Committee Discussion on Use of Dept. Websites

Normally, we review Regents meetings as a group, either as a day or morning and afternoon sessions. However, one of the controversial topics taken up yesterday - the use of departmental websites to represent official views of the department - was up for discussion at a joint meeting of Academic and Student Affairs Committee & Compliance and Audit which ran on beyond 6 pm.

As it turned out, there were lots of ambiguities that surfaced.

The policy as it stood at that session involved what could be put on the "landing page" of a department. It was unclear what the definition of a landing page was.

Given some definition of landing page, it was unclear the degree to which the policy applied to secondary pages that might be linked to a landing page.

There was one option discussed that when a political statement appeared on a secondary page, it should be explicitly labeled as "opinion." 

It was said that if the policy was adopted and ambiguities arose, chancellors would have to set up a process to "call balls and strikes." Some kind of process for review would be needed. Perhaps there should be a report back to the Regents after some period of time as to how the process was working.

It was suggested that perhaps there should be an exemption for webpages of student government and the alumni association.

The representative of ethnic studies indicated he could live with the opinion page option despite reservations. He said the issue had become tangled with current external political divisions in society.

Regent Pérez said that the chair of the working group that drafted the policy - Regent Sures with the help of the general counsel - should come back to the full board today with a redrafted policy that took account of all the comments. The Regents could then decide what to do. Regent Park seemed to endorse the Pérez idea and noted that the UC diversity policy involved teaching people to get along with others.

Faculty representative Steintrager complained that the policy was too ambiguous. Regent Sures remarked that Steintrager had been part of the working group and never objected. Why was he objecting now? The exchange was testy.

One issue not discussed was the potential coercive effect of official departmental statements - wherever expressed - on junior faculty, students, staff, and job applicants who might have differing views.

In short, the meeting closed without a vote but with instructions for Sures and the general counsel to come back today with a revision. As of 8 am today, it is unknown as to whether a revision had been circulated to the Regents. There is nothing new on the webpage with the Regents' agenda. Possibly, however, paper versions have been distributed to members of the board.

As always, we preserve recordings of Regents meetings since the Regents have no policy on duration of retention. You can see this particular session at:

https://ia601300.us.archive.org/29/items/governance-committee-1-24-2024-pm/Joint%20Meetings_%20ASAC%20%26%20Compliance%20and%20Audit%2C%20ASAC%20%26%20Finance%20and%20Capital%20Strategies%201-24-2024%20pm.mp4.