in the seventh annual
event, but others were not pleased the event was required. Forrest Larson, a first-year undeclared engineering student,
complained Volunteer Day was a mandatory obligation for all incoming
students...
Yet another example of the clash between outside court standards and internal university review standards appears in Inside Higher Ed: ...Three judges on the Kansas Court of Appeals flagged from the start of a decision
issued Friday that they didn't approve of the content of a series of
tweets by Navid Yeasin, whom the University of Kansas expelled in part
on the basis of those remarks about his ex-girlfriend. The tweets were
"puerile and sexually harassing," the judges wrote. But the judges went on to say that doesn't matter. The university
never demonstrated that Yeasin made the comments on Twitter while on
campus or in connection with any university activity, and the
university's student conduct code thus doesn't cover the tweets, the
court found. The case has been closely watched beyond Kansas because of two issues
-- only one of which was addressed in Friday's ruling, and that one
only in part. That issue is the university's claim that it is required
not only by its student conduct code but by Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972 to punish offensive remarks made by one student to
another on Twitter if they create a hostile environment for the second
student. The appeals court rejected that argument although it did so
largely on the way the university created its code of conduct and
punished Yeasin. The other issue was whether Twitter posts are automatically protected by the First Amendment as free speech. While briefs by the American Civil Liberties Union and others argued that this protection does exist, the appeals court did not address that issue...
As we have been noting in prior posts, when public universities through internal processes dish out harsh punishments (the student was expelled in the case above), external courts are likely to examine the internal process and rationale closely and critically.
From the Sacramento Bee: UC Davis cuts PR post that drew criticism for its $260,000 salary
Two years after hiring a communications chief for $260,000 a year, UC Davis has quietly eliminated her position. By paying Luanne Lawrence a higher salary than any other communications official in the University of California system, UC Davis revived longstanding complaints about executive pay, in particular because of student unrest about tuition hikes and other budget issues. Lawrence was told by the school on June 30 that her position of associate chancellor for strategic communications was being terminated, according to a settlement agreement obtained by The Sacramento Bee through a California Public Records Act request. The agreement was reached after Lawrence made claims about the termination and refused to take an alternative position of director of marketing and branding. The agreement does not explain the school’s decision to eliminate her position. Dana Topousis, who became acting head of the school’s Office of Strategic Communications after Lawrence left, said the decision is confidential because it is a personnel matter. The settlement allowed Lawrence to keep a $30,500 moving allowance she was expected to partially forfeit if she left the school within four years of employment. However, the settlement did not include any payment to Lawrence, according to her attorney, Karen Goodman. Lawrence left UC Davis last month, although she started work this month on a $150,000, one-year contract to provide marketing services for the school, records show. Lawrence did not respond to requests to comment on the university’s decision to terminate her position. “She certainly didn’t agree with the decision,” Goodman said. “She thought she had done a good job for the university.” UC Davis hired Lawrence in February 2013 after paying a firm $110,000 to conduct a national search. She left a similar position at the University of South Carolina and had previously held communications jobs at Oregon State University, the University of Maine and several other schools. UC Davis wanted to improve its image after a video of campus police using pepper spray on students went viral in 2011 and attracted national media attention. The school also sought to grow enrollment, increase research funding and maintain its high academic ranking. As head of the school’s Office of Strategic Communications, Lawrence oversaw four departments: marketing; creative communications; web and interactive communications; and news and media relations. When hired, she had a budget of $3 million and 27 employees. The Bee’s publication of her salary five months after her hire led to critical editorials in several newspapers...
At the afternoon meeting of the Regents on September 16, 2015, the only open session item was review of the Dept. of Energy labs. (All other sessions were closed.) The DOE lab arrangement essentially has a history going back to the Manhattan Project of World War II. However, the only lab review of the day was the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab which doesn't do classified research. The outgoing director made a presentation. There was also a change in the contractual relationship with DOE due to a breach, i.e., leak, of "legacy" waste at Los Alamos, NM that resulted in a major fine for UC. The new contract, which was approved, was said to reduce UC's exposure to such events in the future.
It might be noted from the start that the recordings made available from the Regents of Day 3 of the Sept. 15-17 meetings have skips, repeats, and omissions. Hence, the link provided below to the full Day 3 meeting is simply a reproduction of what is available. The YouTube link is edited to omit defects but cannot reproduce what is not available.
The day started with the public comment period which was largely, but not entirely, geared to the tolerance/intolerance proposed resolution (which ultimately was rejected by the Regents). Most speakers spoke either pro or con on the issue of instead adopting the "State Department" definition of antisemitism. There were some other issues raised such as treatment of UC lecturers.
The meeting continued with a request to endorse a UCLA fund raising campaign (which is already underway). The topic then turned to a presentation about training of students and others concerning sexual assault on various campuses. However, issues of adjudication - which blog readers will know have been troublesome at UC and other institutions - were raised, notably the recent case in which an external court overturned a decision at UC-San Diego on due process grounds. The presenters kept referring to the lesser internal standards they use ("preponderance of the evidence," "more likely than not"). The problem is that external courts see a public institution dishing out what can be significant penalties and expect something more, particularly when the incidents tend to be without witnesses by their nature. President Napolitano said UC is working on the problem and is appealing the UC-SD decision.
When the intolerance resolution came up, Provost Dorr can't feel very good about the outcome. Possibly, she developed it all by herself without awareness of the president or anyone else. But that would be remarkable given the controversy. So someone more likely knew that when the resolution - which apparently went through drafts that had some circulation among the powers-that-be - was to be aired at the Regents, it would flop. Was Dorr hung out to dry? Or was she a good soldier taking a bullet for the commander? (President Napolitano remained remarkably aloof and mainly got by with the notion that the resolution was merely a preliminary work in progress and how healthy the discussion had been. All we know is that Dorr came up with a resolution that was so general that it was basically Pablum. And nobody warned her of the likely result.
It also seemed clear that the Regents were unlikely to adopt the State Department definition of antisemitism since the legislature had shied away from it. Assembly Speaker (and ex officio regent) Atkins said that the definition was not appropriate for an academic institution because of academic freedom concerns. It had to be known by someone in UCOP, at least at the top, that what the Regents wanted was something that specifically responded to the complaints of antisemitic acts, perhaps with more general tolerance/intolerance language included. Below you will find a YouTube set of excerpts from the Regents' comments which generally point to the Pablum/non-specificity issue. There is included the odd comment by Regent Blum that his wife - U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein - would somehow take on UC if the Regents didn't do the right thing. The comment was not the high point of his career at the Regents and maybe not the high point of his marriage, either. And it wasn't clear what the right thing was that she had in mind. What he had in mind, based on his comments, was that it should include punishments as well as principles. Regent Makarechian endorsed Blum's call for punishments. In any event, the outcome was the formation of a task force to be headed not by Dorr but by Regent Island with yet-to-be-defined participation of students, faculty, chancellors, and Regents, to come up with an alternative resolution. (We reported on this development in an earlier post based on news accounts.)
After the tolerance/intolerance resolution was put to sleep, there was a review of budget issues for 2016-17. No numbers. But it was said that the budget proposal would assume the pension contribution for next year (even though the legislature didn't agree to it). In another context, inflation adjustments to tuition, Speaker Atkins reminded the Regents that while the governor may have agreed to the adjustments, the legislature was not part of the deal. Several Regents raised concerns about rising professional degree tuition. There was also a presentation about changes in methodology and assumptions for the UC pension. Somewhat surprisingly, revising down the assumed future rate of earnings on the pension portfolio from 7.5%/annum to 7.25% provoked virtually no reaction even though it raises the accounting estimate of the unfunded liability. (As we have noted, the earnings will turn out to be what they will be and the liabilities will turn out to be what they will be; changing the accounting doesn't change the future. But changing the accounting can change how much we fret about the future.)
The remainder of the meeting was basically housekeeping.
A link to the audio of the full meeting (including the skips, repeats, and distortions from the original) is below:
Excerpts from the tolerance/intolerance/antisemitism discussion are below:
The first day of the most recent Regents meeting consisted of a meeting of the Committee on Grounds and Buildings. No one paid much attention; everyone was waiting for the third day when the controversial intolerance resolution was up for discussion. But, as we have repeatedly pointed out, Grounds and Buildings routinely okays projects that run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. As we also have pointed out, the Regents have no independent resource for evaluating the various proposals which come up from the campus bureaucracies. Some of the projects on the agenda were said to be funded from vague "revenues" or yet-to-be-obtained donations.
Whatever happens to the intolerance issue, it probably won't be much remembered 50 years from now. But structures approved today may well be around at that time. It might be noted that there was some pushback from Regents about a suggestion that periodic oral updates on long-range plans from UC-Santa Cruz might be replaced by a written report.
There is a union-supported bill SB 376 on Gov. Brown's desk (which he could sign or veto) essentially requiring employees hired through outside contractors to be paid comparably to UC employees.*Various student leaders have now written an op ed urging a veto. Excerpt:
At its face, SB 376 is a bill about fairness — a bill which seeks to ensure the University of California administration doesn’t undercut the wages and benefits of full-time employees by contracting services to agencies with cheaper labor for comparable work. It requires that the University of California calculate wage and benefits it pays its full-time employees for this work, and provide the same package for contract workers. The students of the University of California, including those I represent at UCLA as its student body external vice president, largely identify with the principles informing this proposal. However, the passage of this otherwise well-intentioned provision implies the unraveling of victories earned for students after a year-long, hard-fought battle for state investment in the UC. An unfunded mandate, the bill gravely complicates the budget deal that Gov. Brown, UC President Napolitano, and students wove so painfully together. The provisions of that budget — frozen tuition and more funds to reach a difficult enrollment mandate of 5000 additional students — are entirely compromised by SB 376’s expected $60 million price tag. While none of us disagree with the principle of the bill, students simply cannot afford to shoulder the cost of the bill, which will fall to the only funds the UC has left to pay for it: our recent enrollment grant funds, and after the freeze ends in two years, our tuition... In the case of SB 376, the Legislature’s call for fairness literally neglects to put its money where its mouth is. We will, without reservation, support this bill if the governor will fund the cost. Until then, we urge Gov. Brown to defend his budget deal and veto SB 376.
Note: As far as yours truly recalls, no opposition to the bill was expressed by student leaders at Regents meetings. There were union reps who generally supported equal pay for contractors during public comment sessions. Student regents did not react, pro or con, during those sessions or at other times.
========
*http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_376_bill_20150406_amended_sen_v98.html
Above is an extract from the website of the Office of Historical Preservation.* [Click to enlarge the image.] The Faculty Center is on the agenda of the Office's October 30 meeting for be added to the Register of Historical Resources. Being registered would not prevent the Center from being demolished at some future date but it would complicate the process. So UCLA is opposed to the registration. Blog readers will recall that originally the UCLA Grand Hotel was supposed to be built on the site of the Faculty Center but it was moved to the current location after an outcry from faculty. Recordings of the meetings eventually are posted, although with a considerable lag. The latest recording is for an April meeting but there was a later one in August which seems not to have appeared yet. (Well, it is historical preservation so no rush, one supposes.)
==
*http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=24368
UCLA isn't the best school in America, according to U.S. News & World Report's annual Best Colleges list. It tied with USC for number 24 on the list. It is, however, the most popular university among college hopefuls. UCLA gets more applications than any other school across the land, U.S. News & World Report says. And it's not the first time. The publication states:The University of California-Los Angeles once again attracted the most applications, according to data submitted to U.S. News
by 1,258 institutions. At UCLA, 86,548 Bruin hopefuls sent transcripts
and test scores. It outpaced the University of California—Berkeley,
which was runner-up, by more than 10,000 submissions...
The Faculty Senate at American University has passed a resolution
affirming the importance of academic freedom and questioning the use of
"trigger warnings" that alert students to books or other materials that
may be offensive or upsetting to them... "Faculty may advise students before exposing them to controversial
readings and other materials that are part of their curricula. However,
the Faculty Senate does not endorse offering 'trigger warnings' or
otherwise labeling controversial material in such a way that students
construe it as an option to 'opt out' of engaging with texts or
concepts, or otherwise not participating in intellectual inquiries."
The debate this past week at the Regents on the tolerance/intolerance resolution should be a reminder of another contentious issue that the Regents have yet to resolve. The powers-that-be at UCOP are supposed to be coming up with some mechanism to deal with campus complaints of sexual harassment and assault that will somehow provide due process to the accused. So far, the tension between innocent until proven guilty and guilty until proven innocent has not been easy for universities to resolve. External courts tend to focus on due process for the accused. Universities seem to be pushed by the federal govt. (executive branch) toward the latter. The problem is perhaps more intense for public universities (such as UC) than private. But even private institutions have had difficulty. From the Chronicle of Higher Ed:
A federal judge on Thursday ordered Middlebury College to reinstate a
student who had been expelled over alleged sexual misconduct during a
study-abroad trip last year, the Associated Press reports, citing court documents. The student, identified only as John Doe, was initially exonerated by
the School for International Training, which ran the study-abroad
program, in an unnamed foreign country, in which both John Doe and his
alleged victim took part. Unhappy with the school’s findings, the
victim, identified as Jane Doe, said she intended to file a complaint with the U.S. Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, which is already investigating more than 100 colleges over their response to reports of sexual misconduct on their campuses. Middlebury then began its own investigation
of the matter. After a five-month inquiry, it found John Doe to have
sexually assaulted Jane Doe, and it expelled him. The college’s inquiry
apparently also found fault with the School for International Training’s
investigation. After exhausting his appeals at Middlebury, John Doe sued. He also
sought a preliminary injunction blocking his expulsion while his lawsuit
was heard. In his order on Thursday, Judge J. Garvan Murtha of the U.S. District
Court in Brattleboro, Vt., wrote that the case’s unusual history, in
which one academic institution cleared John Doe while another expelled
him, created “a unique situation.” Still, he agreed that John Doe, a
senior, should not have his education interrupted before his lawsuit
could be heard. In a statement Middlebury said, “We are considering our legal
options, but at this time we are obliged to comply with the court’s
order.”
Bill now sitting on Gov. Brown's desk (which UC opposes):
SB 376, Lara.
Public contracts: University of California. Existing
provisions of the California Constitution provide that the University
of California constitutes a public trust and require the university to
be administered by the Regents of the University of California
(regents), a corporation in the form of a board, with full powers of
organization and government, subject to legislative control only for
specified purposes, including such competitive bidding procedures as may
be applicable to the university by statute for the letting of
construction contracts, sales of real property, and purchasing of
materials, goods, and services. Existing law requires the regents,
except as provided, to let all contracts involving an expenditure of
$100,000 or more annually for goods and materials or services, excepting
personal or professional services, to the lowest responsible bidder
meeting certain specifications, or to reject all bids. Existing law,
until January 1, 2018, also authorizes the bid evaluation and
selection for these contracts to be determined by the best value.
This
bill would require a bidder, to qualify as a lowest responsible bidder
or best value awardee on contracts for specified services, to certify in
writing to the University of California (UC) that the bid includes a
total employee compensation package that is valued on a per-employee
basis at a level sufficient that it does not materially undercut the
average per-employee value of total compensation for UC employees who
perform comparable work at the relevant campus, medical center, or
laboratory at which the bidder proposes to perform the work. The bill
would require the UC to include in its request for proposals a
calculation of the average per-employee value of total compensation for
UC employees who perform comparable work at the relevant location, as
prescribed. The bill would require contracts for services involving an
expenditure of $100,000 or more annually to include any renewals or
extensions of the contract that would result in an expenditure of
$100,000 or more annually.
This bill would exclude specified employees and public works from these provisions, as provided.
Bill Text
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1.
The Legislature finds and declares the following:
(a) It
is a matter of statewide concern that responsible competitive bidding
at the University of California not undercut the wages and benefits
provided by the University of California for comparable work, given that
a significant percentage of University of California employees already
are eligible for public benefits and any material decrease in the
compensation of employees performing such work would result in
materially increased General Fund costs for the provision of benefits.
(b) It
is a matter of statewide concern that the University
of California not repeat past instances in which public resources
have been squandered via contracting out to for-profit private
contractors that charge significant administrative overhead.
SEC. 2.
Section 10507.6 is added to the Public Contract Code, to read:
10507.6.
(a) For
the purposes of this article, to qualify as a lowest responsible bidder
or best value awardee on any contract for building maintenance,
cleaning, or custodial services, call center services, clerical
services, dining and food services, gardening, grounds keeping and plant
nursery services, laborer services, mailroom services, parking, shuttle
bus, truck driving, or transportation services, security services,
storekeeper services, patient care technical employee services, patient
billing services, medical transcribing services, patient escort
services, or nursing assistant services, a bidder shall certify in
writing to the University of California that the bid includes a total
employee compensation package, including
fringe benefits, that is valued on a per-employee basis at a level
sufficient that it does not materially undercut the average
per-employee value of total compensation, including fringe benefits, for
employees of the University of California who perform comparable work
at the
relevant campus, medical center, or laboratory at which the bidder
proposes to perform the work.
(b) The
University of California shall implement this section by including in
its request for proposals a calculation of the average per-employee
value of total compensation, including fringe benefits, for employees of
the University of California who perform comparable work at the
relevant campus, medical center, or laboratory, and that calculation
shall use all known cost escalators to project the future rate of growth
of average per-employee total compensation costs.
(c) The
requirements of this section shall not apply to employees subject to
Section 1191.5 of the Labor Code or Section 214(c) of Title 29 of the
United States Code. Any employees covered by Section 1191.5 of the Labor
Code or Section 214(c) of Title 29 of the United States Code shall be
omitted from all calculations and certifications required by this
section.
(d) This section does not
apply to any work subject to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of
Part 7 of Division 2 of the Labor Code.
SEC. 3.
Section 10507.7 of the Public Contract Code is amended to read:
10507.7.
(a) Except as provided for in this article, the Regents of the
University of California shall let all contracts involving an
expenditure of more than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000)
annually for goods and materials to be sold to the University of
California to the lowest responsible bidder meeting specifications, or
else reject all bids. Contracts for services to be performed, other than
personal or professional services, involving an expenditure of one
hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) or more annually shall be made or
entered into with the lowest responsible bidder meeting specifications,
or else all bids shall be rejected. If the
regents deem it to be for the best interest of the university, the
regents may, on the refusal or failure of the successful bidder for
materials, goods, or services to execute a tendered contract,
award it to the second lowest responsible bidder meeting
specifications. If the second lowest responsible bidder fails or refuses
to execute the contract, the regents may likewise award it to the third
lowest responsible bidder meeting specifications.
(b) For
the purposes of this section, contracts for services involving an
expenditure of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) or more annually
shall include any renewal or extension of an existing contract, if the
renewal or extension involves an expenditure of one hundred thousand
dollars ($100,000) or more annually.
In an earlier post before the Regents' tolerance/intolerance discussion, we reproduced the links provided by UCOP News Clips. Here is the selection from UCOP News Clips the morning after:
Regents to Form Group to Rework University Intolerance Plan
(Associated Press)
The
University of California's Board of Regents say they will form a
working group to rework the first draft of system-wide principles
defining intolerance after Jewish
students expressed outrage that it makes no mention of anti-Semitism.
Regent
Monica Lozano said at a meeting Thursday at UC Irvine that the group
will draft a "thoughtful and yet descriptive" statement. Two dozen
people, mostly Jewish students,
expressed concern that the proposed "Statement of Principles Against
Intolerance" does not address anti-Semitic incidents on campuses.
The Regents today apparently didn't like the tolerance/intolerance resolution before them and so created a committee to come up with something else at some indefinite date in the future. What that something else might be, however, is - to say the least - unclear.
The UC regents on Thursday withdrew controversial “principles against
intolerance” and launched a new effort to rewrite policies that would
more forcefully address anti-Semitism and other biases on campuses,
while trying also to protect free speech. The move, announced by
UC regents Chairwoman Monica Lozano, came after several regents
complained that the proposed principles were so vague as to be worthless
and that any new policy needed to be more specific about what
constitutes bias against Jewish and other students. Additionally,
they were concerned about how to possibly punish violators with
potential suspensions or expulsions. Some Jewish groups criticized the
original policy for not including a definition of anti-Semitism that
includes the demonization of Israel.
Lozano
announced the formation of a new eight-person committee — of regents,
the student regent, a faculty leader and others — to take a new crack at
crafting stronger and more specific policies “consistent with the
principles we heard about academic freedom and the condemnation of
certain acts of intolerance against any group.” Regent Eddie
Island will head that panel. No time frame was set for the completion of
its work and officials said it could take many months...
We have been noting that the Big Thing on the Regents calendar for the September sessions is the tolerance/intolerance resolution. We will - as usual - eventually archive the audio of the meetings. But for now, we'll just reproduce the links provided by the UCOP Daily News Clips service which gives a sense of the issue. As we said yesterday, our best guess is that the Regents, after the debate, will ask for a redraft. Clips below:
The
University of California's first draft of system-wide principles
defining intolerance is drawing protests from free speech advocates who
call it censorship and Jewish organizations that say it doesn't go far
enough to protect against anti-Semitism. The
UC Board of Regents is scheduled to debate the proposed "Statement of
Principles Against Intolerance" at its meeting Thursday at UC Irvine.
UC
is the first statewide university to consider adopting such a
declaration. It calls for its 10 campuses to be "free from acts and
expressions
of intolerance" and would prohibit "depicting or articulating a view of
ethnic or racial groups as less ambitious, less hardworking or
talented, or more threatening than other groups," among other things. Critics
say it would set a dangerous precedent. Many universities under
pressure to do more to combat racism, sexual harassment and other forms
of discrimination are already overstepping their bounds and
discouraging comments that could be perceived as offensive, according to
free speech advocates.
You may recall the Laurel and Hardy films in which Hardy would complain:
Seems like that is what happened to the the tolerance/intolerance discussion coming up at the Regents. The whole idea seemed to be to water down the antisemitism resolution (a narrow issue) into something broad and thus vague - everyone play nice! Instead, the effort has resulted in considerable opposition to idea of a general speech restriction. The LA Times has an editorial today against the resolution as currently worded:
...Before
the regents adopt any policies inspired by the Statement of Principles
Against Intolerance, they should reject its overly broad language and
draw a clearer distinction
between acts of intolerance and the expression of opinions that might
potentially offend some students...
There have been a lot of such critiques in the past few days in the news media.
The problem seems to be one of treating students and everyone else in the university community as if they were children. Actually, if they were children, the model for tolerance "training" has been around for a long time:
Yours truly happened to be reading the LA Business Journal and came across the clipping at the left, which was a reminder of the Regents' action some time back creating the UCLA Venture Fund. The idea was to get local entrepreneur types to invest in companies based on UCLA-developed technology.
Anyway, you can check out the website at http://www.venturecapital.ucla.edu/ Turns out the Fund has invested in a flower delivery service ("free delivery from a volcano") and game company, as well as the water treatment company in the clipping. (The game company's website doesn't mention any games the company actually has, but I'm sure they'll find something, now that they have funding: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7xiIzcYRpA)
Six is better than one!
Now the Fund has an executive committee and one name on it is one you might recognize even if you aren't into entrepreneurship: Tim Draper. You might remember Draper as the guy with the wacko idea of dividing up California into six new states by ballot initiative. (OK; some folks said at the time that it was actually a clever idea to divide California's electoral votes to favor Republicans because some of the new state-lets would be red states rather than blue. Still, pretty wacky because it would never happen.) Anyhow, Draper announces with a fanfare that he has over 1.1 million signatures for the initiative (which cost him over $5 million for signature gatherers) and which should have been more than enough signatures, even given that some always turn out to be invalid. But when the secretary of state sampled the petitions, it turned out that so many were invalid that the initiative was rejected.** So it seems that Draper had been sold a bill of goods by somebody. In short, whether Draper actually believed in his initiative or just wanted some good PR, he got himself neither.
Anyway, it sure is great that Draper and his good ideas are on the executive committee of the UCLA Venture Fund, don't you think? The Fund surely needs someone with the good judgment to believe whatever he is told:
"The petition-gathering firm hired by the Six Californias campaign
“predicted a much higher validity rate than the random sample result,” Mr. Draper said."***
And why wouldn't anyone believe what the firm said?
With the Regents about to debate a proposed resolution on tolerance/intolerance and all of that, President Obama at a forum in Iowa yesterday commented on the general issue. Who knows? His remarks might have some effect on the debate.
The first session is the Grounds and Building Committee. As it happens, none of the approvals are on the UCLA campus. Agenda at http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/sept15/gb.pdf. Note that the session starts with public comments which might well get into the hot issue of this set of meetings: the tolerance-intolerance resolution. We will archive the audio when we have a chance (as usual).
When Prop 30, with its new temporary income and sales taxes was on the ballot, the Regents supported it to aid the UC budget. There has been talk recently about extending the temporary taxes. An initiative has now been filed by K-14 education groups that would involve an extension (focused only on the income tax portion). But the funding would be earmarked only for K-14. So it's unlikely that the Regents would support such a measure. Note that filing an initiative is a long distance away from paying signature gathering firms to get it on the ballot, much less funding an election campaign. It's also unclear that the governor would support an extension of Prop 30 for whatever purpose. In the past, he has indicated that he sold the Prop 30 taxes as temporary. So whether a longer version of temporary would be agreeable to him is uncertain.
Although the big social issue for the Regents at their upcoming meeting will be the intolerance resolution, sitting in the background for them and UC is the whole sexual consent matter. We have yet to see how the university will reconcile the external court pressure for due process with whatever it comes up with for internal investigation.
We have already noted one case that went against UC-San Diego.* Now there is another court case, this one from the U of Michigan:
The University of Michigan will throw out its finding that a student
engaged in nonconsensual sex with a female friend in his dorm room as
part of a lawsuit settlement — a move that drew sharp criticism from the
female student who filed the complaint. In the agreement, which
was signed by the university on Sept. 1 and by the student on Sept. 8,
U-M says it will throw out its previous findings that Drew Sterrett —
who was in his second year at U-M when he was kicked out — violated the
school's sexual conduct policy. In exchange, Sterrett agreed not to come
back to school or to disparage the university. The settlement, if
approved by a federal judge, would end a lawsuit Sterrett filed against
the university. The settlement also says the university — which is not
admitting to mistakes — cannot do any further investigation into
the case... Sterrett's attorney, Deborah Gordon, said her client was satisfied with
the settlement and believes the lawsuit helped to expose the truth. He
is hopeful the settlement will help clear his name, she said. Having the
courts involved helped in making sure all the facts were investigated,
Gordon added... The female student who filed the original complaint believes the
university broke its promise to her in agreeing to the settlement. She
issued a statement strongly criticizing the university for its handling
of sexual assault complaints...
By the way, the site lists 23 universities which provide high after-graduation incomes at low net cost to low-income students. No UC is among them. The institutions are mainly privates (which provide subsidies to low-income students) or the two publics that semi-privatized (U of Michigan and U of Virginia). See http://www.ed.gov/blog/2015/09/schools-with-low-costs-and-high-incomes/
As promised, the audio for the Sept. 9 Regents' Committee on Investments meeting is at the link below. Most of the meeting was a review of the performance of the portfolio under management of the Chief Investment Officer Jagdeep Bachler for the year ended last June 30. About $98 billion is involved, of which $55 billion is the defined benefit pension. Much of the financial talk differed little from what you would find in the business section of the LA Times, e.g., slowdown in China, risks from the Middle East, whether the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates, etc. There was reference to a policy to "simplify" the portfolio by reducing the number of assets, i.e., fewer stocks, fewer outside contracts with managers who have to be monitored.
There was a public comment period in which there was a call for coal and fossil fuel divestment. But as it turned out, the headline of the event (about which we previous posted) was the announcement by Bachler that UC had sold off its direct holdings of coal and oil sands companies. We provide a separate link to that discussion below for you convenience. The sell off was repeatedly justified in economic terms, e.g., the regulatory climate was unfavorable to these companies. Bachler later said his sustainability policy is what is needed as opposed to a list of things he should not hold ("no exclusionary list"). There is a fog of ambiguity around all of this; sometimes what is being done is just good economics and sometimes it has a social function.
Finally, at the tail end of the discussion, Bachler seemed to agree that the projected earnings for the UC pension should be something like 6%/annum rather than the current 7.5%. Such a change would substantially raise the measured unfunded liability. (We note, as we have before, that the actual unfunded liability will depend on actual earnings in the future which will be what they will be regardless of how they are projected at any point in time.)
The audio of the entire session (around two hours) is at the link below:
The coal and oil sands divestment can be heard at the link below:
