Similar but different

Columbia - as blog readers will know - got a letter from the feds with various demands and appeared to concede after funds were frozen. So far, however, the funds have not been unfrozen. Columbia's endowment is $14.8 billion, which, as we have noted, is much smaller than Harvard's. Harvard did not concede when it got a letter (which may or may not have been sent by mistake).

Northwestern has an endowment of $14.2 billion, similar to Columbia's. Its total enrollment is around 23,000, compared with around 31,000 for Columbia. So it is more similar to Columbia than it is to Harvard.

Northwestern has received "stop orders" from the feds on various grants. But it hasn't received a letter of demands. In response, it announced it would backstop the funding for the grants with stop orders using its own resources. 

...In a letter to the university community, Board of Trustees Chairman Peter Barris and President Michael Schill said... the university will step in to fund the research subject to those stop-work orders as well as research threatened by the federal funding freeze. Barris and Schill said the move intends to keep the projects going until they "have a better understanding of the funding landscape." ...

Full story from CBS News-Chicago at:

https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/northwestern-research-grants-trump-federal-funding-freeze/.

In short, Harvard said it would not comply with the letter and would take legal action. It did not say it would backstop funding for frozen grants. Northwestern said it would for now backstop funding. But it hasn't said what it would do if it got a letter similar to those received by Columbia and Harvard.

Harvard Got Another Letter

Harvard got another letter dated April 19th from the feds, this time from the Office of Civil Rights.

The 8-page April 19th letter demands:

All reports of Harvard University’s Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias, including any version that was initially publicly disseminated, any version that is publicly available today, and any other version that was ever publicly disseminated. This request is not limited by the manner of dissemination, and includes dissemination as a standalone document, or as a webpage, or in any other manner that made the content of a report available for public view.

and

All reports of Harvard University’s Presidential Task Force on Combating Anti-Muslim, Anti-Arab, and Anti-Palestinian Bias, including any version that was initially publicly disseminated, any version that is publicly available today, and any other version that was ever publicly disseminated. This request is not limited by the manner of dissemination, and includes dissemination as a standalone document, or as a webpage, or in any other manner that made the content of a report available for public view.

In both cases, it goes into detail demanding drafts and background materials for the two reports. According to The Free Press which obtained the letter, the reports were due in the fall of last year but have not appeared.*

===

*https://www.thefp.com/p/harvard-antisemitism-task-force-trump. The letter is at:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mSgXmcvtYG70SXQyGw8wWOrO4xvF2znW/view or

https://ia600402.us.archive.org/9/items/2-final-hjaa-report.-the-soil-beneath-the-encampments/Harvard%20Data%20Request%20from%20OCR%204-19-2025.pdf.

More on toil and trouble at the Assembly - Update

Yesterday, we noted on this blog that the issue of an ethnic studies requirement for undergraduate admission to UC was before the systemwide Assembly. There are reports on the web that the requirement was rejected.

Perhaps there will be more detail tomorrow.

No word on what happened to the subsequent proposals related to the UC calendar and high executive pay that had been put on the agenda by petition.

Again, perhaps there will be more info tomorrow.

Just noting...

Reuters/Ipsos poll.  

More poll results and story at https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-approval-rating-dips-many-wary-his-wielding-power-reutersipsos-poll-finds-2025-04-21/.

There could be toil and trouble at today's systemwide Assembly

As blog readers will know, there is scheduled today at the systemwide Academic Senate Assembly discussion and vote on two issues put on the agenda by petition. One deals with a possibly systemwide academic calendar - which seems to be code for everyone moving to a uniform semester system including campuses now on quarters. (UC-SF, with no undergraduates, is not included.) 

The other proposal is basically a complaint about excessive managerial pay. Senate leadership is not happy with either - or being forced by petition to deal with them. The two petition proposals appear as the last item on the agenda, Item VIII. One can thus imagine that the meeting will run out of time, or out of a quorum, and the items will be delayed to some subsequent meeting.

That possibility seems even more likely given the prior Item VII dealing with an ethnic studies requirement for high school students applying to UC. The state legislature has effectively put that matter on the agenda, but there has been political controversy over the issue there. Governor Newsom has been on both sides of the issue. He put no money in his January budget proposal for high schools to implement the proposal which means - assuming he doesn't add money for implementation to his upcoming May Revise budget proposal - that he doesn't actually want implementation anytime soon. Of course, the legislature could put money in for implementation, and - in theory - the governor could use his line-item veto to remove it. Or not. In any event, there is likely to be time-consuming debate on Item VII.

Below is an excerpt from the Assembly's agenda for Item VII:

VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

1. Proposed revisions to Senate Regulation 424.A.3 (A-G Ethnic Studies)

Background and Justification: In July 2024, the Academic Council voted to advance proposed revisions to Senate Regulation 424.A.3 for Assembly consideration. The amendment would introduce a new A-G ethnic studies requirement (also known as “Area H”) to the A–G course pattern for freshman admission to UC. This change aligns UC’s admissions criteria with California Assembly Bill (AB) 101, which calls for an ethnic studies graduation requirement for all public high schools beginning in 2029–2030. The proposal does not increase the total number of required A–G courses (minimum 15), but specifies that one course among the 15 must be an approved one-semester (halfunit) ethnic studies course. The revised proposal includes updated course criteria and guidelines developed by BOARS’ Ethnic Studies Implementation Workgroup, reflecting feedback received during two systemwide Academic Senate reviews—the most recent of which was conducted in 2023–2024.

The Assembly held an extensive discussion of the pros and cons of the proposal at its December 12, 2024 meeting. This discussion brought to light uncertainties surrounding state funding for AB 101 and unresolved implementation challenges. The Assembly passed a motion to postpone the vote on the A-G ethnic studies proposal until the April 2025 Assembly meeting when these issues could be more fully addressed and several matters could be clarified.

Since then, the Academic Senate has confirmed with UC State Governmental Relations and the State Board of Education that the California K-12 ethnic studies graduation requirement for public high schools will only take effect if the California Legislature appropriates funding for implementation. As of December 2024, no such appropriation has been made, and state officials have indicated that, without funding, the ethnic studies graduation requirement will not apply.

To further assess K–12 implementation readiness, UC High School Articulation conducted a 2025 follow-up survey of high schools offering A–G-approved courses. The survey asked about plans to develop or expand ethnic studies offerings, types of courses available, implementation challenges, and support needs. UC High School Articulation also updated its 2023 analysis to estimate how many current A–G courses might qualify as ethnic studies based on 2024–2025 course lists.

All related reports, background information, and FAQs shared in December 2024 are included in the meeting attachments.

ACTION REQUESTED: The Assembly considers endorsement of the proposal. If approved, it will be forwarded to President Drake to convey to the UC Board of Regents for further consideration.

(There follows a long listing of information about the proposed requirement.)

Source: https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/assembly/assembly-agenda-4-23-25.pdf.

=====

Yours truly will be involved in another meeting when the Assembly meets. So he won't be able to deliver a blow-by-blow account of what happens to Items VII and VIII. But Politico has a lengthy piece about the ethnic studies controversy: [excerpt]

In January, the Palo Alto school board met to discuss requiring high schoolers to take courses covering the displacement of Native Americans and the Black Panthers’ role in the Civil Rights Movement. For one school board member, the day ended with death threats.

Teaching ethnic studies — courses about different cultures and historically marginalized groups — would not appear a likely source of controversy in the deep-blue, immigrant-heavy Silicon Valley city. But years of tension boiled over on a brisk winter night, over how the curriculum was released and the way oppression would be taught. In a school district where Asian students represent 40 percent of enrollees, some immigrants feel that the courses define power and privilege in a way that undermines the accomplishments of ethnic minorities.

“Asian Americans, many of whom came here with nothing and worked their way up from nothing — they see this course that labels us as privileged and powerful and perpetuating systemic oppression for having the audacity to build a good life,” said Karthi Gottipati, a student at Palo Alto High School who served as the student board representative last year...

But the rebellion over ethnic studies is largely not coming from conservative, overwhelmingly white districts where the mandate has been mostly accepted without controversy. Rather the conflict is playing out within the traditional Democratic coalition, pitting social-justice-oriented liberals against high-achieving immigrant groups and moderates who claim an alternative curriculum pushed by progressives goes too far. California’s ethnic studies debate has become a test case for the difficulty Democrats could face maintaining a racially mixed and highly educated coalition as school diversity issues move to the top of the national agenda in the second Trump era.

...California has led the country in moving toward universal ethnic studies, thanks to a push over the past decade by progressive educators and civil rights activists. In 2016, the Legislature overwhelmingly passed a first-in-the-nation law instructing state education officials to design an approach for teaching high school history with an emphasis on racial and ethnic differences. But as they worked to produce a model curriculum that individual districts could adapt to their demographics, Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown balked at making new courses mandatory. Brown vetoed a 2018 bill to do so, citing concerns about what another graduation requirement would mean for “already overburdened” students.

California’s public universities have begun to embrace ethnic studies. The Legislature in 2020 voted to require California State University students to take one course as a graduation requirement across its campuses, and this month a recent alum filed paperwork to pursue a 2026 ballot initiative that would increase the system’s requirement to two. The University of California’s Academic Senate is currently considering whether to impose its own ethnic studies mandate.

But officials could not agree on what high schoolers should be taught. Ethnic studies is the only graduation requirement in California without state standards in the curriculum, leaving it ripe for political manipulation. External events, including the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officers and the conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, have altered the political dynamics around the courses even as broad support remains to teach ethnic studies.

...As the curriculum was being developed, progressives rallied behind an alternative “Liberated Ethnic Studies” model that aims to critique “power and oppression at the intersections of our society” such as white supremacy and patriarchy, encouraging students to challenge colonial and imperialist beliefs and connect with resistance movements for social justice. The curriculum is notably more sympathetic to Palestinians in teaching about the history of Mideast conflict.

...After Jewish groups expressed concern that students could be taught to view Jews as white oppressors, Newsom in 2020 vetoed another attempt to create an ethnic studies mandate. Newsom told the lawmaker who carried the bill that he “wanted a curriculum that would be … not offensive to any one particular group,” according to former Democratic Assemblymember Jose Medina.

Newsom reversed himself the following year after the Legislature’s Jewish Caucus put in amendments that it said at the time “expressly prohibit the use of curriculum that was rejected because of concerns about anti-Jewish and anti-Israel bias.” The updated model curriculum, which can guide districts but they are not required to follow, also added lessons about antisemitism and the Jewish, Arab, Armenian and Sikh American communities.

When Newsom approved the 2021 law, he praised ethnic studies courses that “enable students to learn their own stories, and those of their classmates, and a number of studies have shown that these courses boost student achievement over the long run — especially among students of color,” as he put it in a signing message. But he made sure to note that the courses should not include initial curriculum proposals that had been rejected by the state “due to concerns related to bias, bigotry, and discrimination.”

...The 2021 law requires all California high schools to offer ethnic studies as an elective course by the fall of 2025 and makes it a graduation requirement by 2029-30, but only if the Legislature follows through on funding it. The estimated cost of the program is $276 million for districts statewide per year in teachers’ salaries and new textbooks, the state’s Department of Education estimated in 2021. But Newsom notably omitted that money from the $322 billion budget proposal he introduced in January. A representative from Newsom’s Department of Finance told lawmakers who oversee education spending at an early March hearing that the governor did not plan to propose funding the course...

Full story at https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/20/this-high-school-course-is-dividing-districts-across-california-00299498.

Direct Pay for Student-Athletes Is Coming (if it isn't already here)

From USA Today:

Objectors to the proposed settlement of three athlete-compensation antitrust cases against the NCAA and Power Five conferences [last week] continued pursuing their arguments against final approval of the deal in responses to filings made hours earlier by the principal parties that included presumption revisions to the agreement and their case for a notable non-revision revision to roster limits that also are part of the deal.

Lawyers for various objectors and objector groups combined to make 12 filings during the one-day window that U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken had established for such responses at the close of her hearing April 7 on whether to grant final approval of the agreement, which would cover roughly 390,000 athletes. (A couple of the filings were received by the court on Tuesday, but not posted to the public-facing case record until Wednesday).

At issue is the outcome of a 10-year settlement that include $2.8 billion in damages from the NCAA and the conferences that would go to current and former athletes — and their lawyers — over the 10 years and enable Division I schools to start paying athletes directly for use of their name, image and likeness (NIL) starting July 1, subject to a per-school cap that would increase over time and be based on a percentage of certain athletics revenues...

It's expected that Wilken will not seek further filings from either side in the matter, leaving the door open for her to either finalize settlement or reject it at any point. Wilken has acknowledged the need for a timely decision given the coming July 1 deadline...

Full story at https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2025/04/16/ncaa-house-settlement-nil-objectors/83121713007/.

 

Similar and Very Different

About a month ago, we noted that federal revenue accounted for almost a third of the annual UC budget, the pie on the right.* A lot of that comes from med school receipts from research grants and revenues from Medicare and Medicaid. Since not all campuses have med schools, the percentage would vary considerably at the campus level with those with med schools more vulnerable than those without.

What about Harvard? It has a med school, but it doesn't own hospitals. It has a network of hospitals affiliated with it where research and training takes place. The alumni group at Columbia from which we have been drawing data about that university made an adjusted calculation for Harvard, factoring in the Harvard elements at affiliated hospitals.** The adjustment raised the Harvard operating budget to account for Harvard-related activity at the affiliated hospitals. In its calculation, almost 43% of the adjusted operating budget for Harvard comes from the feds, the pie on the left.

Given the roughness of the calculations for Harvard, we can say that Harvard and UC are similar on that dimension. 

Where they are different is in operating scale and endowments. UC's operating budget is $53.6 billion. Harvard's budget is $6.5 billion but when adjusted as above it gets moved up to $12.8 billion. Harvard's endowment is $53.2 billion. So even on an adjusted basis, Harvard's endowment is over 4 times its operating budget. UC's systemwide endowment is $29.5 billion but the campuses have their own separate endowments. Even so, putting all the UC endowments together would get you a number just comparable to a year's operation.

As has been pointed out by many, endowments are not free money. Donations often earmark their funds for particular purposes. Still Harvard is (much) better positioned than UC for a war with the feds.    

====

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2025/03/almost-one-third.html.

**https://standcolumbia.org/2025/04/19/issue-040-harvards-high-stakes-standoff-weather-the-storm-protect-the-mission/.

Forget Princip. Maybe it should have been the Ruth Galanter award

In a prior post, we awarded the Gavrilo Princip prize in connection with the letter that went from the feds to Harvard.* But maybe it should have been the Ruth Galanter award. From the Washington Post:

On Friday, the New York Times reported that two Trump administration sources said an April 11 letter signed by three federal officials to Harvard President Alan Garber was “unauthorized” and should not have been sent. The letter demanded the Massachusetts university come under government oversight and make changes related to student and faculty conduct, admissions, alleged antisemitism on campus and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs.

Harvard on Saturday pushed back on the assertion that the letter was sent in error, pointing out that the Trump administration had “doubled down” on its threats... “It remains unclear to us exactly what, among the government’s recent words and deeds, were mistakes or what the government actually meant to do and say,” the university said Saturday in a statement to The Washington Post. “But even if the letter was a mistake, the actions the government took this week have real-life consequences...

The White House did not respond to requests for comment, but a senior official there told the Times that the administration stood by the letter...

Full story at https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/04/19/harvard-trump-letter-mistake-unauthorized/.

====

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2025/04/we-have-winner-of-gavrilo-princip-award.html.

Harvard's Lawsuit Today Against the Feds

Harvard filed a lawsuit against the various federal agencies and individuals involved in the freeze of its funds. 

Media release:

Upholding Our Values, Defending Our University

4-21-2025

Dear Members of the Harvard Community,

Over the course of the past week, the federal government has taken several actions following Harvard’s refusal to comply with its illegal demands. Although some members of the administration have said their April 11 letter was sent by mistake, other statements and their actions suggest otherwise. Doubling down on the letter’s sweeping and intrusive demands—which would impose unprecedented and improper control over the University—the government has, in addition to the initial freeze of $2.2 billion in funding, considered taking steps to freeze an additional $1 billion in grants, initiated numerous investigations of Harvard’s operations, threatened the education of international students, and announced that it is considering a revocation of Harvard’s 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. These actions have stark real-life consequences for patients, students, faculty, staff, researchers, and the standing of American higher education in the world.

Moments ago, we filed a lawsuit to halt the funding freeze because it is unlawful and beyond the government’s authority. I encourage you to read our complaint.*

The consequences of the government’s overreach will be severe and long-lasting. Research that the government has put in jeopardy includes efforts to improve the prospects of children who survive cancer, to understand at the molecular level how cancer spreads throughout the body, to predict the spread of infectious disease outbreaks, and to ease the pain of soldiers wounded on the battlefield. As opportunities to reduce the risk of multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease, and Parkinson’s disease are on the horizon, the government is slamming on the brakes. The victims will be future patients and their loved ones who will suffer the heartbreak of illnesses that might have been prevented or treated more effectively. Indiscriminately slashing medical, scientific, and technological research undermines the nation’s ability to save American lives, foster American success, and maintain America’s position as a global leader in innovation.

The government has cited the University’s response to antisemitism as a justification for its unlawful action. As a Jew and as an American, I know very well that there are valid concerns about rising antisemitism. To address it effectively requires understanding, intention, and vigilance. Harvard takes that work seriously. We will continue to fight hate with the urgency it demands as we fully comply with our obligations under the law. That is not only our legal responsibility. It is our moral imperative.

Before taking punitive action, the law requires that the federal government engage with us about the ways we are fighting and will continue to fight antisemitism. Instead, the government’s April 11 demands seek to control whom we hire and what we teach. Today, we stand for the values that have made American higher education a beacon for the world. We stand for the truth that colleges and universities across the country can embrace and honor their legal obligations and best fulfill their essential role in society without improper government intrusion. That is how we achieve academic excellence, safeguard open inquiry and freedom of speech, and conduct pioneering research—and how we advance the boundless exploration that propels our nation and its people into a better future.

We acknowledge that we have unfinished business. We need to ensure that the University lives up to its ideals by taking concrete steps to reaffirm a culture of free inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and academic exploration; making changes to our disciplinary systems so they will be more consistent and more effective in ensuring that our students, faculty, and staff take responsibility for their actions; implementing measures to ensure that all members of our community are safe and respected; and adopting important adjustments to the ways we build community—continuing to focus on individuals and their unique characteristics rather than their race. In the days ahead, I will say more about our progress in each of these areas.

We will also soon release the reports of the Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias and the Task Force on Combating Anti-Muslim, Anti-Arab, and Anti-Palestinian Bias. I established these groups last year as part of our efforts to address intolerance in our community. The reports are hard-hitting and painful. They also include recommendations with concrete plans for implementation, which we welcome and embrace. No one in our community should experience bias, intolerance, or bigotry. We believe adoption of the recommendations and other measures will go far toward eradicating those evils on our campus.

The time ahead will demand much from each of us, but I am as confident as ever in our ability to meet our challenges with integrity and resolve, our minds set on the work before us and our hearts committed to the future of our beloved University.

Sincerely,

Alan M. Garber

Source: https://www.harvard.edu/president/news/2025/upholding-our-values-defending-our-university/.

=====

From the lawsuit:

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

...Plaintiff respectfully requests an order:

a. expediting the resolution of this action to prevent further harm to Plaintiff;

b. declaring unlawful Defendants’ Freeze Order and attendant unconstitutional conditions in the April 3 and April 11 Letters, as well as any terminations of, freezes of, or refusals to grant or to continue federal funding undertaken pursuant to those agency actions;

c. vacating and setting aside Defendants’ Freeze Order and attendant unconstitutional conditions in the April 3 and April 11 Letters, as well as any terminations of, freezes of, or refusals to grant or to continue federal funding undertaken pursuant to those agency actions;

d. postponing the effectiveness of the Freeze Order and attendant unconstitutional conditionsin the April 3 and April 11 Letters, as well as any terminations of, freezes of, or refusals to grant or to continue federal funding undertaken pursuant to those agency actions;

e. permanently enjoining Defendants, their agents, and all persons acting in concert or participation with Defendants from implementing, maintaining, or in any way giving effect to the Freeze Order and attendant unconstitutional conditions in the April 3 and April 11 Letters, as well as any terminations of, freezes of, or refusals to grant or to continue federal funding undertaken pursuant to those agency actions;

f. permanently enjoining Defendants from violating Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights;

g. permanently enjoining Defendants from terminating, freezing, or refusing to grant or to continue any federal funding at issue in this case without complying with federal law, including the requirements of Title VI and agency regulations;

h. entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff;

i. awarding Plaintiff its reasonable costs and attorney’s fees in accordance with law, including but not limited to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and 

j. issuing any and all other such relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

=====

*Full lawsuit at https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2025/04/Harvard-Funding-Freeze-Order-Complaint.pdf or https://ia800402.us.archive.org/9/items/2-final-hjaa-report.-the-soil-beneath-the-encampments/Harvard%20lawsuit%20against%20Trump%20administration%204-21-2025.pdf.

More Subway Construction: Late Evening-Early Morning

Yesterday, we posted some birds-eye-view photos of ongoing subway construction. Here is a recent notice which provides a reminder to avoid Wilshire when coming to UCLA if possible.

Demolition of Southeast Plaza of 10900 Wilshire Bl 

Summary 

Metro contractors will begin demolition of the southeast plaza of 10900 Wilshire Bl. Work is anticipated to begin Thursday, April 24 and continue for up to eight weeks. Activities include dismantling of existing structures, removal and hauling of waste material, and preparation of the site for future construction. 

Date: Thursday, April 24, 2025, for up to eight weeks 

Work hours: Monday to Friday, 9 pm to 6 am 

Traffic Control: 

Phase 1: Closure of #2, 3, and 4 lanes of eastbound Wilshire Bl, between Veteran and Westwood Bl and the west leg of the pedestrian crosswalk at the intersection of Wilshire and Westwood Bl. 

Phase 2: Closure of #4 lane of eastbound Wilshire Bl, between Gayley Av and Westwood Bl and the west leg of the pedestrian crosswalk at the intersection of Wilshire and Westwood Bl. 

Thru-traffic and driveway access will be maintained at all times. Pedestrians will be detoured to adjacent crosswalks during work hours. 

--

Source: https://cloud.sfmc.metro.net/DemoSoutheastPlaza_WilshireBl.

Disability Lawsuit

From the Bruin:

Two students are suing UCLA and the UC Board of Regents for allegedly discriminating against people with disabilities, thereby violating federal and state law. The two plaintiffs – third-year student Jake Bertellotti and graduate public health student Taylor Carty – alleged in the lawsuit that UCLA repeatedly failed to address their concerns about inaccessible emergency evacuation protocols. The lawsuit alleged that these issues violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, federal antidiscrimination law, federal and state housing law and California government code.

The complaint requests that the university hire an expert on emergency planning for people with disabilities and conduct an evaluation of its compliance with the ADA. Additionally, it requests more staff for Center for Accessible Education, improved procedures for tracking disability accommodations and revised systems for securing BruinAccess transit...

Full story at https://dailybruin.com/2025/04/17/students-with-disabilities-sue-ucla-uc-regents-for-discrimination.

State Auditor's Recommendations for UC Repatriation of Native American Objects

From the State Auditor's report:

Key Findings and Recommendations

The federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), passed in 1990, and its 2001 California counterpart (CalNAGPRA) establish requirements for the return of Native American human remains (remains) and cultural items. Government agencies and museums, including universities, must repatriate, or return, these remains and cultural items to tribes affiliated with them. This audit is the third that our office has conducted of the University of California’s (university) compliance with NAGPRA and CalNAGPRA. To complete this audit, we reviewed four campuses—Berkeley, Riverside, San Diego, and Santa Barbara—as well as the Office of the President and conclude the following:

The University Does Not Know How Much Work Remains to Achieve Full Repatriation and Has Not Properly Cared for All Items It Possesses

Although we found that campuses have continued to repatriate remains and cultural items, it has been more than 30 years since the establishment of NAGPRA, and the university’s campuses still hold the remains of thousands of individuals, as well as hundreds of thousands of cultural items and potential cultural items. We refer to these remains, cultural items, and potential cultural items as collections. A variety of factors, including some that are outside of the university’s control, create uncertainty about when the campuses will complete repatriation of their collections. However, at their current pace, we estimate that it may take some campuses over a decade to reach full repatriation.

Further, additional collections continue to be revealed. In one case, we found that Santa Barbara had not reported all of its collections to the national NAGPRA program and its state equivalent and, because of that, it is likely that tribes have an incomplete understanding of that campus’s holdings. The campuses also continue to discover previously unknown collections. For example, both Riverside and San Diego recently discovered previously unknown remains on their campuses, and Santa Barbara identified approximately 1,500 potential cultural items about which it was previously unaware. Although the university’s systemwide NAGPRA policy (systemwide policy) requires campus NAGPRA staff to periodically search campus departments at high risk of having undiscovered NAGPRA collections, campuses’ searches are not complete, and the Office of the President has not systematically kept track of the searches campuses have performed

Finally, we found instances in which the university has not properly cared for all items in its possession. For example, Santa Barbara has not yet retrieved several outstanding loans of potential cultural items, and Davis displayed potential cultural items in a campus lecture hall from which they were stolen in 2022. The systemwide policy does not explicitly state how campuses should handle or store potential cultural items.

Despite Years of External Attention, the Office of the President’s Oversight of Campuses’ NAGPRA Implementation Is Deficient

The Office of the President has not effectively overseen the university’s compliance with NAGPRA, despite years of increased external attention. We found that the Office of the President has not created a framework of policies and practices that ensures accountability for compliance or effective and efficient repatriation. For example, the Office of the President required campuses to plan for how they would repatriate their collections, but it did not hold campuses accountable when the plans lacked required timelines or when campus plans became outdated. The university’s systemwide NAGPRA committee (systemwide committee) noted deficiencies when reviewing the plans, but the Office of the President did not require campuses to make corrections, thereby limiting the usefulness of these plans for the systemwide committee’s efforts to oversee campus repatriation. 

Also, since 2022 when it established its expectation that campuses plan for repatriation, the Office of the President has not established systemwide performance goals for repatriation. Although campuses established certain campus-specific goals, the Office of the President did not hold campuses accountable for their actual performance. For example, the Office of the President has not monitored whether campuses have met their goals to repatriate specific collections within the last few years.

Because the university lacks systemwide performance goals, it has contributed funding toward NAGPRA compliance without a clear understanding of whether these amounts were appropriate. The Office of the President’s review of campuses’ NAGPRA budgets noted whether these budgets balanced personnel and non‑personnel costs, but it did not determine whether the budgeted amounts were appropriate for meeting specific goals or benchmarks at each campus. Each campus’s budget represents the total amount of resources the campus plans to spend on its NAGPRA activities. However, we found that three campuses—Berkeley, San Diego, and Santa Barbara—carried over to future fiscal years significant amounts of unspent funding they had allocated to NAGPRA, including funding meant to support tribes. 

Given the pervasive weaknesses we observed in the Office of the President’s oversight of NAGPRA, we believe the Legislature may have a role in applying external accountability—such as by earmarking a specified amount of the university’s appropriation identified for NAGPRA—to improve the university’s performance.

Recent Changes to Federal Regulations Present Challenges to California’s Repatriation Goals

Effective January 2024, the federal regulations that govern the implementation of NAGPRA changed. Some of these changes have significant impacts for CalNAGPRA, which used to provide an avenue for the transfer of certain remains and cultural items to non-federally recognized California tribes. The revisions to the federal regulations no longer allow campuses to transfer certain remains and certain items to non‑federally recognized tribes, severely hampering campuses’ ability to fulfill the intent of CalNAGPRA. We identified no clear path for the State to amend CalNAGPRA to allow for campuses to transfer certain remains and items to non‑federally recognized tribes in conformity with NAGPRA. However, the university can initiate discussions with tribal stakeholders regarding any preferences they may have for reinterment protocols and adopt these protocols as part of any revised systemwide policy.

To address our findings, we have made recommendations to the university to create a strong system for identifying undiscovered remains and items and strengthen its requirements regarding the proper care of potential cultural items. We recommend that Santa Barbara report all of its collections as required. We further recommend that the Office of the President require campuses to create and update timelines for completing specific activities, establish systemwide performance goals, monitor the university’s progress in meeting its goals, and ensure that campus budgets align with those goals. In addition, we recommend that the university engage tribes to study their costs related to repatriation and align its systemwide policy with the revised federal regulations.

Agency Comments

The Office of the President and Santa Barbara agreed with our recommendations and stated they would implement them...

Full report: https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2024-047/

Summary of recommendations: https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/responses-2024-047-all/

===

Note: The report includes a recommendation to the legislature to provide additional funding for repatriation.

In case you are wondering

If you are experiencing traffic problems coming on Wilshire to UCLA from the west, here is what the subway-not-quite-to-the-sea looks like from above at the VA station and terminal just west of the Westwood station. In these idyllic photos, there are no traffic problems either on Wilshire or on the 405!

Source: https://la.urbanize.city/post/aerial-perspective-metros-95b-subway-extension-westside.

We have a winner of the Gavrilo Princip award!

Gavrilo Princip

You may not recall the name Gavrilo Princip but whether or not you do, it appears that Sean Keveney has won the Gavrilo Princip award for 2025. 

Princip accidentally started World War I by assassinating Archduke Ferdinand as part of a local nationalist plot. According to the New York Times, Sean Keveney - the acting general counsel of HHS - seems to have accidentally set off the war between Harvard and the Trump administration. Harvard was apparently in discussions with the Trump people trying to avoid getting a Columbia-type letter. The negotiations were moving along until Keveney sent such a letter that undermined the talks and was taken by Harvard as an indication that no deal was possible and a declaration of war:

Harvard University received an emailed letter from the Trump administration last Friday that included a series of demands about hiring, admissions and curriculum so onerous that school officials decided they had no choice but to take on the White House. The university announced its intentions on Monday, setting off a tectonic battle between one of the country’s most prestigious universities and a U.S. president. Then, almost immediately, came a frantic call from a Trump official.

Sean Keveney

The April 11 letter from the White House’s task force on antisemitism, this official told Harvard, should not have been sent and was “unauthorized,” two people familiar with the matter said. The letter was sent by the acting general counsel of the Department of Health and Human Services, Sean Keveney, according to three other people, who were briefed on the matter. Mr. Keveney is a member of the antisemitism task force.

It is unclear what prompted the letter to be sent last Friday. Its content was authentic, the three people said, but there were differing accounts inside the administration of how it had been mishandled. Some people at the White House believed it had been sent prematurely, according to the three people, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about internal discussions. Others in the administration thought it had been meant to be circulated among the task force members rather than sent to Harvard...

Full story at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/18/business/trump-harvard-letter-mistake.html.

Letter to Columbia University Detailing Conditions for Restoration of Funding - Part 12 (more rationale)

Back in late March, we reproduced an item from a Columbia University alumni group concerning the pressures Columbia was under after receiving detailed demands from the feds. Since that time, Harvard rejected similar demands to great fanfare. But as the item below from the same group points out, where as both Harvard and Columbia are in the Ivy League, they are in different financial leagues.

Why Not All Universities Can Engage in Resistance Performance Art: A Tale of Financial Realities

Recently, we wrote about why Columbia’s endowment can’t simply be weaponized as a war chest to “fight Trump”, in reaction to some of the feel-good-but-financially-illiterate calls out there to do so.

Mixed messages from Ivy League schools have emerged following recent events. The Trump administration froze select contracts or grants at Princeton and Harvard, prompting bold statements from these institutions. Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber solemnly declared his willingness to “say no to funding,” although he stopped short of promising Princeton would “litigate forcefully,” which he freely advised other universities to do weeks earlier. Likewise, Harvard’s former president, Larry Summers, strongly urged wealthy institutions like Harvard to “resist the arbitrary application of government power” through “acts of resistance”, but he didn’t say exactly what this would be. Presumably, universities should be very, very angry and write a letter saying how angry they are.

What’s behind this discrepancy between institutions? Why can Princeton and Harvard—at least in rhetoric—defy Trump, while Columbia seemingly struggles to take a similar stance?

The uncomfortable truth boils down to money and the prosaic realities of university finance: universities can be asset-rich—that is, wealthy on paper—while being cash flow-fragile. Universities operate with uneven cash flow, receiving large sums on regular but extended cycles (tuition, government grants, reimbursements) but payroll and bills are due every few weeks. Last week, we showed the details of Columbia’s unbalanced working capital cycle, where it takes roughly twice as long to collect cash versus the need to disburse cash. Even slight fluctuations in these flows can create financial strain. Old hands at Columbia will recount how in the 1980s even after selling Rockefeller Center land for $400 million and doubling our endowment, there were still months when the University was nervous about making payroll.

Institutions sometimes rely on bond markets during crises, as Columbia and others recently did. However, debt markets can be unpredictable. Harvard’s recent (attempted) bond issue of $450 million—one might expect this global academic giant to find eager investors—was surprisingly undersubscribed, highlighting that investor confidence in university finances varies significantly.

The Stand Columbia Society uses two key metrics to explain why some schools posture confidently, while others cannot.

We call the first one the endowment coverage ratio, the percentage of a university’s revenue covered by endowment distributions (excluding patient care revenue to avoid distortions). Columbia’s endowment distributions account for only 13% of its annual revenue—one of the lowest in the Ivy League. By comparison, Princeton’s ratio is a robust 66%.  A higher ratio means that the university is largely financially self-sufficient on its endowment distributions alone, without need for much external funding—and despite that Princeton is still considering issuing bonds, indicating the cash flow fragility of universities.  We note that Harvard’s is a comfortable 41%. In other words, Columbia doesn’t have the financial cushion to comfortably weather cash flow shortfalls.

This leads us directly to the second metric—what we call the grant coverage ratio. This represents the share of university revenue from government grants (including patient care, as grants are disproportionately driven by NIH and related agencies). Columbia ranks high in grant dependence, receiving almost three times more federal funding than Princeton (which doesn’t have a hospital system.) Princeton’s bold and brave willingness to risk federal funding underscores its relatively secure financial footing and low risk exposure. In the meantime, this high dependence exposes us disproportionately to federal risk.

There are two quirks with this approach. Notably, Harvard has a unique financial structure. Harvard’s extensive healthcare affiliations (over 11,000 healthcare providers are affiliated with Harvard Medical School) separate much of its grant funding onto external entities’ books. This is why the federal government is examining $9 billion of Harvard’s grants (spread over multiple years), despite only $1 billion listed on its financial statements. Meanwhile, Stanford and MIT operate federal laboratories, skewing their grant figures.

But overall, what does this mean? It means Columbia is overexposed to federal funding risk from its high proportion of grants, and undercushioned from its low proportion of revenues from endowment distributions. Thus, when institutions like Princeton or Harvard publicly challenge political pressures, they speak from positions of greater financial stability with a higher capability of withstanding shocks. Brown, which also had $510 million of federal funds frozen, instead put out a statement co-signed by Hillel and Chabad leaders on how they were successfully fighting antisemitism. It’s easy to be brave when you’re playing with someone else’s poker chips or simply have a larger stack. Columbia, unfortunately, doesn’t.

Columbia’s cautious approach isn’t cowardice or capitulation. It’s basic financial reality and prudent financial management. Columbia has to play its hand carefully because it simply cannot afford reckless posturing. The fact that we punch above our weight academically despite these financial constraints is a testament to our strong faculty, location in New York, and the professionalism, conservatism, and care of our finance function’s leadership. Columbia’s mission is too important—its students, faculty, and staff too vital—to risk institutional stability in a battle it simply can’t win financially.

In short, reckless bravado is cheap, but prudence and financial stewardship are costly, often unappreciated, but absolutely necessary.

Source: https://standcolumbia.org/2025/04/05/issue-038-why-not-all-universities-can-engage-in-resistance-performance-art-a-tale-of-financial-realities/.

May Day Strike News

From the Bruin:

Two UC unions called on their members to strike May 1 for the fourth time this academic year. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 3299 – which represents service, patient care and skilled craft workers – said in a press release that it is striking in response to the UC’s systemwide hiring freeze. The University Professional and Technical Employees-Communications Workers of America 9119 – which represents researchers and technical workers – will also strike May 1 in response to the hiring freeze, according to its website.

The two unions went on strike most recently April 1 but also went on strike in February and November, leading to limited dining, cleaning and mail services. AFSCME Local 3299 and UPTE-CWA 9119 have yet to reach a contract agreement with the UC, despite beginning negotiations in January and June 2024, respectively...

Full story at https://dailybruin.com/2025/04/15/afscme-local-3299-upte-cwa-9119-announce-may-1-strike-against-uc.

Yesterday's Town Hall on Undocumented & International Students - Addendum

Yesterday, we posted about the UCLA Town Hall on undocumented and international students, including a recording thereof. One of the points we noted was a statement that in the past week, UCLA knew of no additional students with revoked visas. (That is, there were no more than had been previously known.) But it appears that there was some news during the past week which UCLA was aware of before the Town Hall.

According to the LA Times, a female UCLA student was detained last week trying to cross back into the US from Mexico.* The LA Times quotes Mary Osako, the emcee for the Town Hall, in the article which is dated yesterday at 10:44 AM. The Town Hall followed at 2 PM.

Technically, it is not clear that the detention at the border was due to a revoked visa. But still, the message that nothing new had recently happened was misleading.

===

*“UCLA has learned that an international graduate student was detained by United States Customs and Border Protection while attempting to enter the United States from Mexico,” Mary Osako, UCLA vice chancellor for strategic communications, said in a statement to The Times. “The student remains in the custody of CBP and we are actively working to learn more information. Our international students are an essential part of our Bruin community, and we remain fully committed to supporting their ability to learn and thrive at UCLA.” Source: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-04-17/ucla-international-student-detained-us-mexico-border.

There May Be Some Fireworks

As blog readers will know, the Assembly of the systemwide Academic Senate held a special meeting on March 25th to discuss two motions. One, dealing with the issue of having UC-wide single academic calendar, never to a vote and was thus put on the agenda of the next regularly-scheduled Assembly meeting of April 23rd. The other, dealing with the gap in timing between general pay adjustments of faculty vs. administrators, was put to a vote and failed. This item, however, was largely symbolic of concerns about excessive administrative salaries. As a result, a more direct motion has been put on the agenda by petition concerning such excesses.* At least over the second proposal, there may be some fireworks.

Both proposals are up for votes on April 23rd. Below is the language of each:

1. Motion on a Divisional Vote Regarding a UC Systemwide Academic Calendar

Background: The motion was discussed at the March 25, 2025 Assembly special meeting. However, the meeting lost quorum before a vote could be taken on the amended motion. The language of the motion is as follows:

The Representative Assembly of the Academic Senate recommends that each UC campus vote (according to any method authorized by the Division's bylaws) to decide whether the faculty wishes to adopt a “common calendar” for its specific campus or remain on its current calendar system.

Discussion format: Assembly members and other Senate attendees will have the opportunity to engage in Q&A, provide input, and share their perspectives. Assembly members will vote on the motion.

---

2. Motion to Adopt Resolution Regarding Senior Administrator Compensation

Background: A motion calling for all University of California administrators at the dean level and above to receive salary range adjustments at the same time as the regular faculty was discussed at the March 25, 2025 special Assembly meeting. However, the motion failed. Senate petitioners have requested discussion and action on a new motion:

Whereas there is significant concern among faculty regarding the disproportionate compensation of senior administrators, with increases far exceeding those granted to faculty 

And whereas this situation raises fundamental questions about fairness, principles of equity, financial responsibility, and institutional priorities.

Be it, therefore, resolved that the Academic Senate urges the University of California to explore measures to cap, reduce, or restructure excessive administrative salaries, especially considering financial austerity and the need to effectively allocate resources to support faculty, students, and academic programs.

Discussion format: Assembly members and other Senate attendees will have the opportunity to engage in Q&A, provide input, and share their perspectives. Assembly members will vote on the motion.

Source: https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/assembly/assembly-agenda-4-23-25.pdf (Item VIII).

===

*A complete list of signatories can be found at:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeu_sIeedVWf-8PEPkrNHRGrlSS0XPwE8BqmDpmgPLsthganA/viewform.

===

Note: As we have noted in the past, the position of officialdom is that there is no proposal to force all campuses to adopt a common calendar. But it appears that topic is at least simmering somewhere. Senate Chair Cheung made it clear that he did not like the original proposal about the gap in timing of pay increases between faculty and administrators. It is likely that he is even less happy with the more direct proposal.

Harvard - Letter from DHS on Foreign Students

 

Source: https://ia600402.us.archive.org/9/items/2-final-hjaa-report.-the-soil-beneath-the-encampments/Harvard%20-%20Letter%20from%20DHS%20on%20foreign%20students%204-16-25.pdf.

NOTE: Clicking on the images above will clarify them.

Yesterday's Town Hall on Undocumented & International Students

Yesterday's Town Hall on issues facing undocumented and international students was presented online with Mary Osako, VC for Strategic Communications, as the emcee. An audio link is available below in this post.

Before getting into the substance, yours truly must note that actually getting the Zoom link for the Town Hall after registering was a problem. There was no problem going through the registration process, but no link resulted. Emails to the Senate office went unanswered. A phone call to the Senate office produced a recording saying to use email. Re-registering using a different UCLA address eventually produced a link that required setting up a new Zoom account. All this suggests that many in the target audience who wanted to participate may not have succeeded. 

The main messages were that no new reports of cancelled visas at UCLA appeared last week. Visa processing at US embassies and consulates now takes longer than in the past. There could be a new travel ban to selected countries according to rumors. International students were cautioned about international travel. ICE agents can operate on campus in public spaces. UCPD, however will not assist immigration agents. UCLA employees, if confronted with immigration agents requesting information should obtain their names, etc., ask if they have warrants, and get in touch with the general counsel's office. UCLA does not give out student information unless there is a legally-mandated request.

You can hear the Town Hall (actually a video with still pictures of the participants) at:

https://ia600107.us.archive.org/25/items/becerra-announces-for-governor-4-2-2025/UCLA%20Town%20Hall%20-%20Undocumented%20%26%20Foreign%20Students%204-17-2025.mp4.

Cancelled

Inside Higher Ed today has the chart above - but in interactive format - of visa cancellations. If you go to 

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/global/international-students-us/2025/04/07/where-students-have-had-their-visas-revoked 

and hover over the circles, the names of the various universities and the number of cancellations will appear.

Some coming back

CalMatters reports that some cancelled NIH grants are being restored. UC itself seems to be maintaining a low profile concerning such issues:

The National Institutes of Health reversed its termination of a $36 million grant to a UC Davis researcher studying dementia, a day after CalMatters wrote about the cancelled grant and the researcher filed an appeal. The National Institutes of Health cancelled the grant last month, following the Trump administration’s ban on federal spending on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

Charles DeCarli, a neurologist at UC Davis and lead researcher on the project, got a notice from the agency Friday morning that he could again use the grant’s funds and conduct his research. The agency gave no reason for the reversal...

In addition to DeCarli’s, other grants at the University of California were reinstated, said UC office of the President spokesperson Stett Holbrook on Saturday. He didn’t indicate which ones were brought back or when those notices appeared. But at least one notable grant has yet to be restored: a project studying the benefits and risks of the shingles vaccine at UC San Francisco that received national media attention, said Kristen Bole, a spokesperson for UCSF, on Friday...

Full story at https://calmatters.org/education/higher-education/2025/04/dementia/.

Bubble, Bubble, UC's Budget Trouble

The bubble chart above, from an email by Jason Sisney of the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) depicts that budget growth rate of various state programs from the pre-pandemic fiscal year to the current fiscal year. The bubbles indicate the various sizes of the programs.

UC has below-average growth and a small bubble.

UC Admissions

A report from Inside Higher Ed indicates that the feds plan to challenge higher ed admissions practices. UC has argued that because of Prop 209, UC already complies with the Supreme Court's recent decision ending affirmative action. But there are some vulnerabilities in that argument. The first is that the Regents campaigned to repeal 209 only a few years ago. The second is that when they dropped use of the SAT and ACT for admissions, they ignored a report from the Academic Senate that said that the way UC used the tests in admissions decisions actually contributed to diversity. All of this makes for a messy, ambiguous, and contradictory record. 

...In March the Department of Justice launched investigations into admissions practices at Stanford University and three University of California campuses, accusing them of defying the Supreme Court’s decision banning affirmative action in June 2023’s Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. Exactly what the Trump administration believes is going on behind closed doors in highly selective college admissions offices remains unclear. The University of California system has been prohibited from considering race in admissions since the state outlawed the practice in 1996, and both Harvard and Columbia have publicly documented changes to their admissions policies post-SFFA, including barring admissions officers from accessing the applicant pool’s demographic data.

Regardless, given the DOJ investigations and demands of Columbia and Harvard—not to mention potential demands at newly targeted institutions like Princeton, Northwestern and Brown—the federal government appears set to launch a crusade against admissions offices...

Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/admissions/traditional-age/2025/04/14/admissions-offices-brace-federal-scrutiny.

All of this will play out in the courts. It seems unlikely that the Regents will want to make a Columbia-type deal. But UC might want to reconsider its SAT/ACT decisions before that process occurs.