Note: Clicking on the images may clarify the text.
This week, as you may have seen, 80 out of the ~120 Harvard law school faculty signed a group letter protesting certain Trump administration actions--especially those targeting law firms--as being detrimental to the rule of law.
Predictably, where Harvard leads, the rest of legal education follows. I hear rumors of similar letters in the works at some law schools or among faculty at multiple law schools.
I have been asked to sign some. But I'm not going to do so.
First, however, let me emphasize that I share the signer's concerns about the way the Trump administration is punishing law firms of which the administration disapproves. The use of unilateral executive action is inconsistent with the rule of law. This is true even though I think some of what some of the law firms did to incur Trump's wrath was seriously problematic. In particular, Perkins Coie played a major role in commissioning and disseminating the Steele dossier, which has been widely and effectively discredited. In effect, they committed election fraud. Having said that, I believe Trump should have had the Justice Department investigate to determine if laws were broken rather than unilaterally imposing punishment by executive decree. If the Justice Department concluded laws were broken by the firm, then prosecute the firm. That is how the system is supposed to work. That is how the rule of law is supposed to work.
But I have three reasons for not signing a version of the Harvard letter. First, I share many of the concerns that Harvard law professor Adrian Vermeule identified in an open letter to his students explaining why he didn't sign the Harvard letter:
Second, we have just come through a year of massive campus unrest. In response to which, many universities recommitted themselves to the principles announced in the Kalven Report:
The instrument of dissent and criticism is the individual faculty member or the individual student. The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic. It is, to go back once again to the classic phrase, a community of scholars. To perform its mission in the society, a university must sustain an extraordinary environment of freedom of inquiry and maintain an independence from political fashions, passions, and pressures. A university, if it is to be true to its faith in intellectual inquiry, must embrace, be hospitable to, and encourage the widest diversity of views within its own community. It is a community but only for the limited, albeit great, purposes of teaching and research. It is not a club, it is not a trade association, it is not a lobby.
Since the university is a community only for these limited and distinctive purposes, it is a community which cannot take collective action on the issues of the day without endangering the conditions for its existence and effectiveness. There is no mechanism by which it can reach a collective position without inhibiting that full freedom of dissent on which it thrives. It cannot insist that all of its members favor a given view of social policy; if it takes collective action, therefore, it does so at the price of censuring any minority who do not agree with the view adopted. In brief, it is a community which cannot resort to majority vote to reach positions on public issues.
The Report thus advocated that, in most cases, there should be "a heavy presumption against the university taking collective action or expressing opinions on the political and social issues of the day, or modifying its corporate activities to foster social or political values, however compelling and appealing they may be." In other words, a norm of institutional neutrality.
Granted, neither the Harvard letter nor the others reportedly circulating purport to speak for the university. Technically, there is no violation of the letter of the principle of institutional neutrality. But surely there is at least a seeming inconsistency between these letters and the spirit of institutional neutrality. As Professor Vemuele observes of the Harvard letter:
In virtue of its joint signature list, its collective voice, and its claim to portray itself as a consensus statement of those who otherwise disagree, the letter hovers ambiguously between a statement of the faculty as such and a mere aggregation of “individual” views.
Finally, and most importantly, as academics, we cultivate specialized knowledge that gives our opinions particular weight within our domains of expertise. When we sign open letters on matters beyond these domains, we risk lending our professional credibility to positions where we lack specialized insight. This practice may inadvertently dilute the value of academic expertise broadly.
Our professional standing results from years of focused study and contribution in specific fields. When we leverage this standing on issues where we possess only general knowledge, we potentially mislead the public about the depth of expert consensus. This creates an ethical tension: should we use the authority granted to us for one purpose to influence discourse in unrelated areas?
This position doesn't require political silence—we remain free to participate as private citizens. Rather, it suggests that our public use of professional credentials should align with the areas where we possess genuine expertise. This approach upholds both intellectual honesty and the distinctive value of academic contribution to public discourse.
So, when it comes to group letters I am going to continue my longstanding policy of sticking to my lane: federal securities and Delaware corporate law.
===
*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2025/03/law-deans-letter.html.
Do you have a sense that the chart above could do more to "adjust" current political trends affecting UC than all the protests combined? Of course, it's not good news for pension funding. And relying on the stock market for such things is risky. Reversals can occur. But sometimes a reversal is just a Dead Cat Bounce* and the trend continues.
Or direct to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndG2yv9aIkE.
====
*In finance, a dead cat bounce is a small, brief recovery in the price of a declining asset. Derived from the idea that "even a dead cat will bounce if it falls from a great height," the phrase is also popularly applied to any case where a subject experiences a brief resurgence during or following a severe decline. This may also be known as a "sucker rally." ...
We have diligently collected most of them, along with the long budget proposal of January, for the first quarter of 2025, along with other events - such as the January fires - for your visual enjoyment.
You can find the first quarter at:
https://archive.org/details/newsom-1-2-25-new-laws.
If you are looking for stuff about higher ed, however, you will be disappointed. Except for a brief mention in his January 10th state budget proposal, you won't find much about that sector. Of course, there are a lot of things going on in the state apart from higher education. And the governor, who will be termed out after this term ends, is looking ahead. Notably, he now has a podcast which seems to be premised on trying to prove that - while California is in the bag for Democrats in 2028 - Newsom could win swing states.
You can read it at:
https://ia802206.us.archive.org/33/items/ucla_final-congress/UC%20Systemwide%20Guidance%20re%20Contributions%20to%20DEI%20Statements%20in%20Academic%20Recruitments%20-%20Circulated%20at%20UCLA%204-4-2025.pdf
Message from the UCLA Faculty Club's President, Linda Sarna
April 4, 2025
Dear Club Members,
Happy Spring! Since January, the Club has been engaged in a new partnership with Housing & Hospitality (H&H). Despite the fires, rains, holidays and other disruptions affecting the ability of the Club to be open for its members, we are making excellent progress in meeting the goals of our mission while pursuing fiscal sustainability. Factors affecting this positive outcome are the strong usage of the Club by members, including the increased number of Events. H&H now has a labor model that works under the leadership of our Interim General Manager Guadalupe (Lupe) Morales. H&H is in the process of hiring a new GM for the position. In addition to two resignations, four other employees were laid off and encouraged to pursue other options at UCLA. On a positive note, all of our current employees have completed their required training, and one received outstanding recognition for her service. I meet frequently with the GM and with H&H leadership, Al Ferrone and Peter Angelis, so that we are all on the same page, focused on the success of the club. This includes moving forward with the renovation for the North Hallway restroom. At our June Board Meeting on Wednesday, June 18, we will have a full discussion of the financial status of the Club since the transition.
The dramatic changes in the administrative structure of the Club, required us to do a careful analysis of our Bylaws. As a result, after long discussions and multiple drafts, the approved new Bylaws will guide the Board’s direction, beginning July 1. Rather than a cumbersome and labor-intensive committee structure, the new smaller Board will work together as a “Committee of the Whole” to accomplish our mission. We will still have an elected leadership team consisting of a Chair, Vice Chair 1 (Treasurer) and Vice Chair 2 (Secretary), and two At-Large Members. Representatives from the UCLA Emeriti Association, the UCLA Faculty Women’s Club, and UCLA Administration will continue as voting members.
Previously, the Club held elections in the Spring with a new Board launching September 1. Because of the myriad of operational details involved in the transition, as well as efforts in revising the Club’s Bylaws to reflect the new scope of Board responsibilities, the Board made the difficult but thoughtful decision to suspend elections for this year. The new smaller Board with Victoria Steele as Chair, will begin July 1. My term will end June 30th. The Club will have elections for open positions in Spring 2026.
Although the new Interim Operating Agreement, an integration of the 2019 and 2024 agreements, has not yet been approved, we are posting the Club’s new approved Bylaws on our website. We will update them when the Operating Agreement becomes finalized.
Last month, we received the excellent news from Administrative Vice Chancellor Michael Beck that Chancellor Frenk and Executive Vice Chancellor/Provost Hunt approved the Club’s name change to the University Club. The formal name will be the UCLA University Club. This historic change was supported by our members and more accurately reflects our membership. Over the next few months, the change will become more evident in the signage to our building, our website and communication materials. Stay tuned!
Our next Board meeting on Thursday, April 24, 2-3:30, will be in person and is open to our members. More information will be forthcoming.
Finally, I encourage all of you to support the Club, especially by your attendance at two upcoming special events, the Easter Brunch and Egg Hunt on April 20, and the Mother’s Day Brunch on May 11. H&H are doing their best to continue our traditions and make these memorable occasions for you and yours. These events are by reservation only so please contact reservations@fc.ucla.edu as soon as possible.
I hope to see you there!
The Board has done their best on your behalf. I remain optimistic about the future success of the Club.
Best wishes for a successful Spring Quarter,
Linda Sarna
President, University Club
===
Yours truly can't help but note that the email starts with the name being "Faculty Club" in the heading, but ends in University Club. So I guess the change occurred while reading the message.
The Trump administration froze about $210 million in federal funding to Princeton University on Tuesday, about half of the university’s total federal grants for this fiscal year, according to reports from various media outlets. The university confirmed Tuesday that officials had been notified that dozens of grants were suspended by several federal agencies, including NASA and the Departments of Defense and Energy. In a campuswide email sent Tuesday, Princeton president Christopher Eisgruber said the agencies had provided no reasoning for the funding freeze and did not cite a specific dollar amount...
Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2025/04/02/trump-admin-freezes-half-princetons-federal-funding.
From the Daily Princetonian:
University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 signaled that Princeton would not make concessions to the federal government in an interview with Bloomberg after news broke that the Trump administration had suspended dozens of the University’s research grants. “I’ve heard you speak about efforts by powerful actors — in government and outside it — who are trying to control the research that scholars do and the classes they teach. How difficult is it to keep a firewall up, keep insulation surrounding this campus, to keep those ‘powerful actors,’ as you put it, out of the classrooms, out of the campus itself?” David Gura, the Bloomberg reporter, asked.
“I think it requires a very firm commitment to principle and a willingness to do hard things. University presidents and leaders have to understand that the commitment to allow academics — including our faculty, including our students — to pursue the truth as best they see it is fundamental to what our universities do,” Eisgruber responded. “We have to be willing to stand up for that. In principle, we have to be willing to speak up, and we have to be willing to say no to funding if it's going to constrain our ability to pursue the truth.” ...
During the 40-minute interview, Eisgruber acknowledged that there were “rare” manifestations of antisemitism on Princeton’s campus, and he said the University would address “legitimate concerns where they exist.” ...
Full story at https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2025/04/princeton-news-adpol-eisgruber-university-concessions-bloomberg-interview.
Also from the Daily Princetonian:
Following funding cuts, a hiring freeze, and increased scrutiny from the federal government, the Board of Trustees did not announce the total operating budget for the University in its budget plan press release for the 2025–26 academic year. However, the University did commit to “projected” increases in undergraduate financial aid and graduate student stipends.
This annual announcement typically updates the campus community on important information regarding the operating budget, financial support for students, and how costs have changed. The missing operating budget marks a departure from the past three years, as the University has shared it in these announcements since the 2022–2023 academic year, and may reflect continued uncertainty about future funding...
And finally from the Daily Princetonian:
The University has announced that it is considering selling approximately $320 million of taxable bonds. The sale, first reported on by Bloomberg on Tuesday afternoon, follows the Trump administration’s freezing of several dozen Princeton research grants. The notice itself does not mention the funding cuts but states that the bonds will serve the University’s “general corporate purposes.” The bonds, index-eligible with a maturity of five years, are a way for the University to raise short-term funds. The major credit-rating agencies rate University bonds AAA, the highest level of creditworthiness...
Full story at https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2025/04/princeton-news-adpol-issuing-bonds-same-day-federal-government-pauses-grants.
A final note from yours truly: Princeton differs from Columbia in not having a medical school, i.e., it is less dependent on the feds for revenue than Columbia. Although both universities are grouped in the Ivy League, grad students make up about 36% of the total enrollment at Princeton and 75% of the total enrollment at Columbia. Princeton's total enrollment is under nine thousand students. Columbia's enrollment is well over 35,000. They are fundamentally different institutions in size and research (and dependence on the feds).
Is my research grant about to get cut? Will I have to lay off staff? Why am I in the dark about this? Anxious questions are dominating conversations at UC San Diego, where scant updates from campus leaders have left an information vacuum in the weeks since the school learned it could lose hundreds of millions of dollars in funding.
Chancellor Pradeep Khosla and his staff have posted messages about the matter on a school website but have mostly spoken in generalities, referring readers to federal websites that are also light on specifics...
The San Diego Union-Tribune spoke with 30 faculty, administrators, students and staff about how the school is coping with the prospect of losing upward of $150 million in NIH funding meant to help cover overhead costs in research, along with other money. Most were loath to speak publicly, worried about antagonizing school officials or drawing attention from the Trump administration. But nearly everyone the Union-Tribune spoke to said, in one way or another, that they want the school’s leadership to start providing clear, timely, useful information about the cuts the school faces...
The lack of information has led some faculty and students to describe the atmosphere at UCSD in bleak terms. “On campus, the energy is gone,” said Dr. Davey Smith, director of infectious diseases. “It feels like that moment when a patient gets the news of a terminal illness. Biomedical research is dying. What does that mean for new cures? My career? The university? I have no idea. I have empathy for the university on this. I’m often finding out about cuts in my area before they do. Things are happening so fast.” ...
There is - maybe - a buried lede in this story:
"The UC Board of Regents is expected to announce a new president in May, two UCSD faculty members say."
Does that mean a candidate has been chosen? Or does it just mean that since President Drake is leaving at the end of the academic year, May would be the last full meeting of the Regents to announce something before he is gone? Nobody knows.
Dear members of the Columbia community,
Today, I write to you in my new capacity as Acting President. I do so with awe for the role, reverence for this institution, and clarity about our challenges. Ornamental language can’t disguise the fact that this is a precarious moment for Columbia University. In serving our community and navigating what’s to come, I pledge to be as transparent as possible, and to work as hard as I can to do right by a place that is so critical to all of us, and to the world.
Source: https://communications.news.columbia.edu/news/message-acting-president-claire-shipman.
Parents are concerned about the planned closure on Sept. 1 of the Fernald Childcare Center up near the northeast end of the UCLA campus.* Statement by concerned parents below:
UCLA Fernald Center Closure Sparks Outcry from Faculty and Families
The UCLA community is uniting in defense of the Fernald Center, a beloved on-campus early childhood education facility, in light of its proposed closure. This decision has ignited serious concerns among faculty, staff, and families who depend on the center for high-quality childcare.
In a letter addressed to Dean of Education and University Administration, Dr. Yalda Afshar, an Associate Professor at the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, expressed her profound distress regarding the discussions surrounding this closure. Having enrolled two children at the center for over four years, Afshar highlighted the invaluable role it has played in both her professional and personal life.
"Fernald has taught me how to be a parent, allowed me to become both a physician-scientist and a mom, and most importantly, it is our family and community," Afshar stated. "This peace of mind allows me to fully dedicate myself to my clinic care, research, and teaching responsibilities at UCLA."
The Fernald Center is renowned for its exemplary safety record and its accreditation from the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), valid through 2029. Conversely, the Krieger Center, another on-campus childcare facility, has recently faced significant challenges, including troubling incidents involving rodent droppings, high staff turnover due to allegations of abuse, and an ongoing investigation of charges of sexual assault.
The note sent to teachers regarding the transition indicated the administration's intent to reduce redundancies and achieve cost savings. However, many in the UCLA community contend that consolidating childcare options will not resolve the underlying issues at the Krieger Center and may, in fact, threaten the quality of care provided to families. The plan will also further reduce childcare capacity for the large pool of UCLA students, residents, staff, and faculty in need of childcare.
“While we acknowledge that support is needed to support and improve the Krieger Center, simply transferring our children from Fernald to Krieger will not resolve the existing issues," Afshar implored. "We must prioritize and preserve the Fernald Center, which is a vital resource for our community. Our goal should be to strengthen Krieger and ensure it meets the high standards of care that UCLA families deserve."
Dr. Natalia Ramos, an Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences at DGSOM and Medical Director of the UCLA Stress, Trauma, and Resilience Clinic, reinforces these sentiments: “As faculty parents of young children, we rely on the university to provide a safe, reputable, and trusted center for our children. Previous issues at Krieger—and the total lack of transparency during this process—make us uneasy and concerned for our children’s safety.”
The potential closure of the Fernald Center has sparked a passionate response from the UCLA community, with numerous faculty members and families expressing their concerns. They argue that the Fernald Center is not merely a childcare facility but an essential cornerstone of their lives and a vital resource for faculty at UCLA.
As the community rallies to ensure that this indispensable resource continues to thrive, the UCLA administration is facing increasing pressure to reconsider their plan to close the Fernald Center. The future of this cherished institution remains uncertain, but the voices of those who rely on it are growing louder. They have addressed concerns to Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Hunt as well as Dean Christie and Associate Dean Lazo of the UCLA School of Education.
The parents want to be clear: while we deeply desire for Krieger to succeed as part of the ECE framework, sending our children there from Fernald is irresponsible given the ongoing challenges. We believe in creating a better option for all, enhancing faculty and staff support, celebrating teachers, all while ensuring the safety and quality of care for our children.
Media Contacts:
Yalda Afshar: YAfshar@mednet.ucla.edu
Natalia Ramos: NRamos@mednet.ucla.edu
Aya Tasaki: AyaTasaki@gmail.com
===
Source: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1odEB_bh16LctdVTS43GZ7eCVpoUDC6lp/edit.
===
The San Francisco Chronicle provided the table above. It shows:
1) UCLA received the most applications of all the undergraduate campuses.
2) The low application campuses (Merced and Riverside) experienced the largest increases in applications, whether gauged from last year or pre-pandemic 2019. (Merced provided free applications to drive up applications this year.)
3) All campuses have significantly increased applications since 2019. But growth over last year at the high-application campuses stalled relative to last year.
Reminder: Applications are not the same as final enrollments. Enrollments are determined by the acceptance rate of the campus and within it, the acceptance rate of applicants.
Source: https://www.sfchronicle.com/college-admissions/article/uc-applications-20238586.php.
Today [March 31], the Departments of Education (ED), Health and Human Services (HHS), and the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) announced a comprehensive review of federal contracts and grants at Harvard University and its affiliates. This review is part of the ongoing efforts of the Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism.
The Task Force will review the more than $255.6 million in contracts between Harvard University, its affiliates and the Federal Government. The review also includes the more than $8.7 billion in multi-year grant commitments to Harvard University and its affiliates to ensure the university is in compliance with federal regulations, including its civil rights responsibilities.
“Harvard has served as a symbol of the American Dream for generations – the pinnacle aspiration for students all over the world to work hard and earn admission to the storied institution,” said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “Harvard’s failure to protect students on campus from anti-Semitic discrimination - all while promoting divisive ideologies over free inquiry - has put its reputation in serious jeopardy. Harvard can right these wrongs and restore itself to a campus dedicated to academic excellence and truth-seeking, where all students feel safe on its campus.” ...
Full release at https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/ed-hhs-and-gsa-initiate-federal-contract-and-grant-review-of-harvard-university.
We are catching up with the final day of the March Regents meetings. The March 20 Regents meeting was largely informational with routine endorsements of committee recommendations. It began with the full board and public comments. There were a number of pro-Israel comments and some opponents. Other topics included undocumented student support, BIPOC support, DEI, sexual violence, the hiring freeze and the Trump administration, sanctuary campuses, disabled student support, and mental health student support. Much of the subsequent initial board meeting was devoted to presentations about the UC-Prime programs at various campuses which seek to attract med students who will work in underserved communities.
The board then adjourned for a closed session. When it resumed, there was discussion of Basic Needs centers on various campuses. In that context, food pantries were discussed along with programs that supplement CalFresh or provide services to students not eligible for CalFresh. During a discussion of emergency housing for students, there was a disruption by an anti-Israel group. The room was cleared and the meeting continued.
Also on March 20 was a session of the Public Engagement and Development Committee that had been postponed from the previous day due to time constraints. It was noted that UCOP has a webpage devoted to federal developments. Services to veterans were also discussed including a tuition waiver program. Apart from the ongoing state budget pressures, it was noted that there might be a bond measure for higher education. It was also possible that some housing bonds being discussed in Sacramento might include UC.
As always, we preserve recording of Regents meetings indefinitely since the Regents have no policy about length of retention.
The general webpage for the March 20 recordings is at:
https://archive.org/details/1-board-8-30-am-3-20-2025.
The initial board session is at:
The resumed board session is at:
Public Engagement and Development is at:
Lowering Material for Support of Excavation at UCLA StationSummaryMetro contractors will continue delivery of material for support of excavation at UCLA Station. Work is anticipated to begin the week of March 17, 2025 and continue for up to three months. Activities will take place on Wilshire Blvd, between Westwood Blvd and Gayley Ave. Construction activities include drilling, lowering of steel components, rebar delivery, and concrete pouring. There will be lane reductions on the north side of westbound Wilshire Blvd, between Malcolm Ave and Veteran Ave, a closure of the center left turn lanes from eastbound Wilshire Blvd onto northbound Gayley Ave, lane reductions on northbound and southbound Gayley Ave, between Lindbrook Ave and Ashton Ave, along with a closure of the right turn lanes from southbound Westwood Blvd onto westbound Wilshire Blvd. All through traffic and local driveway access to surrounding properties will be maintained. Anticipated work hours include weekdays from 9 am to 3:30 pm and 7 pm to 6 am, as well as weekends from Fridays at 7 pm to Mondays at 6 am. Dates: Week of March 17, approximately three months Work Hours: Monday through Friday, 9 am to 3:30 pm and 7 pm to 6 am, Friday through Monday, 7 pm to 6 am. Wilshire Blvd
Gayley Ave
Westwood Blvd
== |
