Nonetheless, it appears that he has been in touch with UC President Drake yesterday. When asked about campus unrest at an unrelated news conference, he made the disclosure.
You can see his remarks at the video below:
Or direct to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDzIzRZacqA.
There is also radio silence on the UC systemwide websites and the UCLA website. No statement has been issued by the systemwide Academic Senate. Maybe everyone is waiting for the Regents to act. ????
All we know is that there will be at least 18 people in attendance - some may not be Regents - based on the Zoom addresses - most of which appear to be office buildings:
1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C.
400 Q Street, Sacramento, CA [May be a CalPERS office]
1680 East 120th Street, Los Angeles, CA [MLK hospital]
3333 North Torrey Pines Ct, La Jolla, CA
5200 Lake Road, BSP. 187, Merced, CA [UC-Merced]
1004 Holton Road, Holtville, CA [farm in the middle of Imperial County]
655 West 18th Street Merced, CA [Seems to be a UC-Merced office building]
4751 Wilshire Blvd., 3rd floor, Los Angeles, CA
455 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA
500 S. Buena Vista Street, Burbank, CA [Probably Disney building]
6374 Coral del Rico Nayarit, Mexico [possible typo in this address]
8105 Hickory High Court, Ellicott City, MD
465 California Street, Suite 611, San Francisco, CA
550 S Hope St., Los Angeles, CA
6085 State Farm Drive, Rohnert Park, CA
12011 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 606, Los Angeles, CA [David Geffen Foundation]
3200 Sawtelle Blvd, Los Angeles, CA [May be UCLA student housing]
433 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA
Source: https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/meetings/agendas/april262024.html.
Cornell University announced yesterday that it would once again require standardized test scores from applicants, the latest in a wave of selective institutions to do so. The policy change, which will take effect next application cycle, is the culmination of a two-year “period of deliberate experimental review” Cornell entered in 2022, when it extended its test-optional policy through 2024, and is based in part on internal research conducted since then.
Cornell offered a similar justification as other Ivy League colleges returning to testing requirements, including Yale and Dartmouth College: that not only are scores better indicators of academic success than factors such as GPA, but they can also help admissions officers take notice of students from under-resourced high schools who might otherwise struggle to stand out. Test-optional policies, on the other hand, “may undermine equity in admissions” by discouraging score submission among less privileged applicants, the research report concluded.
Source: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2024/04/23/cornell-reinstates-testing-requirements.
What Cornell is saying now is what a UC Academic Senate report said back before the Regents abolished the test requirement.
BruinALERT: A demonstration with encampments formed early this morning (Thursday, April 25) in Royce Quad.
We’re actively monitoring this situation to support a safe and peaceful campus environment that respects our community’s right to free expression while minimizing disruption to our teaching and learning mission.
At this time, the typical campus teaching and learning activities will continue as usual and classes will be held as planned.
Access to Royce Hall and Powell Library has been restricted. Students who need to access Royce Hall should be ready to show their Bruin Card for entry.
For more information about emergencies at UCLA, please visit https://bso.ucla.edu/.
...UC President Michael Drake "basically put the fear of God in everybody in saying that we were going to get sued, we were going to lose all this money,” UC Regent Jose Hernandez [said]...
Included in the account is a letter from UC to the legislative committee involved laying out its legal position:
April 3, 2024
The Honorable Mike Fong Chair,
Assembly Higher Education Committee
1020 N Street, Room 173 Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 2586 (Alvarez), as amended on April 1, 2024 Scheduled for hearing in the Assembly Higher Education Committee on April 9, 2024
Position: CONCERN
Dear Chair Fong, The University of California has a long history of supporting undocumented students by advocating for and enacting numerous programs and policies that assist them in achieving their educational goals. For example, the University has campus-based support centers, provides access to legal services, and supplies financial aid to students not eligible for federal loans (Dream Loan Program). The University also continues to advocate for state and federal policies that bring in additional resources and funding for undocumented students. The aim of AB 2586 is to address employment opportunities for undocumented students in higher education. This is a critically important issue to the University and President Michael Drake has stated his public support for finding a robust legal path to do so.
Last year, a working group of the Regents of the University of California studied this issue and sought a legal path forward. However, after receiving advice from both inside and outside legal counsel, we concluded that there were considerable risks for the University and the students we aim to support. This led the Regents to postpone further action until next year while we continue to examine ways to expand undocumented students’ access to equitable educational experiences.
While the University supports the author’s aim to provide equitable student employment opportunities, there are outstanding concerns about AB 2586 and how to implement such a policy. Those concerns include:
- The exposure of our undocumented students and their families to the possibility of criminal prosecution or deportation;
- The possibility of employees involved in the hiring process (i.e., faculty, human resources, and legal professionals) being subject to criminal or civil prosecution if they knowingly participate in practices deemed impermissible under federal law;
- Civil fines, criminal penalties, or debarment from federal contracting if the University is in violation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA); and
- The potential loss of billions of dollars in existing federal contracts and grants that are conditional on IRCA compliance. Unfortunately, AB 2586 does not protect our undocumented students or employees from prosecution, nor does it protect the University from the risk of potentially losing billions in federal dollars. While the University is not opposed to AB 2586, or the goal to provide employment opportunities to undocumented students, we share the concerns above because we would welcome working with the author and Legislature on other legal options to support these students.
In the meantime, the University is rolling out a new fellowship program that will provide experiential learning opportunities and financial support to undocumented students, and we would be pleased to share additional details on this exciting effort.
Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions about the University’s concerns regarding AB 2586, please contact me at 916-445-5579.
Sincerely, Mario Guerrero Legislative Director
cc: Vice Chair and Members, Assembly Higher Education Assemblymember David Alvarez, President Michael Drake
While such efforts at UCLA are Good Things to be applauded, there are still issues on campus, apparently centered in the Med School, according to some faculty there who testified at the Regents during the public comments segment on April 10th. See below:
===
*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2024/04/get-together.html.
UC is planning to embark on a "total remuneration" study of faculty pay, i.e., a study that compares the total value of salary and benefits with those of other universities. While salary comparisons are relatively easy, valuing the various benefits that are offered is more complicated. The Academic Senate is insisting that the survey be done using the same methodology as an earlier study done ten years ago, an apples-to-apples approach.
...The Senate believes that it is critical for the 2024 results for faculty be compared directly with the 2014 results to determine precisely how UC’s total remuneration competitiveness was affected by adopting the 2016 Retirement Tier and its PEPRA cap. The only way that a valid comparison can be made is to replicate the methodology used in the 2014 study. To fail to do so would confound the effects of retirement plan changes with changes in study methods, likely yielding erroneous estimates of the effect of retirement plan changes on UC’s competitiveness. The Senate will not accept the results of a confounded study.
Second, because the recruitment of outstanding faculty is more of a campus-based process than a systemwide process, the Senate has asked for a breakdown of total remuneration by campus. Divisional Senates want to know how their total remuneration has changed over the past ten years, not only relative to external peers, but also to other UC campuses. Again, no such valid comparisons can be made unless the methodology for the 2024 study mirrors the 2014 study, where data for each UC employee occupies a row of a spreadsheet...
Full statement at https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/reports/js-cl-total-remuneration-study-2024.pdf.
The sentence saying the Senate won't accept a study with changed methodology is pretty definitive. If anyone was planning a change, all we can say is how do you like them apples?
Source: https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/meetings/agendas/april262024.html.
The university has made you eligible to enroll with Experian for free. It hasn't enrolled you. That is your choice. So if you don't want to enroll, you don't have to. Normally, people who choose to enroll with Experian pay for the service. If you choose to enroll, you get it free - presumably at the university's expense. It is true that when you enroll, you have to give personal information such as your Social Security number. But Experian already has that information. Anyone who has ever gotten a credit card, mortgage, etc., is already recorded at Experian and the other credit rating companies. So, giving the information when you enroll is essentially an ID check to see if you are really who you say you are.
New tentative regulations regarding Title IX (sexual harassment and assault) are now out. From Higher Ed Dive:
The U.S. Department of Education on Friday issued its long-awaited Title IX rule, which for the first time enshrines protections for LGBTQI+ students and employees, as well as pregnant students and employees, under the civil rights law that prevents sex-based discrimination in federally funded education programs...
Among other changes, the new rule defines sex-based harassment as including harassment based on sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy and related conditions, and gender identity and sexual orientation. It cements federal protections for LGTBQI+ students and employees that have swung between administrations for over a decade.
The regulations also broaden the conditions triggering Title IX protections by changing the definition of sex-based harassment from conduct that is “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive,” to either “severe or pervasive” conduct that must be considered both “subjectively and objectively offensive.”
The new regulations also:
As we have noted before, decisions under Title IX get in trouble with the outside courts when they seem to depart from due process as courts understand the concept. Combining the investigator and decision maker is something that could trigger such concerns. Not having questioning at live hearings could be another. As we have pointed out, courts have a long history of deferring to grievance arbitration as long found in union-management settings including in higher ed because it is seen as providing reasonable due process. Emulating that system, which features decisions by an outside neutral would best insulate Title IX cases from external reversal.
From the Bruin: Hillel at UCLA hosted its first interfaith Passover Seder [last] Monday, bringing together students and administrators to build connections across campus. The celebration – jointly hosted by the Interfaith Living Learning Community and Dialogue Across Differences at UCLA – featured readings, Jewish prayers and teaching about Passover traditions. Representatives of local elected officials and university administrators attended the seder, including Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Monroe Gordon Jr. and Dean of Students Jasmine JS Rush...
The seder was also sponsored by the University Religious Conference at UCLA and the Council of Chaplains at UCLA. The event was designed to include reflections from students who were not from Jewish backgrounds, said David Myers, the Sady and Ludwig Kahn Chair in Jewish History and an organizer of the event. The event featured readings by student leaders taken from the writings of a Catholic priest and about Martin Luther King Jr...
Religious ceremonies can unify different communities of faith because of the similarities of practice between different religious traditions, including historical similarities between Passover and Easter celebrations, said Myers, who also leads Dialogue Across Difference at UCLA – an initiative dedicated to discussing difficult issues without widening tensions...
Overall, Myers said the event aimed to allow people to come together at a difficult time for the campus community. “Many people feel deeply passionate about what is going on, and we want to create an opportunity and space for people who come from different places to join together in expressing and manifesting hope and dedicating ourselves to activity and action to advance the cause of freedom and redemption,” he said.
Full story at https://dailybruin.com/2024/04/17/hillel-at-ucla-hosts-first-interfaith-passover-seder-brings-students-together.
In a story in the Daily Cal entitled "Students, ASUC officials grill chancellor on controversial campus speaker, Justice4Ivonne" which deals with a meeting of students and student representatives with outgoing Chancellor Christ, we read, "Christ attended the meeting over Zoom after going back on her decision to come in person, citing safety concerns."* What does that statement tell you about the campus climate at Berkeley, apart from anything else reported in the article?
===
According to the documentation, the purpose of the survey is to:
Hard to see how the survey will do any of these things.
Yours truly can't solve the mystery as to why this is happening. But he can tell you that ignoring the notice and going into the new account will initially lead to you being told that your password is incorrect. Using the "forgot my password" option and creating a new password restored the account. It wasn't in fact "cancelled."
That approach may be easier than calling the "Support Team" phone number cited above. At least, it worked for yours truly. Good luck.
The Sylvia Winstein UCLA Emeriti and Retiree Arts & Crafts Exhibit will be held on Tuesday May 21, 2024 in the Morrison Room at the UCLA Faculty Club from 11:00 am to 4:00 pm. This will be the first joint exhibit sponsored together by the two organizations, with 20+ emeriti and retiree artists exhibiting their work.
The works are in a wide range of media from photography, drawing and painting to sculpture, ceramics, jewelry, weaving and calligraphy. Featured artists are Michelle Shin, a landscape painter representing the Retiree Association, and Jill Waterman, a watercolor artist from the Emeriti Association. Please join us as all of these passionate artists share their work.
Address: Morrison Room, UCLA Faculty Club, 480 Charles E Young Dr E, Los Angeles, CA 90095
Register: https://retirees.ucla.edu/event-5627748/Registration.
Harvard University honesty researcher Francesca Gino, whose work has come under fire for suspected data falsification, may also have plagiarized passages in some of her high-profile publications. A book chapter co-authored by Gino, who was found by a 2023 Harvard Business School (HBS) investigation to have committed research misconduct, contains numerous passages of text with striking similarities to 10 earlier sources. The sources include published papers and student theses, according to an analysis shared with Science by University of Montreal psychologist Erinn Acland.
Science has confirmed Acland’s findings and identified at least 15 additional passages of borrowed text in Gino’s two books, Rebel Talent: Why it Pays to Break the Rules at Work and in Life and Sidetracked: Why Our Decisions Get Derailed, and How We Can Stick to the Plan. Some passages duplicate text from news reports or blogs. Others contain phrasing identical to passages from academic literature. The extent of duplication varies between passages, but all contain multiple identical phrases, as well as clear paraphrases and significant structural similarity.
Gino is “steadfast in her commitment to uncovering the truth in each instance, responding decisively and correcting the record if necessary,” her lawyer, Andrew Miltenberg, said in a statement. “It is wildly unfair and prejudicial to litigate these accusations in the volatile domain of public opinion. History has shown the peril of premature judgment, particularly within the scientific community, where reputations can be irreparably tarnished.” The HBS investigation recommended the university begin the process of terminating Gino’s employment, and her institutional profile has stated since June 2023 that she is on administrative leave...
Full story at https://www.science.org/content/article/embattled-harvard-honesty-professor-accused-plagiarism.
So, one could also note that there was no similar announcement of an incoming UCLA chancellor, nor has there been one since. As of this morning, there is no listing of a special Regents meeting on the Regents' website to consider such a candidate.
Just saying...
Here's an update on the bill that would circumvent the Regent's decision not to pursue a legal test of whether UC, as a state entity, could hire undocumented students. (Yours truly admits to being slow in catching up on developments.) From the Bruin:
The Assembly Higher Education Committee approved Assembly Bill 2586 – also known as the Opportunity for All Act – introduced by Assemblymember David Alvarez, who represents the state’s 80th Assembly District. If passed by the state legislature and signed into law, the bill would provide equal opportunity, nondiscriminatory employment opportunities for students without documentation in the UC, California State University and community college systems...
After the board’s subsequent decision in January to reject its implementation plan and defer the consideration of other efforts for a year, the Opportunity for All campaign – a student-led, UC-wide advocate coalition for undocumented students – had to break new legal ground, said Ahilan Arulanantham, faculty co-director of the Center for Immigration and Law and legal counsel for Opportunity for All. Arulanantham said he was well aware of the bill before the regents’ January decision [to drop the effort], though he initially thought it would be an unnecessary measure...
Full story at https://dailybruin.com/2024/04/14/opportunity-for-all-advances-in-state-legislature-with-new-bill.
We're catching up with the Regents' April 10th meeting which - as we already noted - included the announcement of the new Berkeley chancellor.* At public comments, topics discussed included collective bargaining of interns, sexual assault services funding, antisemitism in a course at the UCLA med school and other related incidents, anti-Israel divestment, and Blackrock.
After the session on naming the new Berkeley chancellor, the Health Services Committee heard a discussion of the changing economics of medical education, research, and hospitals. UC were reported to receive less state support than the average of public university med programs but more in research gants. Clinical revenue was said to be subsidizing the other functions, but it is being squeezed by lower reimbursements from Medi-Cal, Medicare, and private insurance. Insurers don't like university hospitals because of higher charges and there are only 5 major insurance companies now who are in a position to exert monopsonistic power over charges. That has led public university health systems such as at UC to grow to attain offsetting bargaining power. There is danger in the future that the enlarging clinical side will tend to overwhelm the academic side. UC was said to be the second largest provider to Medi-Cal but the general public and the legislature is unaware of this contribution.
The meeting then turned to services for sexual assault victims with a particular focus on UC-Merced which doesn't have a med school.
Finally, Academic and Student Affairs heard discussion of various med programs and approved tuition increases for them.
As always, we preserve the recordings of Regents meetings indefinitely because the Regents have no policy on duration of preservation.
The general website for the April 10th meeting is at:
https://archive.org/details/regents-board-public-comment-4-10-2024.
The public comments segment is at:
The Berkeley chancellor announcement is at:
Health Services is at:
Academic and Student Affairs is at:
===
*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2024/04/new-berkeley-chancellor.html and https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2024/04/new-berkeley-chancellor-part-2-things.html.
Medicare Advantage (MA) plans - a privatized version of Medicare for those who are Medicare-eligible - now account for more than half of all Medicare recipients. These plans are advertised on TV and elsewhere, mainly to retirees, and seemingly provide a cheaper option than traditional Medicare with an insurance supplement. To entice enrollment, they generally tout add-ons such as gym memberships. In principle, the plans are to provide whatever traditional Medicare would. But once retirees enroll, actual eligibility for procedures is determined by the insurance company.
For many years, there have been allegations that the federal government is overpaying insurers on a risk-adjusted basis, thus accounting for the promotion and grown of MA plans. UC in particular offers an MA option which is cheap compared with the traditional Medicare+supplement package. At one time, UCOP - or some within UCOP - seemed to have a grand plan to offer only MA to retirees and emeriti, although that effort was halted after protests. So the question at UC and nationally now is what happens if the feds decide they are overpaying and begin to cut back. Many UC retirees and emeriti have gone the MA route because it is cheap. Now it appears that anticipated development at the federal level is beginning to occur. From Yahoo Finance:
Health insurers usually breathe a sigh of relief after the federal government posts final Medicare Advantage payment rates. Normally, after a public comment period (and aggressive industry lobbying), regulators finalize a friendlier notice than what they originally put out. That was not the case ...when the Biden administration finalized MA rates for 2025 essentially unchanged from a proposal that had industry up in arms earlier this year. It’s a modest base rate cut, though regulators stressed that insurers will still get billions of dollars more in 2025 than they will this year after coding for members’ medical conditions.
Still, shares in major MA players including UnitedHealth, Humana, Elevance, CVS and Centene fell Monday after the rates, which Leerink Partners senior research analyst Whit Mayo deemed “well below expectations,” were finalized. Insurer lobbies slammed the rule, with groups like the Better Medicare Alliance and AHIP arguing it doesn’t account for rising care utilization among Medicare seniors and will force payers to reduce benefits and raise premiums...
Full story at https://finance.yahoo.com/news/biden-administration-finalizes-modest-cut-164714253.html.
There is a bill kicking around in the State Assembly's Higher Ed committee that would do what the Regents didn't do: Require UC (and CSU and the community colleges) to hire undocumented students. A proponent argues that if the state mandates UC to do it, even if the federal government sued, individuals at UC would be protected because they would just be following state law.
Bill AB 2586
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Article 3.8 (commencing with Section 66029) is added to Chapter 2 of Part 40 of Division 5 of Title 3 of the Education Code, to read: 3.8 Campus Employment 66029.
(a) A campus of the The University of California, California State University, or California Community Colleges shall not disqualify a student from being eligible to apply hired for an employment position at the campus due to their failure to provide proof of federal work authorization, except in either of the following cases:
(1) Where that proof is required by federal law.
(2) Where that proof is required as a condition of a grant that funds the particular employment position for which the student has applied.
(b) For purposes of this section, each campus of the University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges shall treat the prohibition on hiring unauthorized aliens undocumented noncitizens in subdivision (a) of Section 1324a of Title 8 of the United States Code as inapplicable because that provision of federal law does not state that it applies to apply to any branch of state government.
(c) To the extent student employment is considered a benefit for purposes of federal law, this statute shall constitute authorization to provide that benefit for purposes of subdivision (d) of Section 1621 of Title 8 of the United States Code.
(d) The University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges shall adopt regulations to implement and administer this article within 90 days of the effective date of the act adding this article. by January 6, 2025.
(e) Consistent This article shall apply to the University of California, unless it is found to be inapplicable to the University of California, then, consistent with Section 67400, this article shall apply to the University of California only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California, by appropriate resolution, make it applicable.
SEC. 2.
If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
Source: https://digitaldemocracy.calmatters.org/bills/ca_202320240ab2586.
Note that ultimately the Assembly and the Senate would have to enact the bill and the governor would have to sign it before it became law.
She is expected to return to LAX at 5 p.m., likely leading to a northbound freeway closure during the afternoon rush hour.
The Secret Service does not publicize motorcade routes, but freeways do shut down for the vice presidential motorcade. It is not clear how long Harris will remain in the area.
Source: https://patch.com/california/santamonica/s/ivxaw/vice-presidential-motorcade-shuts-down-405-freeway.
John Pérez is one of the more influential members of the Board of Regents. In the past, he chaired the board. He also has had a political career as speaker of the State Assembly and as political director of the California Federation of Labor. In an interview with Politico, he reflected on recent events at the Regents including protests that temporarily shut down a meeting, recent events connected to the Berkeley Law School, the issue of departmental political statements, and related matters. I suspect his thinking on these issues reflects opinions of a majority of the Board. Worth reading:
‘The Antisemitism Is Absolutely Disproportionate’
“The students overstepped the line,” says UC Regent John Pérez.
By Melanie Mason 4/14/2024
The fractious, sometimes violent debate over the Israel-Hamas war on college campuses has not cooled, even as the conflict enters its sixth month. College administrators have struggled to figure out the right balance between some students’ rights to free speech and others’ rights to be protected from discrimination and harassment.
That debate erupted at UC Berkeley this week when a dinner for graduating students held at the home of law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky devolved into a heated confrontation when a Muslim student disrupted the event to make a pro-Palestinian speech and was physically confronted by Chemerinsky’s wife, Catherine Fisk.* A fierce fight about freedom of speech — and accusations of anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish bias — quickly followed.
The debate at Berkeley is particularly notable since the campus was the birthplace of the student Free Speech Movement in the 1960s. The crown jewel of the University of California system is now under investigation by both the federal Department of Education and House Republicans about its on-campus antisemitism.
One of the administrators navigating this crisis is John A. Pérez, who sits on the Board of Regents for the University of California, the governing body of the sprawling 10 campus public university system that has nearly 300,000 students. Pérez, who attended Berkeley as an undergraduate, is used to the political spotlight, having served for four years as the state’s Assembly speaker. In an interview, Pérez told POLITICO that the student protest at Chemerinsky’s home crossed a line and described how campus leaders can do more to push back on what he sees as a dangerous surge in campus antisemitism.
This transcript has been condensed and edited for clarity.
Let’s start with the protest and confrontation at Dean Chemerinsky’s home in Berkeley. Do you think that the students stepped over the line by interrupting this dinner? Did the dean or his wife, Professor Catherine Fisk, step over the line in shutting down their remarks?
The students overstepped the line by disrupting a purely social event at a private home that was intended to celebrate the collective accomplishments of all the third-year law students. They telegraphed their opposition by calling for a boycott [in advance of the event] — that was fine, that was completely within their rights. But they did it in a horrific way, by employing an antisemitic caricature of Dean Chemerinsky.
What’s interesting is Dean Chemerinsky is a nationally renowned First Amendment expert. And even though he was offended and hurt by the caricature, he defended their right to employ it. He has been the most consistent protector of First Amendment rights of students and student protests as well as others, even when he’s the target of it.
That’s different than what the students ended up doing, which is going to the house, disrupting the event, refusing to leave when asked to leave, confronting and asserting a First Amendment right that I don’t believe they had at a private home and then asserting that they had legal representation to do it. When Professor Fisk again asked them to leave and they didn’t, and then she confronted and tried to take away the mic, I’m sure in retrospect, she wished she would have handled that slightly differently. But that doesn’t forgive the act of the students disrupting and violating the private personal space and refusing to leave when asked.
What should be the consequences for these students?
So these are my individual opinions as somebody who believes in the right to protest, somebody who’s engaged in a lot of protest on the Berkeley campus, myself, and somebody who’s deeply concerned about campus climate and creating an environment that neither stifles free speech, but also doesn’t victimize and marginalize people.
Students broadly have been put on notice that if there’s further disruptions, folks will be turned over to Student Conduct and appropriate evaluations will be made. The question becomes whether the campus decides to engage in a student conduct investigation of this and whether the students involved will say they didn’t have fair notice that this crossed the line. That’s something that the campus has got to wrestle with. And I think the campus could come to either conclusion in defensible ways. They can come to the conclusion that students could have misinterpreted this because it’s hosted by the dean as being the same as anything on campus. And the campus can also come to the conclusion that my God, these are third-year law students at one of the top law schools in the country, and that they should have a better understanding about the consequences of their actions.
UC Berkeley, in particular, is in the national imagination as a place of protests — during the Vietnam War in particular. Do you feel like these current protests on campus are different than protests in the past? And if so, how?
I do think they’re different.
In each of those waves of previous protests, there was a notion from students that engaging in the protest had to serve the purpose of bringing people along in an area of debate, creating space to protest, but also to change minds and bring people in the direction of the justice that they were trying to seek. But there was also a concept of consequences associated with protest. If you want protest without consequence, what you really want is performance. And I think that right now we’re seeing folks engaging in disruption, without an understanding or appreciation for what consequences can come up with it, which I think can sometimes be performative.
Second, it feels like much of the protest now isn’t, at least from my perspective, effective in trying to move debate and create space to find a new common ground that aligns with the justice that the protesters are seeking. When it’s disruption for the sake of disruption, as opposed to civil disobedience to capture attention and create space for debate, I think it serves a fundamentally different [purpose].
When you look at the Free Speech Movement, it was about creating the space for all debate, including debate that one disagrees with. What we’ve seen of late is something very different, which is shutting down debate. Last year, at Berkeley Law School, student groups passed a series of resolutions, essentially banning debate, saying that holders of “Zionist viewpoints” would not be allowed to come [to their events]. That’s very different. It’s one thing to say any given organization shouldn’t be compelled to invite somebody who has a viewpoint that’s contrary to theirs. But to say that we want to ban a whole section of debate is inherently problematic in society. It’s particularly problematic in law school, and particularly problematic in a law school centered in a place that in many ways was the birth of the free speech movement on university campuses.
There has been a horrible spike in antisemitic activity across college campuses across the country, but particularly at elite universities, and there’s been a spike in the community more broadly as well. And I don’t think that we, societally and we, as university leaders, have done enough to push back against this spike in antisemitism.
I don’t know. I struggle with this. One theory is that there’s been significant funding of organizations on elite campuses to push back against the policies of the state of Israel. Second, you look at a student population that is generationally different in its worldview than folks of my age. I’m in my 50s. My fundamental experiences looking at the state of Israel are different than somebody in their 20s. Somebody in their 20s has grown up with an Israel that’s been disproportionately governed by the Netanyahu government, and a government that has been more conservative. Somebody of my age would’ve seen a variety of different expressions of leadership in Israel. I think it’s allowed for a certain shorthand that I think is ahistoric.
I think you can be, as I am, a supporter of the existence of the state of Israel and the ability of Israel to defend itself and a critic of the current administration leading Israel and the policies of the administration. You can be a critic of government there just like you can be a critic of government here. So I could be a critic of a Trump administration and a supporter of America, somebody else can be a critic of the Biden administration and still a supporter of America. We don’t seem to have a generational ability to afford that same duality with respect to viewing Israel.
But it goes further than that. What we’re seeing is stuff that we saw in the Chemerinsky caricature, which goes back to old antisemitic tropes — blood libel with respect to the way they depicted Erwin with the bloody knife and fork — and a sense that we’re holding all Jews accountable for anything that we find problematic with respect to the situation [in Gaza] unless and until they actively renounce and reject Israel. That’s really problematic. It really goes against all of the standards of community that we have.
If it was any other group, we wouldn’t do it. We’re not seeing on college campuses, attacks and questioning every student of Russian heritage because we take issue with the Putin administration, and what they’ve done in Ukraine and other places around the world. We’re not seeing where we’re attacking every Muslim student, because we take issue with what Hamas did on Oct. 7. One can debate the space between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. But one would have to have serious blinders not to recognize that what’s happening on college campuses, UCs included, is a series of activities that are targeting Jewish students because of their identities, making them feel unsafe and apart from the rest of the community in a way that really should have no place in our society and no place on our college campuses.
But we have seen spikes in incidences of Islamophobia and anti-Arab sentiment, too.
Absolutely.
Are you saying that the antisemitism we’re seeing is disproportionate?
The antisemitism is absolutely disproportionate. We reject both. We reject all forms of hatred. But what we’re not seeing is massive student protests targeting every Muslim-identified student, asking students of Muslim or Arabic background to denounce or renounce something that they have no part in. The numbers and the spikes are vastly different, and the types of incidences are vastly different.
I was on the Los Angeles City Human Relations Commission, I think I was president at the time in 2001 when 9/11 happened. We immediately came together and said, ’how do we avoid an irrational targeting of Muslim members of our community in the wake of the response to 9/11?’ Now that said, we saw spikes in anti-Muslim activities, Islamophobic activities. That was problematic and offensive. And we’ve seen some of that now, and we have to speak out against that.
It’s interesting to me that the only time where we have to do this both sides-y rejection is when the victims are Jewish. When we saw a spike in anti-Asian hate crimes over the last couple of years, there was no immediate pushback that said, now you have to reject these other forms [of hate]. In fact, after George Floyd, when we were talking about Black Lives Matter, there was a clear distinction that if you responded by saying, “All Lives Matter,” that yes, that’s true that all lives matter, but if you were doing it reflexively you are denying the real pattern and problem of what was happening in the African American community. So we’ve got to be careful in that we should be able to have a conversation about the spike in antisemitism, the very clear expression of antisemitism, without then having to do a litany of [denouncing other forms of hate in order] to renounce the antisemitism.
There are a number of California campuses, including three UC campuses — Berkeley, UCLA and San Diego — that at the moment are under investigation by the federal Department of Education in the wake of the Oct. 7 attacks because of discriminatory incidents. What can you tell us about where those investigations stand?
I can’t tell you anything about where those investigations stand. I’m not fully read in on the moment to moment of the investigations. And to the extent that I know anything in the middle of an investigation, it would be inappropriate for me to comment.
But at a certain level, there’s got to be a gut check. When you look at something, does it look right? And then can you go and figure out a way to confirm that your inclinations are correct, and that you can create defensible policies based on that? It was right that you asked about the 1960s in the Free Speech movement, and the antiwar movement. We’re 60 years later. We should have learned from 60 years. How do we adjust in real time? On many college campuses, there’s been such an orthodoxy around the First Amendment that there hasn’t been enough debate about how it exists in conflict with these other protections.
Let me give you an example of where I think students broadly would say the First Amendment should have limits — sexual harassment. We know that we can regulate certain speech that is, in fact, sexual harassment. At what point does the First Amendment come into conflict and into tension with other sets of laws and other protections? Again, I’m not a lawyer. I’m not a constitutional scholar. But there’s some basic common sense questions that are asked.
Another question around these free speech issues is directly on your plate as a regent. The regents are considering banning political statements from the department homepages. It’s largely been seen as a response to faculty groups posting critical statements of Israel and its conduct in Gaza. That vote has been delayed twice.
Who’s the person that moved to delay the votes?
It was you.
It’s an important area of debate and there hasn’t been enough work to land in the right place. And this does cut to the core of who we are. We shouldn’t have unreasonable restrictions on speech. And that speech can take many forms including posting on websites. When the first policy came forward, I didn’t think enough work had been done. So I moved to put it off. And this last one, I don’t know if I made the ultimate motion to put it off or not, but I think I did, again, because there’s more work.
Any regulation has to be content neutral. What I did say at the last meeting is the timing of it makes the action suspect. Had we done this a few years before, without the current tension, it would be less suspect than it is right now. Now, college campuses have free speech zones. Public buildings have places where free speech is and is not allowed. I think it’s reasonable to say that as we move to a world that significantly exists and people interact with online, you can make distinctions between places where you have official business versus opinion. It’s appropriate. Newspapers have editorial and opinion pages and letters to the editor. Websites don’t do as good a job, in my opinion, of moderating comments, but there’s a distinction between editorial space, news space, opinion space. I think it’s reasonable to try to find that distinction if it’s 1) content neutral, and 2) provides an equally accessible way to access people’s opinions.
I’d like for you to put on your jersey as a lifelong Democrat for a moment. You know that a crucial part of your party’s coalition depends on young people. When you see the intensity of the reaction to the Israel-Hamas war on campus and the criticism that Biden is getting for how he’s been handling this, does that make you worried for November?
You’ve seen the Biden administration’s view and interaction with Israel evolve in real time based on real circumstances. Biden, who has a lifetime record of having a very positive relationship with Israel, has also been trying to hold the Netanyahu administration accountable and pushing back. Is that enough to satisfy the critics? Of course not. It’s appropriate to have tension. But in the end, elections are about choices. This is going to be a question about Biden versus Trump. Students, like everybody else, need to look at the totality of everything that they’re offering as candidates and I think that young people will once again overwhelmingly vote for Biden.
That sounds to me like you’re not very worried.
No, no. I’m worried. But I’m also hopeful. This doesn’t happen magically. It happens by having conversations, by engaging voters, by talking to voters, by looking at what’s at issue. It’s not enough to say, “Hey, young people are going to be so offended by what Trump is doing on abortion...” You have to speak to the concerns that they’ve articulated.
You’re Mexican American and grew up with deep ties to the Jewish community in east L.A. This week, a new poll said 40 percent of Latinos support a cease-fire and nearly 40 percent believe the U.S. should not be involved in the conflict. Does it concern you that these two communities that you have been so much a part of seem to have a fraying relationship?
It worries me that Americans writ large are becoming more isolationist. There’s not only an interest in us playing less of a role in the conflict in the Middle East, but there’s a spike in folks wanting us to play less of a role in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. But yes, it bothers me that there’s less of a connection between communities that have historically been connected. But Latinos exist in the same world that everybody else does. Latinos are a disproportionately young community — younger on average than just about any other ethnic group. And young people have grown up with 20 years of the Netanyahu administration that they increasingly take issue with.
Latinos also are horrified by what happened on Oct. 7. Absolutely horrified — by murder, by rape, by torture, by kidnapping. Part of the problem with a poll is what question you’re asking. What does cease-fire mean? Does cease-fire mean a temporary cease-fire, does it mean an effort at sustainable peace? I’m somebody who’s supportive of cease-fire. It can’t be unilateral. It doesn’t work that way.
Putting the polls aside, do you sense a fraying in the relationship between Jews and Latinos?
I think there’s a little fraying in the relationship but what I think we’re seeing is a national spike in antisemitism and it expresses itself in every community. Latinos don’t exist in a bubble. And there has been a persistent rise in antisemitism. And it goes unchecked in ways that discriminatory actions against other communities do not go unchecked.
When somebody on a college campus targets a Muslim student for identity, targets a Muslim woman for wearing traditional garb, there is offense taken and a pushback. The same isn’t expressing itself when we’re seeing antisemitic acts. At the last Regents meeting, protesters erected an effigy, in violation of policy, of a bloody pig holding a cage, bags of money and [it] said “UC regents time is running out.” Protesters came and took over the Regents meeting and the room was cleared. I think three of us stayed in the room to listen. Nobody took the opportunity to speak to the three of us. It was just chants. And the chants weren’t about a policy, the chants were about Jews. They were about Jews. It wasn’t about this university policy or that university policy, it wasn’t even that the regents need to divest. It was about Jews. It was antisemitic.
What were the chants?
“We’ve got to go after these Jews.” “We got to stop the Jewish lobby.” It was very clear.
We have gotten to a point of both sides-ism in this question, which is completely not constructive. When I go around to different college campuses, I tend to meet with a cross section of students and faculty. I have only in my 14 years on the board been challenged once about trying to meet with a group of students. And it was trying to meet with a group of Jewish students on a campus where there have been efforts to target their Hillel. The campus told me that if you meet with Jewish students, you have to meet with the Muslim students. I said, “I’m meeting with students at Hillel because Hillel was targeted.” There’s no balancing that needs to happen. If you asked me to meet with Muslim students because I’m on campus, I’m happy to do it. But it can’t be because I’m meeting with Jewish students. When I go meet with Latino students, I don’t have to go balance that by meeting with somebody else. When I go meet with LGBTQ students, I don’t have to balance that with meeting somebody else. When I go meet veteran students that are dealing with the complexity of coming back after having served and navigating a college campus, I’m not told you now have to go meet with another group. The only time it’s ever happened was in one instance trying to meet the Jewish students. It shouldn’t be the case.
Anything else you’d like to add?
I take all of this personally. I take it a little more personally at a UC because I have responsibility for UC. I take it a little more personally still at Berkeley because it’s such an important part of my life experience. Berkeley is the first place where I ever experienced a Ramadan. Berkeley was the first place I ever meaningfully engaged with the Muslim student community and navigated making sure that we were an inclusive campus for Muslim students. As you mentioned, I have a clear, very personal tie to the Jewish community. But that’s not an exclusion of a tie and an interest in the Muslim community. Having a deep connection to one community doesn’t mean that there’s not a concern and care for another.
====
The Academic Senate has put out a call for comments by April 22. Comments received will be discussed at the Academic Council on April 24. If you have a comment, send it to:
Note: When you send comments to the systemwide email address above, you may receive a response saying you should send your comment through your campus Senate office. Clicking on the departmental statement option on the UCLA campus Senate website currently gives an error message. I suggest you try the general UCLA Senate address:
Harris and Emhoff are expected to spend Sunday at their Brentwood home before the vice president heads to Nevada on Monday.
Full story at https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2024-04-13/harris-hammers-trump-on-abortion-in-surprise-los-angeles-appearance.
Yours truly keeps track of TMT developments but somehow missed the information below. TMT, of which UC is a partner, is competing with a Chilean telescope project for NSF funding and it appears that only one project will be funded. The Chilean telescope construction is already underway, while TMT is stalled by state politics in Hawaii over concerns by native Hawaiians, as blog readers will know. From Science Policy News:
The National Science Foundation’s governing board has set a $1.6 billion ceiling on the agency’s potential contribution of construction funding for the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) and/or the Giant Magellan Telescope (GMT). The decision, announced on Feb. 27, implies that NSF is unlikely to fund construction of both telescopes. In particular, the board has asked NSF to report back by May on “its plan to select which of the two candidate telescopes the agency plans to continue to support.”
Asked for clarification on this statement, a board spokesperson replied, “Based on what the board knows now, it anticipates that a down-selection will be necessary.” The spokesperson also said the board looks forward to getting an update in May on the status of “partner contributions” to the projects. NSF has funded design and technology development work for each telescope but has not requested construction funds for either. Each telescope is far from covering their total costs through partner contributions, leading them to seek support from NSF.
The GMT’s partner institutions have committed more than $850 million in cash and in-kind contributions to date toward a total project cost of $2.54 billion, according to a spokesperson for the project. The TMT’s partners have contributed cash and in-kind contributions totalling $2.0 billion, according to a spokesperson for the TMT. The spokesperson did not offer an estimate of the total cost of the TMT, stating the amount is “dependent upon a number of factors, in particular the schedule.” Construction of the GMT has already begun in Chile, but TMT construction on Mauna Kea in Hawaii has been paused since 2019 due to reservations from local community members who view the mountain as sacred. The TMT has considered using a site in the Canary Islands as an alternative.
The NSF board’s action does not guarantee that the agency will seek construction funds for even one of the telescopes, and the ultimate contribution may be well less than $1.6 billion even if it proceeds. The agency is weighing proposals for other major scientific infrastructure projects both across other disciplines and within astronomy itself, which has struggled in recent years to cover the operations costs of new telescopes. The ultimate arbiter of what will be funded is Congress, which controls NSF’s construction budget on a project-by-project basis...
Full story at https://ww2.aip.org/fyi/nsf-likely-to-drop-one-of-two-giant-telescopes-from-consideration-for-construction-funds.
We now have data on cash receipts of the state's general fund from the state controller for the first nine months of the fiscal year, i.e., through March. Of course, more will depend on April when income taxes are due. However, the first nine months show the basic problem the state is facing.
When the current state budget was enacted, the projection was that the state would receive $169 billiion July-March. By the time the governor made his budget proposal for next fiscal year in January, the estimate had been cut to $146 billion, a big drop. But even that number appears to be an overestimate. Actual receipts were $140 billion. Most of the drop is accounted for by the personal income tax and corporate tax.
Still, the state is not in the kind of emergency situation it was in back in 2009 when it ran out of cash to pay its liabilities and handed out IOUs. It is still sitting on unused cash resources of $86 bilion so there won't be a need for borrowing from external financial markets and there won't be IOUs. But there will be stringency in whatever budget is enacted for 2024-25.
You can find the latest controller's statement at:
https://sco.ca.gov/Files-ARD/CASH/March2024StatementofGeneralFundCashReceiptsandDisbursements.pdf.
From the Washington Post: Harvard College will require applicants to submit standardized test scores once again, becoming the latest Ivy League school to reinstate the requirement after making the choice optional during the pandemic. The university had previously said it would remain test-optional through the 2025-2026 application cycle. But on Thursday, it said students applying to the college for fall 2025 admission — hoping to join the graduating class of 2029 — will now have to submit standardized test scores as part of their admissions package.
Harvard becomes the latest Ivy League school to reinstate the requirement after making the choice optional during the pandemic. Dartmouth College, Yale and Brown universities announced similar changes in recent weeks, after officials cited data suggesting that SAT and ACT scores were the best predictors of students’ academic performance at their schools — and that making the tests optional could further disadvantage applicants from more challenging backgrounds...
Full story at https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2024/04/11/harvard-reinstates-sat-act-admissions-requirement/.
Note that the UC Regents were also told by an Academic Senate report "that making the tests optional could further disadvantage applicants from more challenging backgrounds." But they abolished the tests anyway.
