Things to Come?

As pay-to-play to student-athletes advances, there is the question of who will pay. From Inside Higher Ed: The University of Tennessee at Knoxville plans to add a 10 percent surcharge to football and other sports tickets beginning next year to help generate some of the expected $20 million that universities like it would be able to pay athletes under a proposed legal settlement governing use of players’ names, images and likenesses.

The Athletic and other news outlets reported that Tennessee plans to add the “talent fee” to the price of tickets to build a pool of revenues the university could share with athletes if the settlement, currently under review by a federal judge, is approved. Under the agreement, major colleges’ sports programs would agree to share about a fifth of their revenues directly with players...

Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2024/09/18/tennessee-plans-10-percent-fee-sports-tickets-athlete-pay.

Everybody's Doing It

Either going neutral or settiing up a committee to tell you to go neutral. Columbia is the latest:

The Appointment of the Co-Chairs of the President’s Advisory Committee on Institutional Voice

September 17, 2024

Dear fellow members of the Columbia community:

Throughout the events of the past year, our Columbia community has been engaged in an ongoing discussion about how the University can best fulfill its academic mission of teaching, learning, and research while creating and sustaining an environment that enables free expression, rigorous debate, and open dialogue. Similar discussions have taken place at other universities, and some have adopted principles of institutional neutrality or restraint as a way of protecting and enabling free expression by faculty and students on their campuses.

Given our storied history; the extraordinary scope and depth of our scholarship, disciplines, curricula, and programs; and the unique position of our community, Columbia also has a distinctive role to play in advancing this critical discussion. Determining whether and to what degree Columbia should take an institutional position on public matters is a vitally important question, and it is central to our commitment to enabling open discourse and the exchange of ideas in our community.

I am pleased to share with you that Daniel Abebe, Dean of Columbia Law School and Lucy G. Moses Professor of Law, and Mark Mazower, Ira D. Wallach Professor of History and the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Director, Columbia Institute for Ideas and Imagination, have accepted my appointment to serve as Co-Chairs of the President’s Advisory Committee on Institutional Voice. Under their leadership, the Advisory Committee will be tasked with providing me with a set of recommendations on the proper role of institutional voice in advancing Columbia’s academic mission and its commitment to open inquiry and free expression. The additional members of the Advisory Committee will be appointed and announced in the near future.

We are fortunate to have scholars of Dean Abebe’s and Professor Mazower’s stature and expertise leading this critical work for Columbia. Once the Advisory Committee is formed, the Co-Chairs plan to commence a consultative process through which they will engage our faculty, students, and staff, as well as the University Senate and other relevant groups within our community. I am confident that Dean Abebe and Professor Mazower and the Advisory Committee will lead a rigorous and deliberative process and provide me with sound and thoughtful recommendations that are reflective of Columbia’s history, mission, and academic values, and will contribute to its continuing intellectual vitality.

I want to thank Dean Abebe and Professor Mazower for their leadership and their commitment to Columbia’s future. The work of the President’s Advisory Committee on Institutional Voice is important to all Columbians as it will help to guide the ways in which we protect and enable free expression and vigorous debate in our community. I hope that you will take the opportunity to engage in the Advisory Committee’s consultative process and support its service on behalf of Columbia.

All my best,

Katrina Armstrong

Interim President, Columbia University in the City of New York

===

Source: https://president.columbia.edu/news/appointment-co-chairs-presidents-advisory-committee-institutional-voice.

It's getting to be an old idea:

Or direct to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVmmNmYPRzU.

Antitrust Suit Against Journal Publishers

Uddin

From Inside Higher Ed: A group of scientists and scholars are accusing six academic journal publishers of working together to exploit their labor, in violation of federal antitrust laws. 

The scientists filed a class action lawsuit against Elsevier, Wolters Kluwer, John Wiley & Sons, Sage Publications, Taylor and Francis, and Springer Nature last week. The complaint outlines “a scheme” that they say resulted in “perverse market failures that impair the ability of scientists to do their jobs and slow dramatically the pace of scientific progress.” The lawsuit accuses the publishers of diverting billions of dollars from “scientific research into their pockets.”

The complaint argues that the publishers fixed the price of peer-review services at zero and  agreed not to compete with each other by requiring scholars to submit their manuscripts to only one journal at a time. The lawsuit also accuses the publishers of prohibiting scholars from freely sharing their findings while those manuscripts are under peer review.

Justice Catalyst Law, a nonprofit, and lawyers from the law firm Lieff Cabraser filed the lawsuit on behalf of a group of scientists and scholars, but the lead plaintiff is Lucina Uddin, a professor of neuroscience at the University of California, Los Angeles. She’s published more than 175 academic articles, according to the lawsuit. The complaint doesn’t say how many people are part of the class action suit, though lawyers said the number of those who are potentially eligible is “at least in the hundreds of thousands.” ...

Source: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2024/09/16/scientists-file-antitrust-lawsuit-against-journal-publishers.

Something for the Regents

The Regents' Special Committee on Athletics will be meeting tomorrow. Here's a note from the Sacramento Bee committee members might want to ponder:

...Former UCLA Football Coach Chip Kelly earned more in 2023 than the combined pay of all 10 chancellors in the University of California system...

Kelly left UCLA last year and is now the offensive coordinator at the Ohio State University. His record at UCLA last year was 8-5. His record from 2018 through 2024 was 35-34. He was replaced by DeShaun Foster, who reportedly makes less than half of Kelly’s annual salary — $3 million. Funding for athletics often comes from boosters, sponsors, TV revenue and ticket sales — not taxpayers or students. However, UCLA’s athletic program reported a $36.6 million deficit in the 2023 fiscal year, according to the Los Angeles Times. Athletics received about $2 million from students fees and direct institutional support in a recent budget, and the university forgave about $10 million in debt on athletic facilities, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Chip Kelly’s $7.1 million pay package last year would put him among the 20 highest-paid coaches in the nation, based on lists compiled by Front Office Sports and 247 Sports. He made $5.8 million in 2022. In total, he earned about $30.5 million during his tenure from 2018 through 2023 — equivalent to roughly $870,000 per win.

Other UC coaches also raked in huge salaries. UC Berkeley Football Coach Justin Wilcox earned about $4.4 million last year. His team was 6-7 in 2023. UCLA Basketball Coach Mike Cronin earned $4.3 million. His team won 16 games and lost 17 last year. Rounding out the top five highest paid coaches were UC Berkeley Basketball Coach Mark Madsen, who earned $2 million, and former UC Berkeley Basketball Coach Mark Fox, who earned $1.7 million. Madsen’s team won 13 games and lost 19 in 2023. Fox’s team was 3-29 in his last season...

Full story at https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article292259030.html.

Repercussions of Not OK

Blog readers may recall events at UC-Santa Barbara last spring that - in an understatement - we deemed "Not OK."* Memories of those Not OK events seem to be having repercussions this fall on that campus. From the Santa Barbara Independent:

UC Santa Barbara’s New Student Convocation, which was scheduled for Monday, September 23, has been quietly canceled by the university. Two weeks after the cancellation, the university has finally responded to the Independent’s request for comment, stating a desire to focus on “interactive events” in lieu of a “more formal session with speeches.”

New Student Convocation is the annual induction ceremony for incoming first-years and transfer students. Last year’s convocation took place on Commencement Green and included remarks from Chancellor Henry Yang and a keynote speaker. This year’s convocation was initially planned for late September, but some observant internet sleuths noticed that webpages for the event, which were live back in May, have been down since then. The Instagram page UCIntelNetwork and users on the UC Santa Barbara subreddit have been posting updates about the situation and revealing defunct links. For example, the link to the main New Student Convocation webpage, ucsb.edu/convocation, now automatically redirects to the UCSB Orientation Programs and Parent Services webpage, which makes no mention of the convocation. And the New Student Convocation webpage on the UCSB Housing website is unavailable. 

While a brief email was sent out at the end of August to notify staff that the convocation would not be held this year, no official public announcement was provided by the university at the time. The Office of Public Affairs & Communications at UCSB declined to answer specific questions about the cancellation, namely the reason and why no notice has been sent out to students...

Full story at https://www.independent.com/2024/09/13/uc-santa-barbara-quietly-cancels-new-student-convocation/.

=====

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2024/03/this-is-not-ok-part-2.html.

Rising Toward Parity

Source: https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/sept24/f8.pdf. 

The chart above, available now to the Regents, indicates that faculty salaries are rising toward parity with the "Comparison-8" benchmark that is said to be recognized by the California Dept. of Finance. The Comparison-8 universities are shown below. 

Public universities:

University of Illinois, University of Michigan, University of Virginia, and SUNY Buffalo

Private universities:

Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, and Yale University

In case you were wondering, or even if you weren't...

One of the topics at the upcoming Regents meeting this week is a requirement that police departments, including at UC, disclose any military equipment they use persuant to AB 481. The various campus departments all seem to use "Def-Tec eXact Impact 40mm munitions," shown in the illustration and generally described as less-than-lethal weapons:

The 40mm eXact iMpact™ Sponge Round is a “point-of-aim, point-of-impact” direct fire round that is most commonly used by tactical teams in situations where maximum deliverable energy is desired for the incapacitation of an aggressive, non-compliant subject. In many municipalities, these are being selected for both tactical call outs and as an available option for patrol.

The 40mm eXact iMpact™ Sponge Round is intended for direct fire deployment. The operator should be adequately trained in the use of Less Lethal Impact Munitions and have a thorough understanding of the round and considerations for selecting shot placement such as level of threat, target distance, size and clothing.

The 40mm eXact iMpact™ Sponge Round will prove most successful for incapacitation when used within its optimal energy range of approximately 5 – 40 meters, although it may used in situations from 2 – 50 meters. The optimal zone offers the necessary energy and accuracy to target the large muscle groups of the buttocks, thigh, and even the knees of the subject.

These areas provide sufficient pain stimulus, while greatly reducing serious or life-threatening injuries.

The 40mm eXact iMpact™ Sponge Round can also be deployed in crowd control situations to protect the riot line, cover or enhance chemical munitions, or targeting specific agitators and organizers of the crowd. When used in this fashion, it is primarily both a psychological deterrent and physiological distraction serving as a pain compliance device to either get the crowd or subject moving or keeping them at a designated distance...

Source: https://www.defense-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/40mm-eXact-iMpact-Sponge-Round-6325.pdf.

=====

The official report also indicates an interest in robots for potential bomb situations and drones:

Request For Category 1 - Unmanned, Remotely Piloted, Powered Aerial or Ground Vehicles—The Use of Drones by University of California Police Departments

(a) UCB is requesting to purchase a second hazardous devices robot to update their current technology and prepare for any potential failures of the existing robot that is 20 years old.

(b) UCB, UCLA, UCSC and UCSF, collectively UCPD are requesting to purchase drones. In 2023, UCD and UCSC were approved to purchase this equipment to research its use under existing UC guidelines. UCD purchased two and UCSC did not make any purchases. UCD did not operate the equipment during the year. 

Source: https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/sept24/c1attach2.pdf and https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/sept24/c1.pdf.

Retirement Information Programs

Two online programs for those considering retirement in the near future are available this month:

Retiree Health Benefits

This webinar is intended for those considering retirement from UC within the next 4-12 months. We’ll provide an in-depth review of the eligibility rules for retiree health coverage, your health plan options (including Medicare coordination), how to determine your premiums and answers to commonly asked questions.

Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2024

Time: 2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

https://ucop.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_KpETRz4EQVS-DoKDp9OA_w#/registration

---

The UC Retirement Process – From Start to Finish

This webinar is meant for UCRP members who are planning to retire within the next 4-12 months. We’ll explain everything you need to know about the retirement process, including required forms, important deadlines and helpful resources.

Date:  Thursday, September 26, 2024

Time: 10:00 a.m. – noon

https://ucop.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_07WWIZhlR-GEV3GyNXrfgg#/registration

Medicare Advantage Scrutiny Continues - Part 4 (another straw in the wind)

Note: Privatized Medicare Advantage plans now cover over half of all Medicare participants. Many UC retirees have chosen the Medicare Advantage plan offered by UC, because it is less expensive than the traditional Medicare supplement plans. Recently, the feds seem to have become aware of evidence that Medicare has been overpaying commercial insurance companies for providing these plans and a crackdown on such payments has begun. That may account for the development reported below. Absent the de facto subsidy for the plans from the overpayments, commercial insurance companies may either raise their costs and/or begin to pull out of the market.

From Newsweek: More than 500,000 Americans are scheduled to lose their Medicare Advantage plans now that major insurer Humana is leaving 13 markets across the country. The company's Chief Financial Officer Susan Diamond made the announcement during a Wells Fargo Healthcare Conference this month, saying roughly 560,000 members would need to find a new plan. That impacts roughly 10 percent of its Medicare Advantage participants...

Full story at https://www.newsweek.com/more-500000-americans-set-lose-their-medicare-advantage-plans-1952164.

The (Seemingly) Endless Story - Part 2

It may be hard to recall, given all the things that have happened since this past April when we last had a blog entry about Harvard's Francesca Gino case. Probably the best way to re-acquaint yourself with this tale is to type "Gino" into the search engine that goes with this blog. But in essence, she was a rising, or maybe risen, star prof at the Harvard B-school specializing in empirical behavioral research on such subjects as honesty. Then, allegations of manipulated data in her studies were made by outside researchers, investigated by Harvard, and found by Harvard to be credible.

She sued the researchers who had brought their evidence to Harvard's attention. The Wall St. Journal reports that the defamation case against those researchers has been dismissed:

A university investigation concluding that Harvard Business School faculty member Francesca Gino’s research contained manipulated data led to her being placed on unpaid administrative leave last year. A federal judge has dismissed defamation claims lodged by a Harvard Business School professor in a lawsuit against the university and outside critics of her work.

Francesca Gino, at the time a star Harvard Business School faculty member, argued that her career and reputation were ruined by accusations that four of her studies contained falsified data. The allegations were published online by three behavioral scientists who blogged at the website Data Colada. Separately, an investigative report by the university concluded that Gino’s work contained manipulated data and led to her being placed on unpaid administrative leave last year.

On Wednesday, a judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the criticisms were protected by the First Amendment...

The judge allowed some of Gino’s claims in the case, involving the university’s actions regarding her employment, to stand...

Full story at https://www.wsj.com/science/harvard-francesca-gino-defamation-claims-dismissed-b755a88a.

Satanic Mills (of the term paper variety)

From Inside Higher Ed: Internet giants have been urged to block advertisements for contract cheating websites by a global alliance of higher education regulators.

The Global Academic Integrity Network (GAIN), representing 40 standards agencies, has written to platforms including Google, X and LinkedIn, urging them to “take a stand and join the fight against academic dishonesty” by blocking links to essay mills, which allow students to pay someone to write an assignment on their behalf... GAIN’s open letter warns that recent years “have witnessed a proliferation in the marketing and promotion of online cheating services across digital platforms.”

It invites internet giants to form a partnership with higher education regulators to review and uphold community guidelines on essay mills, arguing that this would “significantly reduce the visibility and impact of essay mills and contract cheating services and send a powerful message worldwide about the value of legitimate academic achievements.” ...

Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/students/academics/2024/09/13/block-essay-mill-ads-global-regulators-urge-internet-giants.

But wait! Maybe the choice is now letting the paper-writing mills - that provide employment for folks, often in third-world countries where jobs are scarce - do the writing, or letting chatGPT kill all those traditional jobs. After all, the paper-writing mills' products can be viewed as "skilled artisanal, hand-crafted" essays, an artform endangered by cheap report-writing machines. If we don't preserve the mills, our grandchildren will never experience the art of hiring someone - a real flesh-and-blood person! - to write a term paper. Just saying...

Adverse Internet Archive Appellate Decision

From time to time, this blog has reported on the Internet Archive and the litigation against it regarding lending of books and records. (Note that we use the Internet Archive to preserve Regents meetings and other items for this blog.)

Inside Higher Ed notes that a recent appellate decision adverse to the Internet Archive could affect practices at UC and other universities:

Pandemic-era library programs that helped students access books online could be potentially threatened by an appeals court ruling last week. Libraries across the country, from Carnegie Mellon University to the University of California system, turned to what’s known as a digital or controlled lending program in 2020, which gave students a way to borrow books that weren’t otherwise available. Those programs are small in scale and largely experimental but part of a broader shift in modernizing the university library.

But the appeals court ruling could upend those programs. Federal judges ruled that the Internet Archive’s pandemic-era online library violated federal copyright law. The Internet Archive, a nonprofit that also runs the popular Wayback Machine that archives websites, digitized thousands of books and loaned them out for free. The specific implications are still unclear. College libraries typically deal with research or out-of-print materials and adhere to different practices.

Still, librarians at colleges and elsewhere, along with other experts, feared that the long-running legal fight between the Internet Archive and leading publishers could imperil the ability of libraries to own and preserve books, among other ramifications. The appeals court ruling comes more than a year and a half after a federal district judge also ruled against the Internet Archive—a decision the organization said was tantamount to “book burning.”

The lawsuit created divides beyond those directly involved, with other publishers, authors and academic groups weighing in. Those in favor of the Internet Archive, including hundreds of authors and several academics, viewed the lawsuit as an attack on libraries in a digital age, and they worry about the future of the organization. Those against the Internet Archive’s practices viewed its activity as piracy...

Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/tech-innovation/libraries/2024/09/09/internet-archives-court-loss-leaves-higher-ed-gray-area.

Need for a New Master Plan - Once Again - Part 3

UC President Clark Kerr hands
Master Plan to Gov. Pat Brown

From time to time, this blog has pointed out the need for a new Master Plan for Higher Ed - the old one which everyone pays homage to dates back to 1960 and expired in 1975 - to deal with who does what among the three segments of public high education.* Otherwise, we will continue to get ad hoc policies made by the legislature without the larger view in mind.

From CalMatters: ...Two bills passed by the Legislature last week focus on... nurses with bachelor’s degrees. Both target a growing demand for nurses to possess bachelor’s degrees by allowing some community colleges to issue them. Presently the colleges only provide associate degrees — generally the minimum degree needed to be a registered nurse.

The bills are the latest developments in the state’s ongoing quest to tweak the educational offerings of colleges and universities to address cultural and workforce needs, from requiring ethnic studies courses to permitting colleges and universities to issue degrees they haven’t before. But the bills also underscore the complexity of both identifying a labor force problem — a nursing shortage — and the role that community colleges and universities play in graduating skilled workers.

One is Senate Bill 895 by Sen. Richard Roth, a Democrat from Riverside.** The other is Assembly Bill 2104 by Assemblymember Esmeralda Soria, a Democrat from Merced.***

The California State University opposes both bills, viewing them as undermining a promise lawmakers made two years ago that community colleges wouldn’t issue bachelor’s degrees that duplicate existing Cal State programs, among other worries. Private colleges oppose the bills, as well. The University of California doesn’t officially oppose the bills but raised similar concerns.  

Full story at https://calmatters.org/education/higher-education/2024/09/nursing-shortage/.

===

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2024/03/need-for-new-master-plan-once-again.html.

**https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB895. This bill would require the office of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges to develop a Baccalaureate Degree in Nursing Pilot Program that authorizes select community college districts to offer a Bachelor of Science in Nursing degree. The bill would limit the pilot program to 10 community college districts statewide and would require the chancellor’s office to identify and select eligible community college districts based on specified criteria.

***https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2104/2023. This bill would require the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges to develop a Baccalaureate Degree in Nursing Pilot Program that authorizes select community college districts to offer a Bachelor of Science in Nursing degree. The bill would limit the pilot program to 10 community college districts statewide and would require the chancellor to identify eligible community college districts based on specified criteria.

UCLA can be as neutral as the rest of them

UCLA set up a working group on making official statements and - along with all the others - it suggested neutrality:

UCLA STATEMENT ON STATEMENTS  

September 2024 

UCLA exists to create and share knowledge for the public good. The university’s leaders are stewards of this mission and have a responsibility to create an environment in which freedom of expression is protected, celebrated and cherished. To accomplish that goal, UCLA’s practices, rules and policies must encourage the widest diversity of views, allowing all of its community members a broad latitude to speak, write, listen, inquire, challenge and learn. Our mission and values compel this: 

UCLA’s primary purpose as a public research university is the creation, dissemination, preservation and application of knowledge for the betterment of our global society.  

To fulfill this mission, UCLA is committed to academic freedom in its fullest terms: We value open access to information, free and lively debate conducted with mutual respect for individuals, and freedom from intolerance. In all of our pursuits, we strive for excellence and diversity, recognizing that openness and inclusion produce true quality. 

These values underlie our three institutional responsibilities: education, research and public service. 

Given the increasing pressure on university leaders to make official statements about societal, political and public matters, the UCLA Statement on Statements Working Group was convened in the summer of 2024 to determine whether issuing such statements was in alignment with UCLA’s mission and values. The working group was charged with recommending guidelines for when the institutional voice of UCLA should and should not be utilized to address societal, political and public matters.  

We recommend that, moving forward, university leaders should not make statements on societal, political and public matters unless those matters directly affect the university’s ability to support a research and educational environment where free expression thrives. 

Below we offer several key reasons for this recommended shift: 

Foremost, limiting the use of the university’s institutional voice is intended to enhance freedom of speech, inquiry and expression across the UCLA community.  

Members of the UCLA campus possess a great variety of thoughts and beliefs, reflecting the diverse backgrounds, identities and perspectives of our students, faculty and staff. But statements from university leaders on societal, political and public matters can stifle a free exchange of ideas and risk making some parts of our diverse community feel silenced or unheard. When university leaders issue such statements, they risk being seen as attempting to represent the entire community on societal, political and public matters, and our commitment to inclusive excellence may be undermined. By refraining from expressing an institutional perspective, we better protect the open exchange of ideas among those on our campus — something that is foundational to our identity as an academic institution — and we avoid the potential to make parts of our diverse community feel unheard or disrespected. 

UCLA’s purpose as a public university is to create spaces for conversations that are meaningful, thoughtful and engaging — not to preempt those conversations with official statements. 

We also believe this recommendation to restrict the use of institutional voice aligns with the skills and responsibilities of university leaders. These leaders are expected to be adept at leading an institution: their job is to ensure academic excellence; to stimulate effective and meaningful research; to advance new ideas; to protect the university’s mission; to set the ground rules and to create an environment that promotes academic freedom. To best serve the university, campus leaders’ focus, activities, resources and communications should connect to these core academic and institutional objectives.  

Issuing statements on matters that do not directly affect the university’s ability to support a research and educational environment where free expression thrives can distract from the pursuit of core university priorities. But there are other considerations at play as well: University leaders may not — indeed likely will not — have enough expertise in a relevant subject to weigh in on societal, political and public matters. Furthermore, putting out statements on certain issues creates greater and greater pressure to put out statements on other issues, requiring an ever increasing amount of time and resources. 

We recommend above that university leaders should refrain from making statements on societal, public and political matters, unless those matters directly affect the university’s ability to support a research and educational environment where free expression thrives. Whether — and if so, how — a contentious issue relates to this essential mission of the university will itself be disputed at times; as with any general rule, this one would require university officials to exercise judgment in good faith, subject to critique by community members. In borderline cases, the presumption should be for not issuing a statement. We note that even when events happen that meet the threshold for comment by university administrators, stakeholders should realize that statements and judgments will come at a slower pace than some might desire because we are committed to accuracy and due process, and it takes time to get both facts and context.  

Our recommendation applies to the chancellor, executive vice chancellor and provost, vice chancellors, vice provosts and deans. When these individuals speak or share written messages, members of our community may understand them to be doing so on behalf of the university (or their academic school or college). 

By intention, our recommendation does not extend to department chairs and heads of academic programs, centers and institutes. There are often similar reasons for these leaders to be reluctant to issue statements so as not to exert pressure, however inadvertent, on how the discussion of important issues unfolds in their units, and so as not to risk any misimpression that they speak for others.  

At the same time, we are also aware that the roles of chairs and programmatic heads differ from those of other university leaders in ways that are defined by their academic expertise on external matters and that, therefore, touch more closely on academic freedom. If these individuals do make statements, drawn from expertise and relevant to their work or role, they should make clear that they do not speak on behalf of the university. Additionally, all statements should adhere to the UC Regents Policy on Public and Discretionary Statements by Academic Units. 

We make this recommendation realizing it may be in some tension with our other values. 

Drawing a boundary around what university leaders use institutional voice to speak about (and not speak about) could be perceived or felt as regressive in terms of inclusivity, and evince an unwillingness to speak out on behalf of historically marginalized groups or on important geopolitical crises. Nevertheless, we believe this is the proper course, precisely because we wish to protect free speech for all community members, including marginalized and minoritized groups, and to ensure that they have the opportunity to articulate their positions unfettered by the imperatives that govern the institutional voice.  

Ultimately, we seek to build a culture of trust, and commitment to our mission, which involves practicing and teaching real dialogue. We believe, in the end, that what we do is more important than what we say. We should strive, in our daily practice, to model dialogue and work through differences.  

UCLA Statement on Statements Working Group 

Michael Waterstone, Dean, School of Law, Working Group Chair 

Tony Bernardo, Dean, Anderson School of Management 

Monroe Gorden, Vice Chancellor, Student Affairs 

Yolanda Gorman, Senior Advisor and Chief of Staff to the Chancellor 

Pamela Hieronymi, Professor of Philosophy 

Mary Osako, Vice Chancellor for Strategic Communications 

Mark Peterson, Professor of Public Policy, Political Science, Healthy Policy & Management, and Law 

Emily Rose, Assistant Provost and Chief of Staff to the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost 

Seana Shiffrin, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and Pete Kameron Professor of Law and Social Justice 

Abel Valenzuela, Dean, Division of Social Sciences

Source: https://ia800402.us.archive.org/9/items/2-final-hjaa-report.-the-soil-beneath-the-encampments/UCLA-STATEMENT-ON-STATEMENTS.pdf.

Shifting Into Neutral: It's a Thing! - Part 2

 

We previously posted about Berkeley and the U of Minnesota recently deciding to go "neutral" with regard to political and world events. UCLA has now joined the list. Here is a listing of (some) others:

Claremont McKenna College

University of North Carolina System

Vanderbilt University  

University of Wyoming

Columbia University

Utah State University

College of the Holy Cross

Harvard University

Syracuse University

Stanford University

Purdue University

Clark University

Johns Hopkins University

Emerson College

University of Southern California

University of Texas System

University of Colorado Boulder

University of Alabama System

Washington State University

University of Pennsylvania

==

Source: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/adoptions-official-position-institutional-neutrality.

Yale's Committee

We have been posting about the spreading idea of university neutrality. Yale has a different approach: form a committee to study the idea of neutrality. See below:

Committee on Institutional Voice

September 10, 2024

Dear Members of the Yale Community,

In my first few weeks as Yale’s president, I have appreciated the chance to connect with so many of you. I am especially grateful to the hundreds of people who have responded to the webform I launched, and I look forward to hearing from many more of you in the coming months.

Although I am only beginning to gather your suggestions, one topic has emerged as top of mind for many people in our community: the question of when Yale, as an institution, speaks on issues of the day. This topic also has been central to a national discussion in higher education over the past year. Recognizing that members of our community hold multiple views, I write to announce that I have convened a committee to address the question.

I have asked the committee to examine when the university, or those speaking on its behalf, should comment on matters of public significance, weighing the value that Yale places on engaging with the wider world as well as the university’s commitment to fostering an environment of diverse viewpoints and open dialogue and debate. To be clear, I am not charging the committee with revisiting the vital and robust protection for the free expression of individuals within our diverse community. Rather, the committee’s focus is on the role of Yale itself as a speaker.

The committee is co-chaired by Michael Della Rocca, Sterling Professor of Philosophy, and Cristina Rodríguez, Leighton Homer Surbeck Professor of Law, and its members are listed below:

• Charles Ahn, John C. Malone Professor of Applied Physics and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and of Physics
• Nita Ahuja, William H. Carmalt Professor of Surgery
• Kerwin Charles, Indra K. Nooyi Dean of the School of Management and Frederick W. Beinecke Professor of Economics, Policy, and Management
• Jennifer Herdt, Senior Associate Dean and Gilbert L. Stark Professor of Divinity and Professor of Religious Studies
• Stephen Pitti, Professor of History, of American Studies, and of Ethnicity, Race, and Migration; Director of the Center for the Study of Race, Indigeneity, and Transnational Migration

The committee will host listening sessions over the next few weeks to solicit feedback from students, faculty, and staff. Information will be posted online. Community members who are not able to attend in person—including alumni—can share their perspectives via a webform, which will be open until the end of the last listening session.

The committee will provide its recommendations to me this semester. I encourage you to take the time to share your thoughts with the committee, and I hope you will continue to send your suggestions to me about the future of our university.

Sincerely,

Maurie

Maurie McInnis

President

Professor of the History of Art

Source: https://president.yale.edu/president/statements/committee-institutional-voice.

===

There is an old joke about an incoming college president who was appointed after the previous incumbent left under a cloud. The new president finds three envelopes numbered 1, 2, and 3 on top of the presidential desk with a note from the predecessor. It says, "When you find yourself in difficulty, open these envelopes in numerical order." The new president puts the envelopes in a drawer, figuring they would never be needed. But after a short time, a problem arises, and the new president eventually opens envelope #1. Inside is a note that says, "Blame your predecessor." Sure enough, the advice works and the problem dies down. But after some time elapses, more difficulties arise and the new president opens envelope # 2. Inside is a note that says, "Form a committee." Sure enough, a committee is formed and the difficulties fade. But after some time, yet another problem arises. The now not-so-new president opens up envelope #3. Inside is a note that says, "Take three envelopes and number them 1, 2, and 3..."

Of course, this is just a made-up story that couldn't possibly apply to Yale.

Didn't want to let this issue slide

As blog readers will know, UCLA bought a defunct Catholic college campus in Palos Verdes for $80 million not so long ago. And we've been reading a lot about Palos Verdes and its ground instabilities recently. So we're just raising the obvious question that nobody seems to be asking.

Numbers & Ratios - We Report; You Decide

=======================================

Symbols T = Total

U = Undergraduate

G = Graduate

FT = Full Time

PT = Part Time

=======================================

   UCLA                   USC

=======================================

Numbers

Enrollment             Enrollment      

48,048 T               47,000 T

33,040 U               21,000 U

15,008 G               26,000 G

---------------------------------------

Faculty                Faculty

 2,135 FT               4,767 FT

   453 PT               2,080 PT

 2,588 T                6,847 T

---------------------------------------

Employees

54,148 T               23,227 T

=======================================

Ratios

FT Faculty/            FT Faculty/

 T Faculty              T Faculty

82%                    70%

---------------------------------------

FT Faculty/            FT Faculty/

T Employment           T Employment

4%                     21%

---------------------------------------

T Faculty/             T Faculty/

T Employees            T Employees

5%                     29%

---------------------------------------

Students/Faculty       Students/Faculty

23 T/FT                10 T/FT

19 T/T                  7 T/T

---------------------------------------

Employees/             Employees/ 

Student                Student

1.13                   0.49

=======================================

Source: LA Business Journal, Sept. 2, 2024.

9-11-01 at UCLA

UCLA students watch TV coverage of attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 in Ackerman Union.

Shifting Into Neutral: It's a Thing!

Last Friday, we posted about Berkeley's new chancellor deciding to be neutral about non-university events.* It's in fact a thing that's going around among university leaders throughout the country. From the University of Minnesota:

Office of the President

Dear students, faculty, and staff, As we embark on an exciting fall semester—my first here at the University of Minnesota—my energy and enthusiasm for what we can accomplish together grows by the minute. I am writing to you today to help set expectations for when the University community should expect to hear—and not hear—from me. University presidents around the country are often called on to issue public statements in response to a wide range of global issues—from natural disasters and armed conflicts overseas, to international health outbreaks and political elections. Like many of you, I have strong personal feelings and opinions on many of these issues, and a deep sense of empathy for those, near and far, who suffer as a result of these events. But it is important to separate my personal reactions, however deeply felt, from my role as President. As President, I am fundamentally committed to cultivating an environment where diverse perspectives are fully embraced and where dialogue across our differences—with vibrant civic engagement—is encouraged. That is core to the University’s mission of research, education and outreach. A statement from the President, however careful, can have the effect of excluding those who disagree and inhibiting dialogue. For that reason, I will refrain from commenting publicly on the vast majority of global issues, unless they are directly tied to the University of Minnesota’s mission, its work, and its identity. There are separate discussions taking place collaboratively with shared governance across our University about departmental and unit statements, and you will hear more about those in the coming months. Rest assured that your individual rights to free speech are respected and guaranteed, as are the principles of academic freedom. Today, I want to focus on my role as President. As President, the way I can best support our community as we grapple with complex challenges and tensions is by helping you tap the deep wells of knowledge, expertise, creativity, and energy existing across our campuses. Working with our faculty, administration, students, and the broader community, I will support forums where you can engage in unfettered inquiry. I will also work intensely to protect your physical and psychological safety, health and wellness. In an environment of viewpoint diversity, these are my highest priorities. I understand some members of our University community will disagree with my position, and I respect that. I will strive to uphold open lines of communication on important issues that directly impact our mission. When there are critical updates regarding University operations, you will hear from me. And when there are opportunities to celebrate our shared accomplishments, you will most definitely hear from me. I look forward to working with you to leverage the power of open and free inquiry so that we can push the boundaries of research and scholarship, transform learning and teaching, and strengthen our public engagement for the betterment of society. Sincerely, Rebecca Cunningham President

This email was sent to all systemwide students, faculty, and staff by the Office of the President, 100 Church St S.E., Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA. Source: https://view.ecommunications2.umn.edu/?vawpToken=EC24USJZ3JIEFHXFD6LOZPWF5I.60244. === *https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2024/09/berkeley-chancellor-interview.html.

 
 

The times they are a'changing - Part 6

We noted on Sunday that the Special Committee on Athletics of the Regents is due to discuss the antitrust case that involves pay to student athletes. It appears they will have more to discuss, albeit behind closed doors. From Inside Higher Ed:

The federal judge overseeing the historic antitrust lawsuit governing the compensation of college athletes told lawyers to go “back to the drawing board" in their efforts to settle the case, saying that a nearly $2.8 billion settlement tentatively reached this summer would unfairly limit what athletes could receive from groups of sports boosters.

Judge Claudia Wilken, who is presiding over the House v. NCAA case as she has over numerous other lawsuits involving college athlete compensation, made her comments at a hearing last week to consider the proposed settlement struck this summer by lawyers for the National Collegiate Athletic Association and for the various groups of athletes who have sued the sports governing body over rights to their names, images and likenesses...

Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2024/09/09/judge-challenges-terms-proposed-settlement-athlete-pay.

♫Take Us Out of the Ball Game♫

From the LA Times: A federal judge [last] Friday ordered the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to build more than 2,500 units of housing for low-income veterans on its West Los Angeles campus. In a 124-page decision following a non-jury trial, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter also ruled that leases to UCLA, Brentwood School and others on the VA property are illegal because they don’t principally serve veterans. UCLA’s Jackie Robinson baseball stadium is on 10 acres leased from the VA...

The ruling did not specify what should happen to the VA’s leases with UCLA, Brentwood School and others but said the “court will determine an exit strategy” after more hearings...

UCLA’s media office issued a statement saying the university is reviewing the decision to see how it will affect its “public service partnership” of more than 70 years with the VA. “Working with the VA to serve veterans continues to be one of our key objectives as part of UCLA’s mission of teaching, research and public service,” it said...

Full story at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-09-06/va-must-build-more-housing-on-west-l-a-campus-and-ucla-and-brentwood-school-leases-are-illegal-judge-rules. 

===

From the court's decision:

Each administration since 2011 has been warned—by the VA’s own Office of the Inspector General, federal courts, and veterans—that they were not doing enough to house veterans in Los Angeles. Despite these warnings, the VA has not made good on its promise to build housing for veterans. Instead, it has continued leasing portions of the West Los Angeles campus to a private school, UCLA’s baseball team, an oil company, and other private interests. The cost of the VA’s inaction is veterans’ lives...

Now, the West LA VA promises they finally have a plan that will end veteran homelessness in Los Angeles—but only if the plaintiffs leave them alone and the Court does not issue an injunction. After years of broken promises, corruption, and neglect, it is no surprise that veterans are unwilling to take them at their word. The Court finds Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief in the form of additional housing at the Grounds and termination of the illegal land-use agreements...

The statute’s language is clear and unambiguous: any land use agreement that the VA executes on the West LA VA Grounds must be veteran-focused. That is, leases with UCLA must predominantly focus on veterans, and leases with all other third parties must “principally benefit veterans.” This interpretation of the Leasing Act’s text is consistent with the legislative context in which Congress passed the Leasing Act...

The statute does not define the second element—that the “predominant focus” of the lessee be the provision of services to veterans. When a statute does not define a phrase, courts often look to a dictionary published soon after the statute was passed for the definition. See, e.g., Taniguchi v. Kan Pac. Saipan, Ltd., 566 U.S. 560, 566 (1997); Chacon v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1131, 1133 (9th Cir. 2021). The American Heritage Dictionary defines “predominant” as “main.” Predominant, American Heritage Dictionary, https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.Html ?q=predominant (last visited August 31, 2023). Another dictionary defines the word as “preeminent.” Predominant, Dictionary.com, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/predominant (last visited August 31, 2024). Thus, under the Leasing Act, a necessary feature of any lease with UCLA is that UCLA’s main focus of its activities on the West LA VA Grounds is providing services to veterans. Any agreement with UCLA where UCLA’s main focus is not veterans violates the Leasing Act, and consequently the VA’s fiduciary duty to veterans... 

The Court holds that the VA’s lease with UCLA violates the agency’s fiduciary duty to veterans, because UCLA’s main or predominant focus under the lease is not the provision of services to veterans...

The value of some of the in-kind services that UCLA provides is questionable. For instance, UCLA provides free tickets for veterans and free refreshments at its baseball games. UCLA claims the full price of these tickets as part of its in-kind consideration. UCLA acknowledged that for most of the games, there are hundreds of empty seats in the stadium. Trial Tr. Aug. 22, 2024, 19:7-17. As a result, many other complimentary tickets are distributed besides those given to veterans.

Even assuming the in-kind services were correctly valued, the fact remains that the leased land is predominantly, and almost exclusively, used for UCLA’s baseball program. UCLA has approximately 26 home games at the stadium per year, in addition to NCAA Regionals, Super Regionals, and some special events. Id. at 21:18-22. UCLA’s focus during those times is hosting baseball games, not serving veterans. Id. at 69:17-21. UCLA’s lease with the VA for its student athletic facilities therefore violates the Leasing Act, and by extension, the VA’s fiduciary duty to veterans. Accordingly, the UCLA lease is void. To ensure the land is put to a use that principally benefits veterans, the Court will determine an exit strategy for UCLA’s 10 acres following the hearing on injunctive relief...  

The Court further holds that Plaintiffs are entitled to prospective relief. Specifically, the VA is enjoined from entering into new leases with the Brentwood School, Safety Park, Bridgeland Resources, and UCLA... The Court will decide the specifics of the injunction, including how to best manage the lessees’ exits from the West LA VA Grounds, following a hearing on injunctive relief scheduled for September 25, 2024...

Full decision at https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Dkt.%20302%20Post-Trial%20Opinion%3B%20Findings%20of%20Fact%20and%20Conclusions%20of%20Law.pdf.

Water with the Guv

UC President Drake appears - uncredited - in a "reel" (Facebook's version of a TikTok video) with the governor and it has something to do with renewable energy and water. Exactly what it has to do with Drake and UC is unclear. But TikToks and Reels are supposed to appeal to young people who often report they get their news from such sources. That statement, if true, means they have no idea of what's happening. Anyway, the video surely means something to someone.

You can see it below:

Or direct to https://ia601700.us.archive.org/14/items/newsom-7-6-24-anti-trump/newsom%208-31-24%20renewable%20water.mp4.

Upcoming Regents Agenda: Sept. 18-19, 2024

A preliminary agenda for the September meetings of the Regents is now available. In a few places, the various topics have been annotated below.

University of California Regents - Agenda: September 18-19, 2024 - Luskin Conference Center, UCLA

===

Wednesday, September 18, 2024

8:30 am Board (open session - includes public comment session) 

Public Comment Period (30 minutes)

Remarks of the Chair of the Board

Remarks of the President of the University

Remarks of the Chair of the Academic Senate

---

Concurrent Meetings:

---

9:30 am Academic and Student Affairs Committee (open session) 

Agenda – Open Session

Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of July 17, 2024 and the Joint Meeting of the Academic and Student Affairs Committee and the Compliance and Audit Committee of July 17, 2024

A1 Discussion: UC Grad Slam: Making University of California Research Accessible to All

A2 Discussion: Task Force on Instructional Modalities Report

A3 Discussion: Innovation and Entrepreneurship Update

---

12:30 pm Governance Committee (closed session) 

Agenda – Closed Session

Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of May 15, 2024

G1(X) Discussion: Appointment of and Compensation for Vice President – UC National Laboratories, Office of the President

G2(X) Discussion: 2024-25 Systemwide Salary Program Increases for Certain Level One Senior Management Group Members

G3(X) Discussion: Market-Based Salary Adjustments for Certain UC Chancellors

G4(X) Discussion: Market-Based Salary Adjustments for Certain Level One Senior Management Group Employees, Office of the President

G5(X) Discussion: Incentive Compensation for Fiscal Year 2023-24 for Chief Investment Officer and Vice President – Investments, Office of the President

G6(X) Discussion: Collective Bargaining Matters

Note: UC's case against UAW 4811 - whether the spring strike violated the no-strike clauses in the various contracts - and the related PERB issues are likely to be discussed here.

---

Upon end of closed session:

Governance Committee (open session) 

3:00 pm Agenda – Open Session

Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of July 17, 2024

G1 Action: Approval of Appointment of and Compensation for Vice President – UC National Laboratories, Office of the President as Discussed in Closed Session

G2 Action: Approval of 2024-25 Systemwide Salary Program Increases for Certain Level One Senior Management Group Members as Discussed in Closed Session

G3 Action: Approval of Market-Based Salary Adjustments for Certain Chancellors as Discussed in Closed Session

G4 Action: Approval of Market-Based Salary Adjustments for Certain Level One Senior Management Group Employees, Office of the President as Discussed in Closed Session

G5 Action: Approval of Incentive Compensation for Fiscal Year 2023-24 for Chief Investment Officer and Vice President – Investments, Office of the President as Discussed in Closed Session

---

Finance and Capital Strategies Committee (closed session) 

Agenda – Closed Session

Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of July 17, 2024

F1(X) Discussion: Legal Compliance Regarding Cal Softball Field Renovation Project, Berkeley Campus

F2(X) Action: California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy at Research Park East, Los Angeles Campus: Business Terms

Note: This item refers to the recent acquisition of the Westside Pavillion by UCLA.

F3(X) Action: UCSF Clinical and Life Sciences Building, San Francisco Campus: Land Acquisition, Budget, Scope, Business Terms of Master Ground Lease, Lease Disposition and Development Agreement, and Space Lease; External Financing; Bond Financing; Gift of Real Property, and Authorized Third Party Indemnification and Ancillary Action:s

---

Upon end of closed session:

Finance and Capital Strategies Committee (open session) 

Agenda – Open Session

Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of July 17, 2024

Consent Agenda:

F4A Action: Consent Item: La Jolla Outpatient Pavilion, San Diego Campus: Preliminary Plans Funding

F4B Action: Consent Item: Falling Leaves Foundation Medical Innovation Building, Irvine Campus: Budget Amendment and Interim Financing

F4C Action: Consent Item: Funding Reallocation, UC Davis Health: External Financing Approval, Sacramento Ambulatory Surgery Center and Folsom Medical Office Building

F5 Action: UCSF Clinical and Life Sciences Building, San Francisco Campus: Amendment Number 12 to the UC San Francisco 2014 Long Range Development Plan and Design Following Adoption of Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act

F6 Action: Parnassus Central Campus Site Improvements, San Francisco Campus: Budget, Scope, External Financing, and Design Following Adoption of Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act

F7 Action: Cal Softball Field Renovation, Berkeley Campus: Amendment of Budget, External Financing, Scope, and Design Following Certification of an Environmental Impact Report Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act

F8 Discussion: Preliminary Discussion: of the University’s 2025-26 Operating Budget

===

Thursday, September 19, 2024

8:30 am Board (open session - includes public comment session) 

Public Comment Period (30 minutes)

Approval of the Minutes of the Meetings of July 17 and 18, 2024

Remarks from Student Associations

---

9:20 am Compliance and Audit Committee (open session) 

Agenda – Open Session

Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of July 17 and the Joint Meeting of the Academic and Student Affairs Committee and the Compliance and Audit Committee of July 17, 2024

C1 Action: University of California Compliance with State Assembly Bill 481 

Note: AB 481 of 2021 requires disclosure by police agencies including UCPD of acquisition of military equipment.

---

Upon end of open session:

10:15 am Compliance and Audit Committee (closed session) 

Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of July 17, 2024

C2(X) Action: Recommended Settlements for Board Action:

Various settlements are listed

C3(X) Discussion: Appellate, Trial Court Developments and Updates

Various cases at different stages are listed. Included are:

THE LOUIS D. BRANDEIS CENTER, INC., et al. v. REGENTS, et al. – Motion to Dismiss Pending – Equal Protection – Berkeley (antisemitism)

PROTEST-RELATED CASES – Various Activity – Multiple Campuses

TUITION AND FEES REFUND CLASS ACTIONS – Petition for Review Filed – Claims Seeking Refunds Based on COVID-Related Actions – Systemwide

KLEIN v. REGENTS – Trial Commencing – Retaliation/False Light – Los Angeles

Note: For information on Klein v. Regents - a case that indirectly stemmed from the George Floyd era - see https://dailybruin.com/2022/04/14/ucla-lecturers-lawsuit-will-go-to-trial-following-tentative-ruling-on-motions. A decision against the Regents, or even an out-of-court settlement, is likely to attract significant attention.

C4(X) Information Settlements and Separation Agreements under Delegated Authority Reported from June 1, 2024 to July 31, 2024

---

Board (closed session) 

Agenda – Closed Session

Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meetings of June 4, June 12, and July 18, 2024

Committee Reports Including Approval of Recommendations from Committees:

-Compliance and Audit Committee

-Finance and Capital Strategies Committee

-Governance Committee

---

Upon end of closed session:

Board (open session) 

Agenda – Open Session

Committee Reports Including Approvals of Recommendations from Committees:

-Academic and Student Affairs Committee

-Compliance and Audit Committee

-Finance and Capital Strategies Committee

-Governance Committee

-Health Services Committee (meeting of August 14, 2024)

---

10:45 pm Investments Committee (open session) 

Agenda – Open Session

Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of July 17, 2024

I1 Discussion: Review of Fiscal Year 2023–24 Performance for UC Retirement, Endowment and Working Capital Assets

---

12:15 pm Board (open session) 

Agenda – Open Session

B1 Discussion: State of Staff at the University of California

B2 Discussion: UC Olympians at the Paris Games: Insights and Reflections

Officers’ and President’s Reports:

-Report of Interim, Concurrence, and Committee Action:s

-Report of Materials Mailed Between Meetings

---

1:30 pm Special Committee on Athletics (open session) 

Agenda – Open Session

Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of May 14, 2024

S1 Discussion: Student-Athlete Perspectives: UC Merced

S2 Discussion: Campus Athletics Overview: UC Berkeley and UC Riverside

Note: It will be interesting to see if the fiscal issues surrounding Berkeley athletics will be discussed.

---

Upon end of open session:

Agenda – Closed Session

Special Committee on Athletics (closed session) 

S3(X) Discussion: Student-Athlete Anti-Trust Litigation

Note: As we have noted in numerous postings, the issue of pay for athletes is a Big Deal.

===

Source: https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/meetings/agendas/sept24.html.

Updated Subway Construction

Westwood/UCLA Station Construction 

Summary  

Metro contractors will continue construction activities for the future Westwood/UCLA Station within UCLA Lot 36. Activities may require temporary lane closures to access the Wilshire Bl deck panels. Work includes excavation, hauling, bracing installation, lagging, station ventilation installation, and utility support. The SOE removal and concrete work has begun and will continue for a year. 

Date: Ongoing through Summer 2025
 

Work Hours: Weekdays and Weekends 

5am to 4:30 pm and 7:30 pm to 5 am 
 

Hauling: 6:30 am to 5 pm  

Support of Excavation, Soil Nail Wall, Struts work, and Lowering of Structural steel  

Dates: Ongoing through November 2024 

Work Hours:  

Weeknights: 9 pm to 6 am 

Weekends: 6 am to 2 pm and 4 pm to 2 am, continue through 2024 

Temporary Traffic Control: Intermittent closures 

Phase 1- Weeknights, 9pm to 6am and continuously Friday to Monday from 9pm to 6am 

• The Westwood southbound lane and right turn pocket restricted between Lindbrook Dr and Wilshire Bl. 

• Two westbound Wilshire Bl lanes will be restricted between Glendon Av and Gayley Av 

• The west leg crosswalk on Wilshire Bl and Westwood Bl will be restricted.  

• One northbound lane on Gayley Av will be restricted from Wilshire Bl to Lindbrook Av. 

• The north leg crosswalk at Wilshire Bl and Gayley Av will be restricted. 

• The eastbound left turn pockets between at the intersection of Gayley Av and Wilshire Bl will be restricted.  

Phase 2- Weekdays, 7 am to 4:30 pm, Sunday, 7 am to 4:30 pm, and Friday to Monday continuously from 9 pm to 6 am 

• The Westwood southbound left turn pocket and one lane will be restricted between Lindbrook Dr and Wilshire Bl. 

• Three westbound Wilshire Bl lanes will be restricted between Glendon Av and Veteran Av. 

• A southbound Westwood Bl right turn pocket will be restricted between Lindbrook Dr and Wilshire Bl. 

• A southbound Gayley Av right turn pocket will be restricted between Lindbrook Dr and Wilshire Bl. 

Phase 3:  Weekdays, 9 am to 3:30 pm 

• Three westbound Wilshire Bl lanes will be restricted from Glendon Av to Veteran Av 

• A southbound right turn pocket at Westwood Bl between Lindbrook Dr and Wilshire Bl will be restricted. 

• A southbound right turn pocket at Gayley Av  betweem Lindbrook Dr and Wilshire Bl will be restricted. 

Traffic Control:  9 pm to 6 am 

• Wilshire Bl will have intermittent lane reductions in both directions between Glendon Av and Veteran Av.  

• Left turns for Wilshire Bl may be closed at different times at Gayley Av, Westwood Bl, and Glendon Av.  

• Some intermittent crosswalk closures may be implemented. Three crosswalks will be open at each intersection at all times.  

• Gayley Av may have lane reductions between Lindbrook Dr and Ashton Av.  

• Westwood Bl may have lane reductions between Lindbrook Dr and Ashton Av.  

• Glendon Av may have lane reductions between Lindbrook Dr and Wilshire Bl. 

• Trucks will continue to use the driveways on Veteran Av and Wilshire Bl. Staging of trucks will occur inside the yard. The right turn pocket at Gayley Av and Wilshire Bl will be restricted, as well as the lane closest to the curb along Wilshire Bl between Gayley Av and Veteran Av. Hauling is expected between 9am and 3:30pm ongoing through November 2023. 

• Some intermittent sidewalk closures may be implemented in the work zones. The sidewalks on the north side and south side of Wilshire Bl will not be closed at the same time.  

Noteworthy  

• All work has received necessary permits and approvals.  

•  Access for pedestrians will be maintained outside of construction zones.  

•  Access for the Fire Department and emergency responders will be maintained.  

•  Parking restrictions will be implemented in the immediate area of the work zone.  

•  Construction is dynamic and schedules are subject to change.  

•  24/7 Hotline: 213-922-6934