Foreign Gift Investigation of Berkeley

From Inside Higher Ed:

The Education Department is investigating the University of California, Berkeley, regarding compliance with a federal law that requires colleges to disclose certain foreign gifts and contracts. It’s the first such review launched since President Trump signed an executive order Wednesday aimed at increasing transparency over the “foreign influence at American universities.” ...

“There have been widespread media reports over the last several years of Berkeley’s very substantial—in the hundreds of millions of dollars—receipt of money from foreign governments, in this case, particularly China,” a senior Education Department official said on a press call Friday. But while the development of “important technologies” has been shared with foreign nations, the funding that made it possible “has not been reported to the department, as it's required by law,” in Section 117 of the Higher Education Act, the official added.

Under Section 117, colleges and universities must report twice a year all grants and contracts with foreign entities that are worth more than $250,000. The department opened a similar review into Harvard last week...

Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2025/04/25/uc-berkeley-faces-foreign-gifts-investigation.

Weekend Evening Subway Construction

Construction Notice Letter   Lane Closures on Wilshire Blvd Near Veteran Ave  Frontier Kemper Tutor Perini Joint Venture (FKTP) and our subcontractors will be conducting Cone Penetration Tests (CPT) and road restoration on Wilshire Blvd. This work is being conducted at the request of the Metro Transportation Authority for the Purple Line Extension 3 project. The work will be done over the course of 3 weekends at night.  Construction Period: May 10th to May 25th    Work Hours: 8:00 PM – 6:00 AM  Specific Dates (Saturday, Sunday):   May 10th, 11th    May 17th, 18th   May 24th, 25th  Traffic Control:   Multiple-Lane closures along Wilshire Blvd.   Road access is maintained on either side of the construction work area.   Sidewalk access will be maintained.  Noteworthy:   All work has received the necessary permits and approval.   Access to driveways, residences, and business will be maintained at all times unless notified in advance.   Access for pedestrians will be maintained outside of construction zones.    Access for the Fire Department and emergency responders will be maintained.    For construction-related issues needing immediate attention, please call Metro’s 24-hour Hotline at 213.922.6934.  Reference Figure Below for Details  This project will be divided between two separate traffic control plans. Only one plan will be used per construction day.    Orange: Closure Plan 1 (Saturday Work)   Red: Closure Plan 2 (Sunday Work)

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

Two Dickson Awards

Alkin (left); Gekelman (right)

From an email by VC Michael Levine:

The Dickson Emeritus Professorship Award is funded from a gift endowment established by the late Edward A. Dickson, Regent of the University of California, to honor outstanding research, scholarly work, teaching, and service performed by an Emeritus or Emerita Professor since retirement.

Two UCLA emeriti professors have been selected to receive the 2024 – 2025 Edward A. Dickson Emeritus Professorship Award, which includes a prize of $5,000: Professor Emeritus Marvin C. Alkin, and Distinguished Professor Emeritus Walter Gekelman.

Marvin C. Alkin, Professor Emeritus of Education retired in 2004, and at the time of his retirement he had been teaching at UCLA for 40 years. Post-retirement, his scholarship, service, teaching and mentorship has continued unabated, and he has demonstrated leadership and commitment to his field of program evaluation, which he helped establish. He has published numerous articles in top journals in his field, has served in editorial roles, and has been the recipient of numerous grants. Of note, he has edited or co-edited two volumes which are so widely used as textbooks that they have gone through several editions in recent years: The first being, Evaluation Roots in 2004, with a second edition in 2013, and co-edited third edition in 2023 with Christina Christie, which provides a framework to compare and contrast varied approaches to program evaluation. The second, Evaluation Essentials: From A-to-Z, was first published in 2011, with second and third editions in 2017 with Anne Vo, and in 2024 with Vo and Christie. Professor Emeritus Alkin has mentored more than 35 graduate students, including 11 for whom he served as dissertation chair. He has been equally active in the classroom, teaching or co-teaching essential graduate courses in evaluation theory and evaluation procedures, a research apprenticeship course, and designed a new course for undergraduate students. He has been similarly active professionally, serving in various capacities as a member of the American Evaluation Association from his retirement through 2020, and receiving their Research in Evaluation Award in 2016.

Walter Gekelman, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy retired in 2020. He has continued to play an essential role in his department, as well as in the scholarly world as a leader in plasma physics. Professor Emeritus Gekelman has stepped in to reassume the directorship of the Basic Plasma Science Facility. With nearly a daily presence in the research laboratory, he provides invaluable service to his colleagues inside and outside UCLA in overseeing the LArge Plasma Device housed at UCLA, which also serves as a national collaborative research facility. The device, which he originally designed and built over the decades, runs constantly and is in high demand. Together with a collaborative team, Professor Gekelman has provided the kind of careful maintenance, repair and oversight continuously since retirement. To that end, he has also been responsible for more than $23 million in federal research grants in plasma physics. His leadership in the field, moreover, has led to a productive and valuable collaboration with private enterprise in the manufacture of computer chips using plasma processing and through the use of specialized equipment has developed new and useful techniques. Not surprisingly, Professor Emeritus Gekelman has maintained his scholarly productivity, publishing more than 14 peer reviewed articles as the lead author, with a student as lead author or to which he has made substantial contribution. In addition, he has given invited talks worldwide. Since retirement, he remains a key research mentor, and students have continued to profit from his teaching and expertise, and praise his intellectual passion, generosity and hands-on approach. 

Source: https://view.bp.e.ucla.edu/?qs=708a11504989a720ff16d1be70f6d50780b716872cd684c119d538b6cedbb24161a0ce093f06df2c09c6ad7e0ea04138b20f97cb4d4588ea782cb3490ff352d2988abe52aa98e190de85cb7ad9171f0123c54acf32a69bc8.

Yet more litigation from the events of last spring

A new lawsuit was filed on April 25th, revolving around the events of last spring including the encampment and an attempt to erect a second encampment. This one is not against UCLA but against the UCLA chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine and affiliated groups. Two of the plaintiffs - one an MD at UCLA and the other a local Chabad rabbi - allege physical assault and two plaintiffs allege prevention of access to public spaces.

Damages being sought under federal and state law involve monetary compensation including punitive. Civil cases tend to move slowly so we are likely a long way from an actual trial. Possibly, there may be other related cases. They usually result in long periods of "discovery" hearings. Such cases are independent of recent actions by federal agencies.

The case can be read at https://dn721605.ca.archive.org/0/items/2-final-hjaa-report.-the-soil-beneath-the-encampments/Hoftman%20and%20others%20v%20SJP%204-25-2025.pdf. (Yours truly has been collecting documents related to last spring's events at various universities.)

UC is looking for cash wherever it can be found

Given the state budgetary uncertainties and pressures - combined with the uncertainties and pressures from you-know-where - UC is looking for cash. According to the agenda for the UCRS advisory board, $700 million that would otherwise have gone from the STIP fund to UCRS, won't be going. From the agenda for April 30:

Manager John Monroe and Segal Actuary Todd Tauzer will provide details on an item going before the Regents on May 14, 2025. This item requests authorization for the President of the University to (1) maintain the current University/employer contribution rate to the University of California Retirement Plan (UCRP or Plan) for fiscal year (FY) 2025-26, and (2) modify the previously approved action to no longer transfer $700 million from the Short Term Investment Pool (STIP) to the Campus and Medical Centers (C/MC) segment of UCRP for fiscal year (FY) 2025-26.

Maintaining the current University contribution rate at 14.5 percent of payroll for FY 2025-26 and not transferring from STIP to UCRP the previously approved amount of $700 million for FY 2025-26 is a component of the overall strategic plan to help address the University’s budget issues. It will help provide budgetary relief for campuses and medical centers in a time of significant State and Federal budget cuts...

Goldberg Award Announced

From an email from VC Michael Levine:

The Carole E. Goldberg Emeriti Service Award, established in 2015, recognizes UCLA emeriti for exemplary service by an emeritus/emerita professor to the academic enterprise after retirement. The award honors outstanding service in professional, University, Academic Senate, emeriti, departmental or editorial posts, or committees.

UCLA Professor Emeritus Robert Gurval has been selected to receive the 2024 – 2025 Carole E. Goldberg Emeriti Service Award, which includes a prize of $1,000.

Robert Gurval, Professor Emeritus of Classics retired in 2019. In the years since then he has developed a second career, putting his renowned scholarly and teaching skills to the service of his department, the campus and the broader UCLA community. Among his many achievements in this period, none stands out more than his dedication to exploring and retelling the historical and architectural origins of the UCLA campus. Through various mechanisms: Fiat Lux courses, lectures, campus tours for the Division of Humanities Dean’s Circle, the Chancellor’s Society, and during UCLA’s Centennial Celebration, and a feature article, Stories in Stone, for the UCLA College of Letters & Science Magazine (Dec 2023), Professor Gurval has brought the history of UCLA to life and introduced many to a fascinating and important story. 

In the same vein, and drawing on the same teaching expertise, Professor Gurval has also become one of the premier faculty lecturers in the UCLA Alumni Travel Program. He is a proud emissary of UCLA and his tours, which include not only regions within the orbit of his scholarly expertise on the Roman empire, but also areas much farther afield, have become extraordinarily popular. His depth of knowledge gives alumni a taste of his exceptional teaching ability, as well as helping to make them feel an important part of the UCLA community.

He also stands out as a mentor to students at UCLA as well as serving as a mentor to high school students through the Collegiate Mentorship Program. Notably, during retirement he has also deployed his talents for the good of his department, shouldering teaching responsibilities and helping maintain the department’s offerings in Latin. Through these endeavors he has shown himself to be a proud, committed and enthusiastic representative of the University.

Source: https://view.bp.e.ucla.edu/?qs=708a11504989a720fa199d0116316bddd7b858f9712a38b05114da7022a1715abf89f319e3b03eafec2fbc7e9b66ab3ceb7db09db76b22615a7a03900e684e392b994749de5cdf1fae6ebe1a3d7ac45888e93fad1adc7215.

Panunzio Awards for 2024-25

From an email by VC Michael Levine: The 2024-2025 Constantine Panunzio Distinguished Emeriti Award honoring Emeriti Professors in the University of California system has been awarded to Distinguished Research Professor Emerita of Anthropology Diane Gifford-Gonzalez (UC Santa Cruz) and Distinguished Research Professor Emeritus Howard Giles (UC Santa Barbara).

UC Emeriti Professors Gifford-Gonzalez and Giles are the fifty-fourth and fifty-fifth recipients of the Constantine Panunzio Award. Both awardees have especially long and notable records of research, teaching, and service to the University of California, their disciplines, and their communities. The late Dr. Panunzio, a Professor of Sociology at UCLA for many years, has been described as the architect of the UC Retirement System and was particularly active in improving pensions and stipends for his fellow Emeriti. The award bearing his name was established in 1983 and includes a $5,000 prize. The Panunzio Award exemplifies the tremendous contributions of Emeriti to the continued excellence of the UC System.

Diane Gifford-Gonzalez, UC Santa Cruz, Distinguished Research Professor Emerita of Anthropology retired in 2015. Professor Emerita Gifford-Gonzalez is internationally recognized as one the foremost authorities in zooarchaeology and continues to provide intellectual and committed leadership to her discipline. Her expertise intersects archaeology, zooarchaeology, gender, the history of pastoralism in sub-Saharan Africa, and the Indigenous communities in California’s Monterey Bay area. Her research has led to real-world impacts including the successful disposition of ancestral remains for the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Coastanoan/Ohlone Indians, and an ongoing eco-archaeological project to examine diverse lines of evidence for Indigenous landscape and seascape stewardship practices over 7000 years on the Central California Coast. Having been a founding cohort of zooarchaeology, the study of human-animal interactions, in 2018 she published the leading textbook – An Introduction to Zooarchaeology. Her scholarship continues with publications in leading peer-reviewed journals; she has served as the keynote speaker at three major international conferences, and has given Distinguished Lectures, including at the Institute for Human History at the Max Planck Institute in Jena (2017). Professor Emerita Gifford-Gonzalez has received significant recognition for her research with honors, and among them are election to the National Academy of Sciences (2024), appointed as a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Anthropology Section (2023), is the recipient of the Distinguished Social Sciences Emeriti Faculty Award from UCSC (2020), as well as being a Fellow, Centre for Advanced Study, Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters, Oslo (2015-2016). Service to her campus continues with supervision of doctoral students, service on UCSC senate committees, the Nature Reserves Advisory Committee, and the Emeriti Association (2023-2024).

====

Howard Giles, UC Santa Barbara, Distinguished Research Professor Emeritus of Communication retired in 2017. Since becoming an Emeritus Professor, Howard Giles has retained his influence in the multi-disciplinary fields of social psychology of language and communication; intergenerational communication and aging; and intergroup communication more broadly. He is widely considered the leading scholar in these disciplines and is viewed as the “Architect of Communication Scholarship.” His research productivity since retirement focuses on three domains: aging, Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) which he founded, and police-community relations. Works include a co-authored book, eight special journal issues, 47 coauthored peer-reviewed articles, and numerous other publications and significant editorial work, in addition to national and international paper presentations. Recognition has been bestowed upon him with two professional associations naming awards in his honor, the “Inaugural Giles Mentorship Award” from the International Association of Language & Social Psychology and the “Howard Giles Top Student Paper Award” from the International Communication Association. His contributions include continued service to his campus, teaching, and mentorship. Since 2021 he has been an affiliate of UCSB’s Center for Aging & Longevity Studies. Post retirement he became a fellow in a number of societies, and in 2023 he was invited to become a Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine. In addition to his dedication to students and UCSB, his commitment to campus-community relationships is reflected in his service as the Director of the Volunteer in Policing Corp for the Santa Barbara Police Department (SBPD), earning him a nomination as the SBPD Civilian Supervisor of the Year Award. His involvement in this area of police-community relations has also resulted in collaborations with the police department, including a handbook on policing and communication as well as an intervention program called VOICES that promotes dialog between the police and marginalized members of the community.

Direct Pay for Student-Athletes Is Coming (if it isn't already here) - Part 2

From KCCI and AP: The NCAA passed rules...  that would upend decades of precedent by allowing colleges to pay their athletes per terms of a multibillion-dollar lawsuit settlement expected to go into effect this summer. The nine proposals passed by the NCAA board were largely expected but still mark a defining day in the history of college sports. An athlete's ability to be paid directly by his or her university is on track to be enshrined in a rulebook that has forbidden that kind of relationship for decades.

For the NCAA rules to officially go into effect, the changes prescribed by the House settlement still have to be granted final approval by a federal judge, whose hearing earlier this month led to questions about potential tweaks before the new guidelines are supposed to go into play on July 1. The changes will eliminate around 150 rules and alter many others in the NCAA's sprawling rulebook. They essentially codify measures set up by the settlement, including:

• Modifying bylaws to allow schools to pay the athletes directly.
• Eliminating scholarship limits for teams, while also setting roster limits that are designed to replace the scholarship caps. Some details of the roster limits, which were a key sticking point in the April 7 hearing, will be finalized later.
• Establishing annual reporting requirements for schools that pay athletes; a payment pool is set to be approximately $20.5 million for the biggest schools beginning next academic year.
• Setting up a clearinghouse for all name, image and likeness (NIL) deals that come from third parties and are worth $600 or more.
• Granting authority to an enforcement body being developed by the conferences named as defendants in the lawsuit to enforce the new rules passed to implement terms of the settlement. This includes compliance with all the new facets coming into play in college sports — roster limits, payment of direct benefits to players and meeting requirements for the third-party deals.

One change allows for the creation of technology platforms for schools to monitor payments to athletes and for the athletes to report their third-party NIL deals. The board also approved a requirement for athletes to be enrolled full-time and meeting requirements toward their degree to receive the benefits...

Full story at https://www.kcci.com/article/ncaa-athlete-payment-rules/64552879.

 

Missing Persons?

The statement below was released this past week by the American Association of Colleges and Universities. Lots of signatories from university and college leaders, but none from UC with the exception of Chancellor Kim Wilcox of UC-Riverside were on the original. UCLA Chancellor Frenk added his name subsequently as did the chancellors of Merced, Berkeley, Santa Cruz, and San Diego. Still later, UC President Drake and the remaining chancellors signed on.

A Call for Constructive Engagement

As leaders of America’s colleges, universities, and scholarly societies, we speak with one voice against the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education. We are open to constructive reform and do not oppose legitimate government oversight. However, we must oppose undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses. We will always seek effective and fair financial practices, but we must reject the coercive use of public research funding.

America’s system of higher learning is as varied as the goals and dreams of the students it serves. It includes research universities and community colleges; comprehensive universities and liberal arts colleges; public institutions and private ones; freestanding and multi-site campuses. Some institutions are designed for all students, and others are dedicated to serving particular groups. Yet, American institutions of higher learning have in common the essential freedom to determine, on academic grounds, whom to admit and what is taught, how, and by whom. Our colleges and universities share a commitment to serve as centers of open inquiry where, in their pursuit of truth, faculty, students, and staff are free to exchange ideas and opinions across a full range of viewpoints without fear of retribution, censorship, or deportation.

Because of these freedoms, American institutions of higher learning are essential to American prosperity and serve as productive partners with government in promoting the common good. Colleges and universities are engines of opportunity and mobility, anchor institutions that contribute to economic and cultural vitality regionally and in our local communities. They foster creativity and innovation, provide human resources to meet the fast-changing demands of our dynamic workforce, and are themselves major employers. They nurture the scholarly pursuits that ensure America’s leadership in research, and many provide healthcare and other essential services. Most fundamentally, America’s colleges and universities prepare an educated citizenry to sustain our democracy.

The price of abridging the defining freedoms of American higher education will be paid by our students and our society. On behalf of our current and future students, and all who work at and benefit from our institutions, we call for constructive engagement that improves our institutions and serves our republic.

Signed, [original signatures only]

Jonathan Alger, President, American University

Barbara K. Altmann, President, Franklin & Marshall College

Suzanne Ames, President, Peninsula College

Carmen Twillie Ambar, President, Oberlin College

Denise A. Battles, President, SUNY Geneseo

Ian Baucom, Incoming President, Middlebury College

Allan Belton, President, Pacific Lutheran University

Hubert Benitez, President, Saint Peter's University

Joanne Berger-Sweeney, President, Trinity College (CT)

Michael A. Bernstein, President, The College of New Jersey

Audrey Bilger, President, Reed College

Erik J. Bitterbaum, President, SUNY Cortland

Sarah Bolton, President, Whitman College

Mary H. Bonderoff, President, SUNY Delhi

Eric Boynton, President, Beloit College

Elizabeth H. Bradley, President, Vassar College

Brian Bruess, President, College of Saint Benedict and Saint John's University

Adam Bush, President, College Unbound

Alison Byerly, President, Carleton College

Wendy Cadge, President and Professor of Sociology, Bryn Mawr College

Nancy Cantor, President, Hunter College CUNY

Alberto Jose Cardelle, President, SUNY Oneonta

Brian W. Casey, President, Colgate University

Ana Mari Cauce, Professor and President, University of Washington

Andrea Chapdelaine, President, Connecticut College

Thom D. Chesney, President, Southwestern College (NM)

Bryan F. Coker, President, Maryville College

Ronald B. Cole, President, Allegheny College

Soraya Coley, President, Cal Poly Pomona

Jennifer Collins, President, Rhodes College

John Comerford, President, Otterbein University

Marc C. Conner, President, Skidmore College

Joy Connolly, President, American Council of Learned Societies

La Jerne Terry Cornish, President, Ithaca College

Grant Cornwell, President, Rollins College

Isiaah Crawford, President, University of Puget Sound

Gregory G. Dell'Omo, President, Rider University

Kent Devereaux, President, Goucher College

Jim Dlugos, Interim President, Landmark College

Bethami Dobkin, President, Westminster University

Harry Dumay, President, Elms College

Christopher L. Eisgruber, President, Princeton University

Michael A. Elliott, President, Amherst College

Alexander Enyedi, President, SUNY Plattsburgh

Jane Fernandes, President, Antioch College

Roland Fernandes, General Secretary, General Board of Higher Education and Ministry

Damian J. Fernandez, President, Warren Wilson College

David Fithian, President, Clark University

Lisa C. Freeman, President, Northern Illinois University

Robert Gaines, Acting President, Pomona College

James Gandre, President, Manhattan School of Music

Alan M. Garber, President, Harvard University

Jay D. Gatrell, President, Eastern Illinois University

Michael H. Gavin, President, Delta College

Mark D. Gearan, President, Hobart and William Smith Colleges

Melissa Gilliam, President, Boston University

Lane A. Glenn, President, Northern Essex Community College

Jorge G. Gonzalez, President, Kalamazoo College

Jonathan D. Green, President, Susquehanna University

David A. Greene, President, Colby College

William R. Groves, Chancellor, Antioch University

Jeremy Haefner, Chancellor, University of Denver

Yoshiko Harden, President, Renton Technical College

Anne F. Harris, President, Grinnell College

James T. Harris, President, University of San Diego

Marjorie Hass, President, Council of Independent Colleges

Richard J. Helldobler, President, William Paterson University

Wendy Hensel, President, University of Hawaii

James Herbert, President, University of New England

Doug Hicks, President, Davidson College

Mary Dana Hinton, President, Hollins University

Danielle R. Holley, President, Mount Holyoke College

Jonathan Holloway, President, Rutgers University

Robin Holmes-Sullivan, President, Lewis & Clark College

Robert H. Huntington, President, Heidelberg University

Nicole Hurd, President, Lafayette College

Wolde-Ab Isaac, Chancellor, Riverside Community College District

Karim Ismaili, President, Eastern Connecticut State University

J. Larry Jameson, President, University of Pennsylvania

Garry W. Jenkins, President, Bates College

Paula A. Johnson, President, Wellesley College

John E. Jones III, President, Dickinson College

Katrina Bell Jordan, President, Northeastern Illinois University

Cristle Collins Judd, President, Sarah Lawrence College

David L. Kaufman, President, Capital University

Colleen Perry Keith, President, Goldey-Beacom College

Marisa Kelly, President, Suffolk University

Julie Johnson Kidd, President, Endeavor Foundation

Jonathan Koppell, President, Montclair State University

Sally Kornbluth, President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Julie Kornfeld, President, Kenyon College

Michael I. Kotlikoff, President, Cornell University

Paula Krebs, Executive Director, Modern Language Association

Sunil Kumar, President, Tufts University

Bobbie Laur, President, Campus Compact

Frederick M. Lawrence, Secretary and CEO, Phi Beta Kappa Society

Linda M. LeMura, President, Le Moyne College

Hilary L. Link, President, Drew University

Patricia A. Lynott, President, Rockford University

Heidi Macpherson, President, SUNY Brockport

John Maduko, President, Connecticut State Community College

Lynn Mahoney, President, San Francisco State University

Daniel Mahony, President, Southern Illinois University

Maud S. Mandel, President, Williams College

Christine Mangino, President, Queensborough Community College

Amy Marcus-Newhall, President, Scripps College

Felix V. Matos-Rodriguez, Chancellor, City University of New York (CUNY)

Anne E. McCall, President, The College of Wooster

Richard L. McCormick, Interim President, Stony Brook University

Michael McDonald, President, Great Lakes Colleges Association

James McGrath, President and Dean, Cooley Law School

Patricia McGuire, President, Trinity Washington University

Maurie McInnis, President, Yale University

Elizabeth M. Meade, President, Cedar Crest College

Scott D. Miller, President, Virginia Wesleyan University

Jennifer Mnookin, Chancellor, University of Wisconsin–Madison

Robert Mohrbacher, President, Centralia College

Chris Moody, Executive Director, ACPA-College Student Educators International

Tomas Morales, President, California State University San Bernardino

Milton Moreland, President, Centre College

Kathryn Morris, President, St. Lawrence University

Ross Mugler, Board Chair and Acting President and CEO, Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges

Krista L. Newkirk, President, University of Redlands

Stefanie D. Niles, President, Cottey College

Claire Oliveros, President, Riverside City College

Robyn Parker, Interim President, Saybrook University

Lynn Pasquerella, President, American Association of Colleges and Universities

Laurie L. Patton, President, American Academy of Arts and Sciences

Beth Paul, President, Nazareth University

Christina Paxson, President, Brown University

Rob Pearigen, Vice-Chancellor and President, University of the South

Deidra Peaslee, President, Saint Paul College

Eduardo M. Peñalver, President, Seattle University

Ora Pescovitz, President, Oakland University

Darryll J. Pines, President, University of Maryland

Nicola Pitchford, President, Dominican University of California

Kevin Pollock, President, Central Carolina Technical College

Susan Poser, President, Hofstra University

Paul C. Pribbenow, President, Augsburg University

Vincent Price, President, Duke University

Robert Quinn, Executive Director, Scholars at Risk Network

Wendy E. Raymond, President, Haverford College

Christopher M. Reber, President, Hudson County Community College

Andrew Rehfeld, President, Hebrew Union College

Suzanne M. Rivera, President, Macalester College

Michael S. Roth, President, Wesleyan University

James Ryan, President, University of Virginia

Vincent Rougeau, President, College of the Holy Cross

Kurt L. Schmoke, President, University of Baltimore

Carol Geary Schneider, Acting Executive Director, Civic Learning and Democracy Engagement Coalition

Sean M. Scott, President and Dean, California Western School of Law

Zaldwaynaka Scott, President, Chicago State University

Philip J. Sisson, President, Middlesex Community College (MA)

Suzanne Smith, President, SUNY Potsdam

Valerie Smith, President, Swarthmore College

Paul Sniegowski, President, Earlham College

Barbara R. Snyder, President, Association of American Universities

Stephen Snyder, Interim President, Middlebury College

Rachel Solemsaas, President, North Seattle College

Weymouth Spence, President, Washington Adventist University

Terri Standish-Kuon, President and CEO, Independent Colleges of Washington

G. Gabrielle Starr, President, Pomona College

Karen A. Stout, President, Achieving the Dream

Tom Stritikus, President, Occidental College

Julie Sullivan, President, Santa Clara University

Aondover Tarhule, President, Illinois State University

Glena Temple, President, Dominican University

Steven J. Tepper. President, Hamilton College

Kellye Y. Testy, CEO, Association of American Law Schools

Tania Tetlow, President, Fordham University

Strom C. Thacker, President, Pitzer College

Scott L. Thomas, President, Sterling College

Stephen Thorsett, President, Willamette University

Joel Towers, President, The New School

Deborah Trautman, President and CEO, American Association of Colleges of Nursing

Satish K. Tripathi, President, University at Buffalo, SUNY

James Troha, President, Juniata College

Kyaw Moe Tun, President, Parami University

Brad Tyndall, President, Central Wyoming College

LaTanya Tyson, President, Carolina Christian College

Matthew P. vandenBerg, President, Ohio Wesleyan University

James Vander Hooven, President, Mount Wachusett Community College

Laura R. Walker, President, Bennington College

Yolanda Watson Spiva, President, Complete College America

Phil Weilerstein, President, VentureWell

Michaele Whelan, President, Wheaton College

Manya C. Whitaker, Interim President, Colorado College

Julie A. Manley White, Chancellor and CEO, Pierce College

Kim A. Wilcox, Chancellor, University of California, Riverside

Sarah Willie-LeBreton, President, Smith College

Safa R. Zaki, President, Bowdoin College

==

Source: https://www.aacu.org/newsroom/a-call-for-constructive-engagement.

Cracks in Harvard's United Front

From the NY Times: To much of academia, many on the left and some on the right, Harvard is a hero for standing up to the White House and rejecting its demands to reshape academic and student life. After weeks of major law firms and other prestigious institutions like Columbia University acquiescing to President Trump’s demands, Harvard, in the eyes of Mr. Trump’s critics, had become the backbone of the resistance. 

...But the Harvard Corporation is, in many ways, an unwitting hero. For weeks leading up to the April 11 letter, the corporation took a very different stance toward the Trump administration. At the urging of some of its biggest donors, the corporation frantically tried to cut a deal with Mr. Trump... Even now, some of Harvard’s most influential donors, including Mr. [John] Paulson and William A. Ackman, the chief executive of the hedge fund Pershing Square, believe it is a mistake to fight with the president, according to people who have been briefed on their opinions. 

...In late March, [Harvard President Alan] Garber abruptly canceled a long-planned trip to meet with alumni in India. Harvard hired William A. Burck, a lawyer who serves as an outside ethics adviser to the Trump Organization, and instructed him to start engaging with the administration. Harvard Corporation members were briefed that there was some early progress. Harvard then made an offering of sorts to its critics. The school said the director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies would be leaving his position. Conservatives had been pushing for such a move for months, arguing that the center fomented antisemitic views on campus. Not long after, Dr. Garber called [Trump son-in-law Jared] Kushner, the Harvard alumnus with perhaps the most direct connection to President Trump, to ask for help.

...On a call [April 17], [Board member Penny] Pritzker and Dr. Garber asked for input from about a dozen large donors. Many of the donors implored the corporation to slow down and negotiate for the sake of the institution, according to three donors on the call. Mr. Paulson, who has given $400 million to Harvard, encouraged the corporation to soften its stance and seek “productive” discussions, according to two donors on the call. Michael Bloomberg was one of the few pushing for a fight.

...Dr. Garber seemed to concede that the White House had raised reasonable issues about antisemitism. “We agree with a lot of what is in the government’s letter,” Dr. Garber said, according to a person on the call. Dr. Garber declined to be interviewed. A spokesman said that during the donor call the Harvard president “did acknowledge — as he has on numerous occasions previously — the serious concerns over antisemitism on campus and a lack of viewpoint diversity.” ...

Full story at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/22/business/harvard-trump-deal.html.

Reverse Direction

From the NY Times:

The Trump administration on Friday abruptly walked back its cancellation of more than 1,500 student visas held by international students, announcing a dramatic shift by Immigration and Customs Enforcement during a court hearing in Washington.

Joseph F. Carilli, a Justice Department lawyer, said that immigration officials had begun work on a new system for reviewing and terminating visas for international students and that, until the process was complete, agencies would not make additional changes or further revocations.

The announcement followed a wave of individual lawsuits filed by students who have said they were notified that their legal right to study in the United States was rescinded, often with minimal explanation. In some cases, students had minor documented traffic violations or other infractions. But in other cases, there appeared to be no obvious cause for the revocations...

Full story at: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/25/us/politics/trump-student-visa-cancellations.html.

Voices from Back in the Day

Two political figures from back in the day - when Democrats and Republicans could cooperate - continue to push for state higher ed funding. Dick Ackerman and Mel Levine co-chair the California Coalition for Public Higher Education. Ackerman is a Republican and former California state senator and assemblymember from Orange County, and Levine is a Democrat and a former U.S. congressmember and state assemblymember from Los Angeles. From Capitol Weekly:

For decades, California’s public university system has been the envy of much of the world – a powerhouse of research, innovation and economic opportunity. Today, however, the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) face deep budget cuts that could severely compromise their abilities to expand student access to higher education and enhance California’s prosperity.

Gov. Newsom has proposed a decrease of nearly 8% in 2025-2026 general fund appropriations for the CSU and UC systems – which adds up to bigger spending cuts than other state agencies. His proposal to reduce the UC and CSU spending by $772 million would account for 55% of the proposed $1.4 billion in 2025-26 general fund cuts the governor proposed. In comparison, he proposed only a 1.88% reduction in the Department of Corrections. The state Legislature must say no to these disproportionate reductions. They are already having a detrimental effect on students, faculty, staff and residents.

The UC recently announced a systemwide hiring freeze. At CSU, Sonoma State is laying off tenured faculty and eliminating 20 degree programs, six departments and all NCAA Division II intercollegiate sports. These cutbacks are a “harbinger” of what’s to come for the rest of the CSU system if the governor’s budget and the elimination of some federal grants to the UC and CSU campuses are approved.

While lawmakers face tough decisions in the upcoming budget, public higher education is much too important to students, our state’s economy and California’s future for the UC and CSU to bear such a disproportionate share of spending reductions.

Just three years ago, the governor entered into a multi-year compact with the UC and CSU to provide a 5% budget increase annually through 2026-27 in exchange for commitments to improve student success, equity, affordability and workforce preparedness. The governor has proposed deferring the compact’s spending increases to next year, but there is no guarantee the money would be available then or that the Legislature would approve the spending.

Meanwhile, the CSU and UC are holding up their end of the bargain: UC expanded its capacity and affordability by enrolling an additional 12,700 California residents in the past four years and providing 70% of new California undergrads in the 2024-25 academic year with debt-free pathways to graduation.

Likewise, the CSU enrolled more first-year students than ever before in the fall of 2024 – 68,375 – and implemented new programs to meet the compact’s requirements to increase equity, affordability and workforce preparedness. The proposed budget cuts could derail this progress. For the CSU alone, the $375 million decrease is equal to the entire operating budget of the Fresno State, a campus that serves 25,000 students.

These reductions also come at  the same time that the universities face the possibility of losing at least part of their National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants and the threat of other federal grants being curtailed because of federal investigations at some of the UC and CSU campuses. If the threatened grant reductions do occur, the impact could be staggering. NIH is the largest source of research funding at the UC, providing $2.6 billion in the 2023-24 academic year. The CSU estimates that federal grants added up to more than $511 million in research expenditures during the 2022-23, accounting for 63% of its research expenditures that year.

Threats to state and federal funding for the UC and CSU also threaten California’s economy. Both are vital economic engines: UC generates more than $80 billion annually in economic output and has more than 200,000 employees, making it California’s third-largest employer in the fifth-largest economy in the world. CSU annually generates $26.9 billion in industry activity and $10.3 billion in labor income throughout the state.

Lawmakers can strengthen our state’s economy and its future by rejecting the governor’s disproportionate reductions in the UC and CSU budgets. Doing so would allow the UC and CSU to further expand access to higher education and opportunities for our young people and help ensure we have the skilled workforce we need to make California a more prosperous place.

Source: https://capitolweekly.net/uc-and-csu-funding-essential-to-californias-economic-future/.

The Feds' Excess Speed

The NY Times: In the three months since President Trump returned to power, his administration has prized speed and shock value. Harvard University is wagering that White House strategy could be used against it. The 51-page lawsuit the university filed on Monday, intended to fight the administration’s freeze of billions in federal funding, hinges largely on a statute that provides specific timelines for federal agencies to draft rules and impose penalties. This wonky workhorse of American law, known as the Administrative Procedure Act, has been cited in a majority of lawsuits filed this year against the Trump administration, including complaints seeking to reverse funding reductions to the United States Agency for International Development, local schools and Voice of America.

While Mr. Trump’s strategy has generated headlines, the outcomes of these cases will determine whether that approach will also produce lasting policy victories. In Harvard’s case, the university is seeking to fend off accusations of discrimination from the administration’s antisemitism task force, a group that was put together to move faster than typical federal civil rights investigators.

...Harvard turned to the administrative procedure law after facing a crush of government demands that included, among other conditions, audits of its faculty for plagiarism and political views, along with changes to admissions and hiring. The university argues that Washington is seeking to exert unconstitutional sway — and that its effort is defined by sloppiness that blasted past due process...

“Defendants,” Harvard wrote in the lawsuit, “failed to comply with their own regulations before freezing Harvard’s federal financial assistance.” In another section, Harvard notes that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which forbids certain kinds of discrimination, requires a detailed process before it can be a basis for freezing money. The Trump administration, Harvard says, did “the precise opposite.” ...

...Even part of Harvard’s First Amendment argument partially relies on the procedure act, which says that an action by a federal agency that runs “contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity” is illegal. “In terms of what Harvard is specifically doing, it is pushing back against agency action, and we have an entire legal framework,” said Osamudia R. James, a professor at the University of North Carolina whose specialties include administrative law.

...[But] The outcome of the legal case may be beside the point, Professor James said. “If you lose ultimately at the court but millions of people now believe that all of these institutions are hotbeds of discrimination, that they don’t provide any benefits to the communities in which they operate, that they don’t produce anything of value,” she said, adding, “that might be a win if you are hostile to higher education institutions.”

Full story at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/22/us/trump-harvard-legal-case.html.

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.